Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 09 (part 3 of 4)

Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 09 (part 3 of 4)

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, from that time on you and Schacht collaborated for some time in preparing a rearmament program, did you not?

GÖRING: From that time on I worked together with Schacht in economic matters and covered the whole field of German economy, including the armament program, which of course was a sine qua non for the reassumed German military sovereignty.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you and he had some jurisdictional differences and executed an agreement settling your different spheres of authority, did you not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And that was in 1937 on the 7th of July, right?

GÖRING: On that day a certain proposal for a settlement was made, but this did not lead to anything final being accomplished. That was because of the nature of the two posts and our personalities. Both of us, I, as Delegate for the Four Year Plan, and Herr Schacht, as Minister of Economics and President of the Reichsbank, were able to exercise very great influence on German economy. As Herr Schacht also had a very strong personality and felt his position keenly, and I likewise was not inclined to hide my light under a bushel, whether we were friends or not we could not help getting in each other’s way because of this question of authority, and one of us had finally to give in to the other.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And there came a time when he left the Ministry and the Reichsbank?

GÖRING: First he resigned from the Reich Ministry of Economy in November 1937, and, as far as I know, he resigned as President of the Reichsbank at the end of 1938, but I cannot be certain about that date.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: There was no disagreement between you and him that the program of rearmament should be carried through, was there? You disagreed only in the methods of doing it.

GÖRING: I assume that Herr Schacht also, as a good German, was, of course, ready to put all his strength at the disposal of Germany’s rearmament, in order that Germany should be strong; and therefore differences could have occurred only in regard to methods, for neither Herr Schacht nor I was arming for a war of aggression.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And after he left the rearmament work he remained as a Minister without Portfolio and sat in the Reichstag for some time, did he?

GÖRING: That is correct. The Führer wished it because, I believe, he wanted in this way to express his recognition of Herr Schacht.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And do you recall the time when you considered the calling up of 15-year-olds, the conscription of 15-year-olds?

GÖRING: During the war you mean?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes.

GÖRING: It was a question of Air Force auxiliaries, that is correct. They were 15- or 16-year-olds, I do not remember exactly which, and were called in as Air Force auxiliaries.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask that you be shown Document Number 3700-PS and ask you whether you received from Schacht the letter of which that is a carbon copy.

[The document was handed to the witness.]

GÖRING: Yes, I certainly did receive that letter. The year is not given here; that is missing in the copy.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Could you fix, approximately, the date of its receipt?

GÖRING: It says here 3rd of November, but from the incidents described on the other side, I assume it must be 1943. On this copy the year, strangely enough, is not given, but I believe it was in the year 1943, I received this letter.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you reply to Document 3700-PS? Did you reply to this letter?

GÖRING: I cannot say that today with certainty—possibly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the Four Year Plan had as its purpose to put the entire economy in a state of readiness for war, had it not?

GÖRING: I have explained that it had two tasks to fulfill—1) to safeguard German economy against crises, that is to say, to make it immune from export fluctuations, and, as regards food, from harvest fluctuations, as far as possible; and 2) to make it capable of withstanding a blockade, that is to say, in the light of experiences in the first World War, to put it on such a basis that in a second World War a blockade would not have such disastrous consequences. That the Four Year Plan in this respect was a basic prerequisite for the entire building-up and expansion of the armament industry goes without saying. Without it the rearmament industry could not have been shaped in this way.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: To get a specific answer, if possible, did you not say in a letter to Schacht, dated the 18th day of December 1936, that you saw it to be your task, using these words, “within 4 years to put the entire economy in a state of readiness for war”? Did you say that or did you not?

GÖRING: Of course I said that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, do you recall the report of Blomberg in 1937 in which—and you may examine if you wish Document Number C-175—in which he starts his report by saying:

“The general political position justifies the supposition that Germany need not expect an attack from any side.”

GÖRING: That may have been quite possible at that moment. I took a most reassuring view of the German situation in 1937. It was after the Olympic games and at that time the general situation was extraordinarily calm. But that had nothing to do with the fact that I felt obliged, quite apart from passing fluctuations from a calmer to a more tense atmosphere, to make German economy ready for war and proof against crises or blockades, for exactly 1 year later incidents of a different nature occurred.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well now, does not Blomberg continue:

“Grounds for this are, in addition to the lack of desire for war in almost all nations, particularly the Western Powers, the deficiencies in the preparedness for war of a number of states, and of Russia in particular”?

That was the situation in 1937, was it not?

GÖRING: That is the way Herr Von Blomberg saw the situation. Concerning the readiness for war in Russia, Herr Von Blomberg, in the same way as all those representatives of our Reichswehr mentality, was always really mistaken in contrast to the opinion expressed in other quarters with regard to Russian armaments. This is merely the opinion of Herr Von Blomberg—not the Führer’s, not mine, and not the opinion of other leading people.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That, however, was the report of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on the 24th of June 1937, was it not?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You organized, 1 month later, the Hermann Göring Works?

GÖRING: Right.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the Hermann Göring Works were concerned with putting Germany in the condition of readiness for war, were they not?

GÖRING: No, that is not right. The Hermann Göring Works were at first concerned solely with the mining of German iron ore in the region of Salzgitter and in a district in the Oberpfalz, and, after the annexation, with the iron ore works in Austria. The Hermann Göring Works first established exclusively mining and refining plants for this ore and foundries. Only much later steel works and rolling mills were added, that is to say, an industry.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The Hermann Göring Works were a part of the Four Year Plan, were they not?

GÖRING: That is right.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you have already said that the Four Year Plan had as its purpose to put the economy in a state of readiness for war; and the Hermann Göring Works were organized to exploit ore mining and iron smelting resources and to carry the process through to completed guns and tanks, were they not?

GÖRING: No, that is not correct; the Hermann Göring Works had at first no armament works of their own, but merely produced, as I again repeat, the basic product, steel, crude steel.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, at all events, you continued your efforts and on the 8th of November 1943, you made a speech describing those efforts to the Gauleiter in the Führer building at Munich, is that right?

GÖRING: I do not know the exact date, but about that time I made a short speech, one of a series of speeches, to the Gauleiter about the air situation, as far as I remember, and also perhaps about the armament situation. I do not remember the words of that speech, since I was never asked about it until now; but the facts are correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, let me remind you if you used these terms, refreshing your recollection:

“Germany, at the beginning of the war, was the only country in the world possessing an operative, fighting air force. The other countries had split their air fleets up into army and navy air fleets and considered the air arm primarily as a necessary and important auxiliary of the other branches of the forces. In consequence, they lacked the instrument which is alone capable of dealing concentrated and effective blows, namely, an operative air force. In Germany we had gone ahead on those lines from the very outset, and the main body of the Air Force was disposed in such a way that it could thrust deeply into the hostile areas with strategic effect, while a lesser portion of the air force, consisting of Stukas and, of course, fighter planes, went into action on the front line in the battlefields. You all know what wonderful results were achieved by these tactics and what superiority we attained at the very beginning of the war through this modern kind of air force.”

GÖRING: That is entirely correct; I certainly did say that, and what is more, I acted accordingly. But in order that this be understood and interpreted correctly, I must explain briefly:

In these statements I dealt with two separate opinions on air strategy, which are still being debated today and without a decision having been reached. That is to say: Should the air force form an auxiliary arm of the army and the navy and be split up to form a constituent part of the army and the navy, or should it be a separate branch of the armed forces? I explained that for nations with a very large navy it is perhaps understandable that such a division should be made. From the very beginning, thank God, we made the correct, consistent decision to build up a strong—I emphasize the word “strong”—and independent Air Force along with the Army and the Navy; and I described how we passed from a tentative air force to an operative air force.

As an expert I am today still of the opinion that only an operative air force can have a decisive effect. I have also explained, in regard to two- and four-engine bombers, that at first I was quite satisfied with the two-engine bombers because, firstly, I did not have four-engine bombers; and secondly, the operational radius of the two-engine bombers was wide enough for the enemy with whom we had to deal at that time. I further pointed out that the main reason for the swift ending of the campaign in Poland and in the West was the effect of the Air Force.

So that is quite correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I remind you of the testimony of the witness Milch, sworn on your behalf, as to a subject on which I have not heard you express yourself. He said:

“I had the impression that already at the time of the occupation of the Rhineland, he, Göring, was worried lest Hitler’s policy should lead to war.”

Do you remember that?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And was it true or false? True or mistaken, perhaps, I should say.

GÖRING: No, I did not want a war and I thought the best way to avoid a war was to be strongly armed according to the well-known adage, “He who has a strong sword has peace.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you are still of that opinion?

GÖRING: I am of that opinion today, now that I see the entanglements more than ever.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it is true, as Milch said, that you were worried that Hitler’s policies would lead to war at the time of the occupation of the Rhineland?

GÖRING: Excuse me, I just understood you to ask whether it is also my opinion today that only a nation that is strongly armed can maintain peace. That is what I meant to answer with my last statement.

If you are connecting this question to the statement of Milch, that I was worried lest the policy of the Führer might lead to war, I should like to say that I was worried lest war might come; and if possible I wanted to avoid it, but not in the sense that the policy of the Führer would lead to it, because the Führer also desired to carry out his program by agreements and diplomatic action.

In regard to the occupation of the Rhineland I was somewhat worried at the time about the reactions; all the same, it was necessary.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And when nothing happened, the next step was Austria?

GÖRING: The one has nothing to do with the other. I never had any misgivings about Austria leading to a war, as I had with the Rhineland occupation, for in the case of the Rhineland occupation I could well imagine that there might be repercussions. But how there could be any repercussions from abroad over the union of two brother nations of purely German blood was not clear to me, especially since Italy, who always pretended that she had a vital interest in a separate Austria, had somewhat changed her ideas. It could not have mattered in the least to England and France, nor could they have had the slightest interest in this union. Therefore I did not see the danger of its leading to a war.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask you just a few questions about Austria. You said that you and Hitler had felt deep regret about the death of Dollfuss, and I ask you if it is not a fact that Hitler put up a plaque in Vienna in honor of the men who murdered Dollfuss, and went and put a wreath on their graves when he was there. Is that a fact? Can you not answer that question with “yes” or “no”?

GÖRING: No, I cannot answer it with either “yes” or “no,” if I am to speak the truth according to my oath. I cannot say, “Yes, he did it,” because I do not know; I cannot say, “No, he did not do it,” because I do not know that either. I want to say that I heard about this event here for the first time.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, in June of 1937, Seyss-Inquart came to you and State Secretary Keppler, and you had some negotiations.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it was Seyss-Inquart’s desire to have an independent Austria, was it not?

GÖRING: As far as I remember, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Keppler was the man who was sent by Hitler to Vienna at the time of the Anschluss and who telegraphed to Hitler not to march in, do you recall?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is the telegram that you characterized as impudent and senseless from the man who was on the spot, and who had negotiated earlier with Seyss-Inquart, do you recall that?

GÖRING: I did not characterize the telegram with this word which has just been translated to me in German, that is “impudent.” I said that this telegram could no longer have any influence and was superfluous, because the troops were already on the move and had their order; the thing was already underway.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You had demanded that Seyss-Inquart be made Chancellor? Is that right?

GÖRING: I did not desire that personally, but it arose out of the circumstance that at that time he was the only man who could assume the Chancellorship because he was already in the Government.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, did Seyss-Inquart become Chancellor of Austria with the understanding that he was to surrender his country to Germany, or did you lead him to believe that he would be independent, have an independent country?

GÖRING: I explained the other day that even at the time when he left by plane the next morning, the Führer himself had still not made up his mind as to whether the union with Austria should not be brought about by means of a joint head of state. I also said that I personally did not consider this solution far-reaching enough and that I was for an absolute, direct, and total Anschluss.

I did not know exactly what Seyss-Inquart’s attitude was at this time. Nevertheless I feared that his attitude was rather in the direction of continued separation with co-operation, and did not go as far as my attitude in the direction of a total Anschluss. Therefore I was very satisfied when this total Anschluss crystallized in the course of the day.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I respectfully submit that the answers are not responsive, and I repeat the question.

Did Seyss-Inquart become Chancellor of Austria with an understanding that he would call in the German troops and surrender Austria to Germany, or did you lead him to believe that he could continue an independent Austria?

GÖRING: Excuse me, but that is a number of questions which I cannot answer simply with “yes” or “no.”

If you ask me, “Did Seyss-Inquart become Chancellor according to Hitler’s wishes and yours?”—yes.

If you then ask me, “Did he become Chancellor with the understanding that he should send a telegram for troops to march in?”—I say, “No,” because at the time of the Chancellorship there was no question of his sending us a telegram.

If you ask me, thirdly, “Did he become Chancellor on the understanding that he would be able to maintain an independent Austria?”—then I have to say again that the final turn of events was not clear in the Führer’s mind on that evening.

That is what I tried to explain.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Is it not true that you suspected that he might want to remain as independent as possible, and that that was one of the reasons why the troops were marched in?

GÖRING: No. Excuse me, there are two questions: I strongly suspected that Seyss-Inquart wanted to be as independent as possible. The sending of troops had nothing at all to do with that suspicion; not a single soldier would have been needed for that. I gave my reasons for the sending of the troops.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But it was never intimated to Seyss-Inquart that Austria would not remain independent until after—as you put it—the Führer and you were in control of Austria’s fate? Is that a fact?

GÖRING: That was certainly not told him beforehand by the Führer. As far as I was concerned, it was generally known that I desired it, and I assume that he knew of my attitude.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you have stated that you then, in conversation with Ribbentrop in London, stressed that no ultimatum had been put to Seyss-Inquart, and you have said that legally that was the fact.

GÖRING: I did not say “legally,” I said “diplomatically.”

THE PRESIDENT: Is that a convenient time to break off?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 19 March 1946 at 1000 hours.]

EIGHTY-FIFTH DAY Tuesday, 19 March 1946

Morning Session

DR. STAHMER: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall call as witness the civil engineer, Birger Dahlerus of Stockholm.

[The witness Dahlerus took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your name?

BIRGER DAHLERUS (Witness): Birger Dahlerus.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me:

I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth—the whole truth—and nothing but the truth—so help me God.

[The witness repeated the oath.]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down if you wish.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus, would you please tell the Court how you, as a private person and a Swedish citizen, came to work for an understanding between England and Germany?

DAHLERUS: I knew England very well, since I had lived there for 12 years, and I also knew Germany very well. I had been able to observe the first World War from both sides, as I stayed both in Germany and in England during that time.

During a visit to England at the end of June 1939, I traveled around a number of cities, Birmingham, Coventry, Manchester, and London, and I found everywhere an absolute determination that the British would tolerate no further aggressive acts on the part of Germany.

On 2 July I met some friends in the Constitutional Club. We discussed the current situation and they gave a pretty clear picture of public opinion in Great Britain.

As this summary of public opinion in Great Britain was the basis for my discussions afterward with Göring, I think I should quote it.

“Outline of conclusions reached by observation of conditions in Great Britain and by conversations with people of the country:

“A. Agreement that Berchtesgaden and Czechoslovakia have shaken confidence, and that immediately after Berchtesgaden, before Czechoslovakia could possibly be in a position to accomplish by co-operation many things already decided upon by Germany.

“B. Public opinion in Great Britain now extremely bitter. It is resolved: so far and no farther.

“C. Great Britain from now on has obligations which did not exist at time of Berchtesgaden meeting. Poland and Danzig: An attack on Danzig means war with Poland and Britain. Great Britain will be involved automatically as a consequence of its obligations. Hence, automatically, war with Great Britain.

“D. Great Britain does not make her strength known; this is not even known to the British public.”

Then follows Statement Number 2, about Lord Halifax’s speech:

“My personal observations indicate that England stands firmly behind its declarations. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. I am afraid the Russian is coming through on the French again. I am afraid the Tribunal must adjourn then.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: Before the witness goes on with his evidence, the Tribunal want me to say that the system by which the earphones are connected with the interpreters was checked over after the Court rose last night, was checked over again at 9:30 this morning, and again at 9:55 this morning. But everyone who comes into this court must realize that it has not been possible to bury these cables so as to make them altogether safe. It is, therefore, of the very greatest importance that everybody who comes into this court should take real care to avoid, if possible, treading upon these cables, which may become injured by being kicked and broken, and in that way the faults in the system occur.

Everything is being done to maintain the system as efficiently as possible. It, therefore, rests with those who use this court to see that they do their best to assist in keeping the system efficient.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus, would you please continue.

DAHLERUS: Point Number 2: Lord Halifax’s speech:

“Personal observations indicate that England stands firmly behind its declaration. Lord Halifax underestimates England’s situation, which is customary with the British; that is, he makes out the state of the strength of Great Britain to be weaker than it actually is. Perhaps in Germany this is not fully realized.

“Point Number 3: England wants peace, but not peace at any price. The German people are quite acceptable to the British, and there seems to be no good reason for an armed conflict. As before, Germany will certainly be defeated again, and will accomplish far less by war then by peaceful negotiations. England and her friends will likewise have to suffer much; possibly it will mean the end of civilization.”

Having observed that there was a disinclination in the Third Reich to forward unfavorable reports, I felt both that it was my duty and that it might be of great value if these clear expressions of British opinion were to be transmitted to the highest quarters in Germany.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus, may I interrupt with a question? Were these friends of yours members of the British Parliament?

DAHLERUS: No, they were people from the business world, and if the Tribunal desires, I can submit a list of the names.

DR. STAHMER: What were their names?

DAHLERUS: May I save time and submit the list of names to the Tribunal?

THE PRESIDENT: Their names are not of any great importance, are they, if they were people in the business world?

DAHLERUS: After having agreed with my friends on the advisability of a trip to Germany, I left for Germany and received an appointment with Göring for 6 July at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, at Karinhall.

I told him what I had observed in England and strongly emphasized the necessity of doing everything to avoid the possibility of a war. Göring expressed doubts as to whether these observations were not perhaps an attempt by the English to bluff. He likewise pointed out that he was of the opinion that England wanted to control developments on the Continent.

I told him that I did not want him to accept statements of mine, of a neutral citizen, and I suggested to him that a meeting should be arranged where he and some other members of the German Government might have the opportunity of meeting British citizens who had absolute knowledge of conditions. I suggested that such a meeting could well take place in Sweden, possibly on the invitation of the King of Sweden, or the Swedish Government.

On 8 July I received from Göring a reply that Hitler had agreed to this plan, and I left for Sweden to ascertain whether it would be possible to make such an arrangement in Sweden.

The Swedish Government, for certain reasons, considered it inadvisable for the Swedish King or the Swedish Government, to extend such an invitation, but they had no objections to private persons arranging such a meeting.

Count Trola Wachmeester willingly placed his castle, Trola Beelda, at the disposal of such a meeting. I left then on 19 July for London to begin the preparations.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, can you not take the witness on, in order to save time, to the actual negotiations? All these preliminaries do not seem to the Tribunal to be very important. Can you not take him on to the actual negotiations?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, he will come directly to the meeting, to the preliminary meeting that took place on 7 August at Soenke Nissen Koog.

Witness, will you tell us of the meeting. You were about to state that on 19 July you flew to London and there, on the 20th met Lord Halifax?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: I consider this statement very material. Would you tell the Tribunal of the content of this meeting with Lord Halifax?

DAHLERUS: I met Lord Halifax on 20 July. He said particularly that he did not want any members of the British Government or Parliament to participate. However, His Majesty’s Government would await the results of the meeting with the greatest interest. The meeting took place at Soenke Nissen Koog, in Schleswig-Holstein, near the Danish border. The house belongs to my wife. Seven Englishmen, Göring, Bodenschatz, and Dr. Schoettl were present.

DR. STAHMER: On what day was this?

DAHLERUS: It was on 7 August, and the meeting started at 10 o’clock. The meeting started with Göring’s request to the Englishmen to put to him any questions they desired. Then, a long discussion took place on political developments, particularly with reference to relations between Great Britain and Germany. Finally, both sides came to the question of Munich and the events after Munich. The English representatives emphasized that the policy of aggression in Europe would have to cease. Then the question of the Corridor and Danzig was discussed.

The Englishmen made it perfectly clear that if Germany were to try with force to occupy any foreign territory, the British Empire, in accordance with its obligations to Poland, would stand at the side of Poland.

Göring indicated, on his word of honor as a statesman and a soldier, that although he had the control and command of the strongest air force in the world and might be tempted to lead this air force into battle, he would do everything in his power to prevent a war.

The result of the meeting was that all present agreed on the fact that it would be of the greatest value if a meeting could be arranged as soon as possible by representatives of England and Germany. The conference ended late at night, but next morning the English delegates suggested that such a conference should be extended to include four nations, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany. I went to Sylt, where Göring was staying, and he was prepared to consent, in the name of Germany, to this modified proposal.

DR. STAHMER: Did English Members of Parliament participate in this meeting?

DAHLERUS: No, English businessmen only.

DR. STAHMER: Was a full report on this visit given to Lord Halifax?

DAHLERUS: The English participants left Germany early on 9 August and immediately on their return submitted a report to the Foreign Office.

DR. STAHMER: Did this meeting that was planned then materialize, or how did the matter further develop?

DAHLERUS: I received a confirmation from Göring personally that Hitler agreed to such a conference. The matter was then discussed in London, and on 19 August, a request came to me to go to Paris, evidently to receive a reply from the British side. Before I left, on 21 August, I was informed that a commercial agreement had been concluded between Russia and Germany. On the following day this was extended to an agreement covering other political questions. On 23 August I was requested by Göring, who telephoned me in the morning at 10:30 to come to Berlin, if possible, at once.

DR. STAHMER: Did he, during this conversation, point out the gravity of the situation?

DAHLERUS: Yes. Göring stated that the situation had in the meantime become very serious.

DR. STAHMER: When did you meet Göring then?

DAHLERUS: I arrived in Berlin on the 24th and saw Göring at 2 o’clock in the afternoon.

DR. STAHMER: What was the subject of your discussion?

DAHLERUS: He told me that the situation had become very serious owing to the fact that no agreement had been reached between Poland and Germany. He asked me whether I could not go to London and explain the situation there.

DR. STAHMER: Were you to point out there in particular that Germany was prepared to come to an understanding with England?

DAHLERUS: Yes. Göring stated that Germany wanted to come to an understanding with England.

DR. STAHMER: Then when did you leave for London?

DAHLERUS: The following morning, on the 25th, a Friday.

DR. STAHMER: Did this trip take place with Hitler’s agreement?

DAHLERUS: That I cannot say.

DR. STAHMER: With whom then did you have a discussion in London on the evening of the 25th?

DAHLERUS: The important meeting took place late in the afternoon at 6:30 with Lord Halifax.

DR. STAHMER: What did Halifax tell you on this occasion?

DAHLERUS: He informed me that on the same day Henderson had spoken with Hitler, and that Henderson was expected in London on Saturday, the 26th. He expressed the hope then that now the official channels were open an agreement might really become possible. He thanked me for my efforts, and assured me that he did not think my services would be required any longer.

DR. STAHMER: Did you on the same evening have a telephone conversation with Göring?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: What was discussed?

DAHLERUS: At 8 o’clock in the evening I tried to reach him on the telephone, but only after I had obtained help from the Foreign Office was I able to establish the connection. Göring revealed to me then that the situation had become extremely serious and asked me to do everything in my power to arrange a conference between representatives of England and Germany.

DR. STAHMER: Did you inform Lord Halifax of this conversation?

DAHLERUS: Yes. Mr. Roberts of the Foreign Office received the exact wording of our conversation, and before midnight Lord Halifax had the report in his hands.

DR. STAHMER: Did you then on the next morning, that is on Saturday, 26 August, have another conversation with Lord Halifax? What was the nature of that conversation?

DAHLERUS: I met Lord Halifax on Saturday, the 26th at 11 o’clock. I told him that I had learned that the German Government was trying to bring about a decision with all haste. And I stressed the importance of such an attempt in order to make it clear to him that in such a serious situation it was necessary to proceed with greatest sense of responsibility and care. I asked him to emphasize to the German Government that the British Government wanted an understanding.

DR. STAHMER: Did anyone state that Göring was the only man on the German side who could prevent war?

DAHLERUS: Well, I personally had the impression that Göring was the member of the German Government who was most probably working for peace. I had this impression from the conversations that I had with him.

DR. STAHMER: What suggestion did you make then to Lord Halifax?

DAHLERUS: I suggested to Lord Halifax that he should write a letter to Göring. I would go at once to Berlin and deliver it to him personally.

DR. STAHMER: Was your suggestion taken?

DAHLERUS: Yes, Lord Halifax conferred with Chamberlain, and afterwards wrote an excellent letter in which he indicated in very clear and distinct words the desire of his Majesty’s Government to bring about a peaceful settlement.

DR. STAHMER: Did you then fly back to Berlin with this letter?

DAHLERUS: Yes. I arrived in Berlin in the evening, and met Göring at about 10 o’clock that evening.

DR. STAHMER: Describe to the Tribunal the purport of this conversation that you had as a consequence of your talk with Halifax.

DAHLERUS: I met Göring in his train which was just on the way to headquarters. I told him how matters looked in London and emphasized that there was no doubt that, if the German Government proceeded against Danzig, it would immediately be at war with England, but that I was convinced that the German Government was prepared to do everything in its power to avert the crisis. After I had said this to him, I handed him the letter. He tore it open, and after having read it, he placed it before me and asked me to translate it exactly, because it was of greatest importance that the contents should be understood correctly. He sent for his adjutant to come immediately, but the train stopped at the next station, and he declared that in his opinion Hitler must be informed immediately of the contents of this letter. I followed him in a car to Berlin, and exactly at 12 o’clock, midnight, we arrived at the Reich Chancellery. Göring went in immediately to talk with Hitler, and I went to my hotel.

DR. STAHMER: That was then on 27 August, in the night, was it not, or early in the morning on 28 August?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: Did you then have a further conversation with Hitler?

DAHLERUS: I was visited by two officers at a quarter past twelve, midnight, who requested me to go with them immediately to Hitler. I was received by him immediately upon my arrival. He was alone with Göring.

DR. STAHMER: Will you describe this conversation somewhat more exactly in detail.

DAHLERUS: Hitler began, in his usual way to describe German policy to me at length. That lasted about 20 minutes, and I thought that my visit would not prove useful. When he inveighed against the English and England, I interrupted him and stated that I had worked in Great Britain, as a workman, as an engineer, and as a manager of industrial enterprises, that I knew the English people well, and that I could not agree with his statements. A long discussion resulted. He asked many questions about England and the English people. Thereafter, he began to explain to me how well equipped the German fighting forces were. Then he seemed very excited, walked up and down the room, and in the end got himself into a very agitated condition and told me that, if it came to a war, he would build U-boats, U-boats, and more U-boats. He seemed really to speak as though he were not aware that there was still anybody in the room. After a while he shouted that he would build airplanes, airplanes, and still more airplanes, and that he would win the war. Then he calmed down again and talked again about England and said, “Herr Dahlerus, tell me please, why I have not been able to arrive at an agreement with the British Government. You seem really to know England so well. Perhaps you can solve the riddle for me?” I hesitated at first, but then I told him that, with my intimate knowledge of the English people, I was personally of the opinion that their lack of confidence in him and his Government was the reason.

The conversation continued. He gave me a long report on his discussions on Friday with Henderson, and finally he asked me to go to London at once and explain his viewpoint. I refused, naturally, and told him that I could not go there as an emissary of Germany. If, however, the British Government expressed the wish that I should come, I would, of course, be prepared to do this. The condition was such, however, that I must know definitely what conditions and proposals he had to make. We spent an hour and a half, during which he explained the various points in greater detail than he had been able to do with Henderson.

DR. STAHMER: What proposals were you specifically to make?

DAHLERUS: In condensed form, they were as follows:

(1) Germany wanted an agreement or an alliance with England.

(2) England was to help Germany in the annexation of Danzig and the Corridor.

(3) Germany gave the assurance that it would guarantee Poland’s boundaries.

(4) An agreement should be reached on Germany’s colonies.

(5) Adequate guarantees should be given for the treatment of German minorities.

(6) Germany gave its word to defend the British Empire with the German Wehrmacht wherever it should be attacked.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus, regarding Point 2, was not Poland assured of a free harbor in Danzig? You may want to add something as to what assurance Poland was to receive. That was Point 2?

DAHLERUS: Yes. This was, of course, only an outline. These proposals were naturally far more extensive.

DR. STAHMER: Is it correct that Poland was to receive a free harbor in Danzig, that it was to receive a corridor to Gdynia, according to the proposals?

DAHLERUS: That was what Hitler said.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, thank you. What was the further course of the conversation?

DAHLERUS: I left on a special plane the next morning, after I had got in touch with London. I met Mr. Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, Sir Horace Wilson, and Sir Alexander Cadogan.

DR. STAHMER: This was on 27 August, was it not?

DAHLERUS: On 27 August, yes.

DR. STAHMER: Where?

DAHLERUS: In Downing Street, Number 10.

DR. STAHMER: What transpired in this conference with Lord Halifax and Mr. Chamberlain?

DAHLERUS: We discussed in full detail the proposals I had brought. On certain points, as is seen from the British Blue Book, these proposals were not the same as those made to Henderson. I therefore suggested to the British Government that, if they had full confidence in me as an intermediary, they should tell me how far they could accept the proposals and how far not. I would go back to Berlin the same day and discuss the English views with Hitler and Göring. They should keep Henderson in London until Monday, so that the answer could be given after they had been informed how Hitler regarded the English standpoint.

DR. STAHMER: Did you also have a conference that day with Sir Alexander Cadogan?

DAHLERUS: After the meeting with the members of the Government that I have mentioned, I had a long conversation with Cadogan.

DR. STAHMER: Did you receive certain proposals from him?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: What were they?

DAHLERUS: I must say that the English made the greatest effort to deal in a fair and peaceable way with the various points. Naturally, Point 6, the offer to defend the British Empire, was rejected. Similarly, they did not want to have any discussion on the colonies as long as Germany was not demobilized. With regard to the Polish boundaries, they wanted these boundaries to be guaranteed by the five great powers: Russia, Germany, England, France, and Italy.

Concerning the Corridor, they proposed that negotiations with Poland be undertaken immediately.

With reference to the first point, England was willing in principle to come to an agreement with Germany.

DR. STAHMER: Did you then return to Germany with these proposals?

DAHLERUS: Yes; after I had telephoned Berlin. As the English Government had promised to send Henderson back the same day, I obtained confirmation from Berlin that they were agreeable to Henderson’s returning only on Monday. I left that same evening and shortly before midnight was back in Berlin.

DR. STAHMER: Did you have a conversation there with Göring?

DAHLERUS: I met Göring about 11:10 on Sunday evening and told him the results.

DR. STAHMER: Can you describe that conversation somewhat more in detail?

DAHLERUS: He did not consider the reply very favorable. I told him, however, that in view of the events of the last year he could hardly expect the English to be satisfied with the guarantees of Poland’s boundaries by Germany only. With reference to the colonial question, I made it clear to him that any British Government would be overthrown at once that tried to force this point in Parliament as long as Germany’s forces were mobilized.

In reference to the sixth point, I tried to make it clear to him that England, or the British Empire, preferred to look after their own affairs themselves. Finally he said that it would probably be better if he talked with Hitler alone. He went immediately to the Reich Chancellery and I went to my hotel. At about 1 o’clock on Monday morning, the 26th, I received a telephone call and heard that Hitler would accept the English standpoint provided that the reply expected from Henderson on the next day was, in general, what I had said.

DR. STAHMER: Did you then, that same night, go to the British Embassy?

DAHLERUS: Yes. I went straight to the British Embassy and gave Sir Ogilvie-Forbes a report of the results of my conversation with Göring, and he cabled to London at once.

DR. STAHMER: Did you inform Göring of the substance of this conversation that you had with Forbes?

DAHLERUS: Of course. I acted quite openly, and therefore I told Göring what I planned to do. The German Government knew, indeed, that I would have this conversation with Forbes.

DR. STAHMER: When did you see Göring again then?

DAHLERUS: I saw him again on Monday, the 28th, in the morning, at his headquarters.

DR. STAHMER: It must have been Tuesday morning, was it not?

DAHLERUS: No, Monday morning. It was Monday morning, the 28th.

DR. STAHMER: What was said during this conversation with Göring?

DAHLERUS: In general, we discussed the situation. He seemed to be satisfied that Forbes had cabled London.

DR. STAHMER: Did you visit Forbes again then?

DAHLERUS: Yes, I saw Forbes later. But that was of no significance any longer.

DR. STAHMER: And you met Göring again on Tuesday, did you not, on Tuesday morning?

DAHLERUS: Well, the most important development was that on Tuesday morning, or at 1:15, that is, shortly after midnight, on the 29th, I received a telephone call from the Reich Chancellery, made at Göring’s request by Lieutenant Colonel Konrad. He told me that Henderson had submitted his reply in writing, that it was highly satisfactory, and there was every hope that the threat of a war was past.

I met Göring again then and he told me that he was highly pleased that the matter had developed so well.

DR. STAHMER: Did he not make a statement of this kind: “We shall have peace; peace is assured?”

DAHLERUS: Yes. He said something similar to that.

DR. STAHMER: Then sometime on 29 August you were called up again by Göring, were you not? What occasioned this?

DAHLERUS: I was in my hotel, late in the evening, about 10:30. Forbes called me up and said he had to see me at once. He came to my hotel and said that Henderson and Hitler had had a meeting on Tuesday evening which had taken a very unsatisfactory course. They had parted after a big quarrel. He asked me what I could suggest under these circumstances.

During our conversation I was called on the phone by Göring, and he asked me to come to his house immediately. He told me the same story and seemed very upset at the development. He showed me the German reply to the British note and went through it point by point. He tried to explain to me the reasons for the contents of this note. Finally he told me I should go back to London again immediately and make every effort to explain this unfortunate incident to the British Government. He concluded then by saying that Hitler was busy, and that he was working out a proposal for Poland which should probably be ready the next day.

After a talk with Sir Kingsley Wood, the Air Minister, about another visit to England, I left again by plane on Wednesday morning at 5 o’clock. Immediately after my arrival in London I met the same members of the British Government.

DR. STAHMER: Who were they?

DAHLERUS: The same personages, Mr. Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, Sir Horace Wilson, Sir Alexander Cadogan.

DR. STAHMER: What was said in this discussion?

DAHLERUS: It was obvious that by that time the British Government had become highly mistrustful, and rather inclined to assume that whatever efforts they might make, nothing would now prevent Hitler from declaring war on Poland. The British Government had made the greatest effort. They had expressed the wish through their ambassador in Warsaw that the Polish Government should exert the greatest effort to avoid any border incidents. They explained to me at the same time that it was hardly fair to expect the Polish Government to send delegates to Berlin to negotiate, when it was known what experience other countries had had in the past years when they had been in Berlin on similar missions.

I telephoned Berlin, and asked to be connected with Göring, in order to persuade him to arrange a meeting of the delegates outside Germany. He merely said, however, that this was impossible; that Hitler was in Berlin, and the meeting would have to take place in Berlin. It was said, too, that proposals had been made to Poland, and that the members of the British Government viewed these proposals with the greatest suspicion. The entire Polish Government was to meet in the afternoon, and would cable the result of the session to Berlin. In the meantime I returned to Berlin.

DR. STAHMER: When did you meet Göring there?

DAHLERUS: I met Göring . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Can you not make this a little bit shorter, Dr. Stahmer?

DR. STAHMER: I believe this testimony is quite short, considering that it deals with the essential circumstances leading to war. However, I think that we shall not take too much more of the Tribunal’s time.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dahlerus, the Tribunal wish you to come to the crucial matter as soon as possible.

DAHLERUS: I met Göring shortly after midnight on Wednesday, and he told me the nature of the proposals made to Poland. He showed me the note. I called up Forbes to give him this information. He then told me that Ribbentrop had refused to give him the note, after he had read it through very quickly. I went to Göring immediately and told him it was impossible to treat the ambassador of an empire like Great Britain in this way. I suggested to him that he should allow me to telephone Forbes and give Forbes the contents of the note on the telephone. I did this at about 1 o’clock on Thursday morning.

DR. STAHMER: Did Göring not emphasize that he was taking a great responsibility on himself in giving you this permission?

DAHLERUS: Yes. Göring emphasized that he was doing this on his own responsibility.

DR. STAHMER: Did you then on the next morning go to the British Embassy in order to convince yourself as to whether your telephonic communication had been understood correctly?

DAHLERUS: Yes, I saw Henderson on Thursday morning, the 31st, at 10 o’clock, discussed the note with him, and he requested me then to go at once to the Polish Ambassador, M. Lipski, and give him a copy.

DR. STAHMER: Was that done?

DAHLERUS: He sent Forbes with me to Lipski, and I read the note to Lipski, but he did not seem to grasp its purport. I, therefore, left the room, dictated a note to the secretary, and handed it to him. In the meantime, Lipski stated to Forbes that he would not be interested in discussing this note with the German Government.

DR. STAHMER: Would you reconstruct this conversation as far as you are able? It seems to me particularly important.

DAHLERUS: He said that he had no reason to negotiate with the German Government. If it came to war between Poland and Germany, he knew—since he had lived 5½ years in Germany—that a revolution would break out in Germany, and that they would march on Berlin.

DR. STAHMER: Did you then inform London of your conversation by telephone?

DAHLERUS: I telephoned at once from the British Embassy and informed Sir Horace Wilson of the conference that we had had.

DR. STAHMER: Was there then another discussion in the afternoon with Göring?

DAHLERUS: I saw Göring at 1 o’clock in the afternoon. He received then a copy of the cablegram from the Polish Government to Lipski, to the effect that Lipski should not, without special instruction from Warsaw, negotiate with the German Government. It was obvious that the Poles under those circumstances were afraid to take any action. The German Government was, however, much disturbed at this telegram.

DR. STAHMER: On that afternoon did you again meet Göring, together with the British Ambassador?

DAHLERUS: The situation already seemed to have become impossible. Hitler had quarreled with Henderson. Ribbentrop, too, had quarreled with him. Therefore, I was of the opinion that the only possibility lay in Göring coming to an understanding with Henderson. I suggested a meeting between them. This took place at 4:50 in the afternoon, at Göring’s house. Forbes was present, and I too.

DR. STAHMER: What was said during this meeting?

DAHLERUS: Even before the meeting, Henderson expressed his suspicion that the German Government would try to arrange a settlement with Britain and cause a break between England and Poland. Henderson was therefore very cautious during the 2-hour session, and the result of the conversation was only that both parties agreed that a meeting of delegates from both countries would be necessary if war were possibly to be avoided.

DR. STAHMER: Did you on this occasion likewise suggest that Göring should meet the British delegates immediately?

DAHLERUS: I suggested that a meeting in Holland should be arranged at once, at which Göring should represent Germany.

DR. STAHMER: How did Henderson react to this proposal?

DAHLERUS: Henderson promised to submit this proposal to his Government. However, I had the impression that he already knew that German military forces were on the march, and it did not seem to me that he had much confidence in any fortunate outcome.

DR. STAHMER: Are you acquainted with a statement of Göring to the effect that if the Poles did not give in, Germany would kill them like lice; and if Britain should decide to declare war, he would regret it very much but it would be very unwise of Britain?

DAHLERUS: I cannot recollect these words, but it is possible that during the 2-hour conversation they were uttered.

DR. STAHMER: How did this conference end then?

DAHLERUS: At 7 o’clock in the evening it broke up and both parties were agreed that they would endeavor to arrange for a meeting in Holland.

DR. STAHMER: Did you then on 1 September meet Göring again?

DAHLERUS: On 1 September I met Göring at 8 o’clock at his headquarters. After some hesitation he told me that the war had broken out because the Poles had attacked the radio station of Gleiwitz and blown up a bridge near Dirschau. Later he gave me more details from which I concluded that the full force of the German Army was employed in the attack on Poland.

DR. STAHMER: Did you then on 3 September meet Göring again, and did you on this occasion, make the suggestion that Göring should fly to London immediately for a personal conference?

DAHLERUS: Well, before I mention what happened then, I should like to mention that I met Hitler on 1 September, immediately after his Reichstag speech in the Kroll Opera House. He was at that time exceedingly nervous and very agitated. He told me he had all along suspected that England wanted the war. He told me further that he would crush Poland and annex the whole country. Göring interrupted, and pointed out that they would advance as far as certain given points. But Hitler was in an uncontrollable frame of mind. He began to shout he would fight for 1 year, 2 years, and ended up in great agitation that he would, in fact, fight 10 years.

Then, on Sunday, 3 September, I was informed early in the morning by Forbes that at 9 o’clock that morning an ultimatum would be given. The conditions were that the hostilities must cease immediately and the German forces must be withdrawn to the German border. I went immediately to Göring’s headquarters near Potsdam. He was there and not with Hitler. I appealed to him to try at least to arrange for a reasonable reply to the ultimatum. I had the impression that certain members of the German Government were in favor of war and I was afraid if a written reply were given it would not be worded so as to avoid war with England. I therefore suggested that Göring should declare himself prepared to go to England, at once, before 11 o’clock, to negotiate there.

DR. STAHMER: How did Göring react to this suggestion?

DAHLERUS: He accepted this suggestion and telephoned Hitler, who likewise concurred with it.

DR. STAHMER: Did you then telephone London?

DAHLERUS: Yes. I telephoned London and got in touch with the Foreign Office. They gave the reply that they could not consider this proposal before they had received a written reply to the ultimatum.

DR. STAHMER: Did you forward this communication to Göring?

DAHLERUS: Yes, I told Göring this.

DR. STAHMER: What impression did your communication make on Göring?

DAHLERUS: Göring seemed to be sorry that the proposal was not accepted.

DR. STAHMER: Then on 4 September did you speak once more with Göring?

DAHLERUS: Yes, I had a short conversation with Göring on 4 September, but it was not of great importance.

DR. STAHMER: On this occasion did Göring say to you that, come what might, he would endeavor to carry on the war as humanely as possible? That Germany would under no circumstances begin hostilities against England first, but if England should attack Germany then the answer would be forthcoming?

DAHLERUS: Yes, that is correct.

DR. STAHMER: Did you publish a book entitled Last Attempt?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: Is the account given in this book in accordance with the truth?

DAHLERUS: Yes, it was written with greatest care. The contents are absolutely accurate and correct.

DR. STAHMER: Is this account based on notes that you took on these events?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: When did you write these notes?

DAHLERUS: I wrote them immediately after my return to Sweden on 5 September 1939.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I have three more brief questions—should I stop now?—they pertain to the subsequent period.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you could ask them now.

DR. STAHMER: [Turning to the witness.] On 24 September 1939, did you speak to Forbes in Stockholm?

DAHLERUS: No, I met Forbes on 24 September in Oslo. That was after the occupation of Poland. It was an endeavor to ascertain if there was still a possibility of averting a world war. He gave me in writing the viewpoint of the British Government. It was briefly as follows: “The British and French Governments . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a moment. What has this got to do with the Defendant Göring?

DR. STAHMER: This is evidence that he made efforts even later to bring about peace.

I have only one more question which concerns Göring directly.

THE PRESIDENT: The fact that he met Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes in Oslo on 24 September does not at present appear to have anything to do with Göring.

DR. STAHMER: It appears significant in that it was the occasion for Mr. Dahlerus to get in touch with Berlin and Göring again in order to try once more, at this stage of events, to bring about peace.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, go on with your next question then.

DAHLERUS: The conditions were: “To save Europe from continued German aggressions and to enable the peoples of Europe . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What has the letter that Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes wrote got to do with Göring?

DR. STAHMER: Dahlerus discussed this letter, the contents of this letter on 26 September with Göring, and tried on this basis to reach an agreement.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your Honor, may I enter a further objection?

It has nothing to do with the Indictment. We have not charged that the war against England was an aggressive war. The charge is that the war against Poland was an aggressive war. All of this negotiation to keep England out of the war while they took Poland is utterly irrelevant to the Indictment. I respectfully submit that because it has nothing to do with the Indictment, with the charge, it should be rejected.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, if the witness had an interview with Göring afterwards, you can come to that, but not to preliminary conferences with Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes.

DR. STAHMER: But that will not be comprehensible; he really must state what Forbes told him. He saw Forbes, Forbes made certain suggestions to him and with these suggestions Mr. Dahlerus went to Berlin and, of course, informed Göring what Forbes said to him. Thus, it will not otherwise be possible at all . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Let the witness give the account of his meeting with Göring.

DR. STAHMER: Very well.

[Turning to the witness.] Mr. Dahlerus, you then on 26 September looked up Göring in Berlin, did you not?

DAHLERUS: Yes, I met both Göring and Hitler on 26 September.

DR. STAHMER: Did you inform Göring of the proposals Forbes had made to you?

DAHLERUS: I discussed with Hitler on what conditions he would be prepared to make good the harm he had done to Poland, and make peace. To my great disappointment he then definitely declared that he was not prepared at all to discuss the question of Poland. Poland was occupied and that was no business any longer of Great Britain. I then realized that his aim had been to split Poland and Britain and thus, with the consent of Great Britain, to have the opportunity of occupying Poland without running the risk of being involved in a war with Great Britain and France.

DR. STAHMER: In July 1940 did you again meet Göring?

DAHLERUS: Yes, Göring suggested in July, 1940 that His Majesty, the King of Sweden, should endeavor to bring the various powers together for peace negotiations.

DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 2:10 p.m.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1410 hours.]

Afternoon Session

THE PRESIDENT: Do the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?

DR. HORN: Witness, can you tell us the reason why the conference between Hitler and Henderson on 29 August took an unfavorable course?

DAHLERUS: No, I heard only the report that they disagreed and a quarrel started.

DR. HORN: Do you know on which of the six points the quarrel started?

DAHLERUS: As far as I recollect, it was on the wording of the German reply saying that they expected representatives from Poland during the next 24 hours.

DR. HORN: Did Hitler not explain to you then in the presence of Göring why he made this demand and that was because the two armies, the Polish and the German, were already facing each other in readiness, and at any moment a serious conflict was to be expected. Therefore Hitler did not want to present an ultimatum as to the sending of a negotiator from Poland, and thereby wanted solely to avoid the outbreak of a conflict?

DAHLERUS: Yes, explanations to that effect were given.

DR. HORN: Is it correct, Witness, as you state in your book, that at the Polish Embassy the Polish Ambassador Lipski told you that in case of war the Polish Army would march to Berlin in triumph?

DAHLERUS: No, he did not say that to me, but he made remarks to that effect to Forbes.

DR. HORN: And Forbes transmitted these remarks then to you.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. HORN: How did your meeting with Mr. Forbes in Oslo on 24 September come about?

DAHLERUS: I took the initiative and went to Oslo to see him.

DR. HORN: Can you please tell us briefly the contents of the letter from Forbes?

DAHLERUS: I read that before.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already said that it does not want to hear that. And I do not see what it has to do with Von Ribbentrop.

DR. HORN: The former Foreign Minister, Von Ribbentrop, is under indictment for the leadership of the entire German foreign policy. I therefore consider it important that this letter, which will give decisive information about the further course of foreign policy, as Ribbentrop saw it—about his later attempt in the direction of peace, for instance—be read to the Tribunal.

DAHLERUS: To redeem Europe from the perpetually recurring fear of German aggression . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Was this letter ever shown to Von Ribbentrop?

DAHLERUS: No.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already ruled that it will not have the letter read.

DR. HORN: You had then on 26 September 1939 a discussion with Hitler. Is it correct that Hitler told you at that time he could not negotiate with England concerning Poland because the major part of Poland was occupied by Russia, and Russia, to his knowledge, would certainly not give it up?

DAHLERUS: He declared that he was not prepared to discuss the question of Poland, and added afterwards that, apart from his decision, he did not think Russia was prepared to discuss the territory occupied by Russia.

DR. HORN: Were you politically independent at the time you were conducting your negotiation?

DAHLERUS: Absolutely.

DR. HORN: Thank you, I have no further questions.

DR. LATERNSER: I have only one question for the witness: [Turning to the witness.] Witness, did high military leaders at any time participate actively in the numerous negotiations which you had with German authorities at that time?

DAHLERUS: Never.

DR. LATERNSER: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Do other defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr. Dahlerus, will you tell me whether I understood your last answer to Dr. Stahmer correctly? Did you say “I then realized that it was on the 26th of September, that his”—that is Göring’s—“aim had been to split Poland and Great Britain and to occupy Poland with the consent of Great Britain”? Is that right?

DAHLERUS: Yes, it is correct, but I should like to say it was the German Government, including Göring.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Wait . . . the German Government. Thank you. Now, I just want you to tell the Tribunal quite shortly why you did not realize that aim earlier.

DR. STAHMER: As far as I understood the witness’ answer before, he said in answer to my question that that was Hitler’s opinion. The witness did not speak of Göring at all.

THE PRESIDENT: You will be able to re-examine him.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you just to explain to the Tribunal—and listen to the question I put to you—why did you not understand that aim at the time? Your original object in seeing Göring at the beginning of July was to inform him that British public opinion had hardened and would not stand another act of aggression; that is right, is it not?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The reason you went to Göring is shown on Page 8 of your book, if you have got the English version.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And, Mr. Dahlerus, I want you to be absolutely sure that when I quote your book I do not take anything out of its context. I shall try to make it as short as I can. Just before the break on Page 8 you say this:

“The essence of National Socialism was bellicose and aggressive and completely devoid of all moral scruples in its dealings with other nations. Hitler and his protégé Ribbentrop thirsted after conquest. It was said that Göring had energetically striven for a peaceful solution of the Munich crisis and this had lessened his popularity within the German Government.”

That was the reason you went to Göring?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And when you put your point of view to Göring his first reaction was that the British Government was bluffing over Danzig and Poland.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you wanted and succeeded in arranging the first meeting in order to convince Göring that, according to British public opinion, the British Government was not bluffing, is that right?

DAHLERUS: Yes, that is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I just want you to turn to Page 29 of your book, at the very top of the page, which describes the end of your conversation with the Defendant Göring in the train before the meeting at the beginning of August. Do you remember?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Göring explained what his aim was. And if you look at the second line: “This was a mutual agreement regarding the holding of an Anglo-German conference . . .” and note the next words, Mr. Dahlerus, “with plenipotentiary representatives from both Governments.” One matter which Göring had always made clear was that he would demand the return of Danzig and certain rights over the Corridor—the Polish Corridor—is that not right?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And from the very start he wanted a plenipotentiary conference at which territory could, if necessary, be ceded to Germany, did he not?

DAHLERUS: Evidently.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you to come straight on to 24 August, when you saw Göring and he asked you to go to London. One of the points that he wanted you to stress was that he and the German Government thought that there had been a great improvement in their military situation because of the German-Soviet treaty.

DAHLERUS: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the other—if you turn to the bottom of Page 35 in your book and then look at the top of Page 36: “The reason was his disbelief that the German Foreign Office would be able or willing to establish a sufficiently close contact with the British Foreign Office.”

DAHLERUS: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you remember that day you had the conversation with him, and later on he rang you up at 11:30 before your departure?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just want you to tell the Tribunal one or two of the things he did not tell you on that day. He did not tell you, did he, that 2 days before, on the 22nd of August, at Obersalzberg, Hitler had told him and other German leaders that he—Hitler—had decided in the spring that a conflict with Poland was bound to come. He did not tell you that, did he?

DAHLERUS: I never had any indication or information on the political intentions, either on the 11th of April, or the 23rd of May, or the 22nd of August.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You never heard of—that is Document Number 798-PS, the one of the 22nd of August—you told us, you never heard of the Fall Weiss that had been prepared in April, but I want to get it quite clear about the other one, Document Number L-75 of the 23rd of May. He never told you that Hitler had said to him on that day that Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. “It is a question of expanding our living space in the East.” And I think he also did not tell you that Hitler had said on that day, “Our task is to isolate Poland; the success of the isolation will be decisive.” He never spoke to you about isolating Poland?

DAHLERUS: He never indicated anything in that direction at all.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But I think he did tell you in the earlier interview that he was going to see M. Lipski, the Polish Ambassador.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He did not tell you, as I understand you, that he was going to inform M. Lipski that the main obstacle to any diminution of the tension between the two countries was Poland’s alliance with Great Britain. He did not tell you that, did he?

DAHLERUS: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is Exhibit Number GB-39, Document Number 72-PS, Page 119. So that, while he was asking you to go to England to deal with one side of the matter, he was dealing with M. Lipski on the other. I just want to get a clear picture of the situation on the 24th. Did he tell you that the decision had been made to attack Poland on the morning of the 26th?

DAHLERUS: No, in no way whatsoever.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you were asked to go with these general purposes, as I put it to you? You know now, Mr. Dahlerus, that on the next day our note verbale was given to Sir Nevile Henderson by Hitler—on the 26th.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that note, as distinguished from what was said to you later on, stated in general terms that the Polish question must be solved, so that the effect of the plans, as they stood on the evening of the 24th, when Göring rang you up, was that you were going off in the morning with the expression of a general desire for a peaceful solution. The note verbale was to be given to Sir Nevile Henderson on the afternoon of the 25th and at that time the plan was that Poland would be attacked on the morning of the 26th, when you had delivered your message, and Sir Nevile had sent on the note verbale? That was the position?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, did Göring ever tell you why the plan of attack was changed from the 26th to the 31st?

DAHLERUS: No, he never mentioned anything about the plan of attack; nor that it was changed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He did not tell you that—this is Document Number TC-90, Exhibit Number GB-64—I quote Göring’s own words:

“On the day when England gave her official guarantee to Poland”—that was the 25th—“the Führer called me on the telephone and told me that he had stopped the planned invasion of Poland. I asked him then whether this was just temporary or for good. He said, ‘No, I will have to see whether we can eliminate British intervention.’ So then I asked him, ‘Do you think that it will be any different within 4 or 5 days?’”

Göring never told you that, at the time you were being sent to London, all that was wanted was to eliminate British intervention?

DAHLERUS: Not at all.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, I just want to state again, quite shortly; you went and came back with Lord Halifax’s letter. I want to make this quite clear, Mr. Dahlerus: Throughout Lord Halifax made it clear that Great Britain was going to stand by her obligations to Poland, did he not?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And then on the 27th of August, the night of the 26th to 27th, at 12:30 midnight, you had this interview with Hitler. Now, to you, Mr. Dahlerus, Hitler for the first time made it clear that his terms were, that Great Britain should help Germany in securing Danzig and the Corridor.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not “rights in the Corridor,” but “the Corridor.” Do you remember that when you told that to Mr. Chamberlain he was surprised at the difference between your account and that given to Sir Nevile Henderson?

DAHLERUS: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I am not going to go through it all again, but I just want you to help me from your own book, which you say was carefully and objectively written, as to the state of mind of the rulers of Germany at that time. Now, would you first of all look, with regard to Hitler, on Page 47? That is the passage you have already told the Tribunal about, where he was shouting, “Dann werde ich U-Boote bauen.”

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, just let me put it to you—it is quite short—how you described it at the time, and you tell me if it is right, “If there should be a war,” he said, “Dann werde ich U-Boote bauen, U-Boote, U-Boote!” and he raised his voice each time?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “The voice became more indistinct and finally one could not follow him at all. Then he pulled himself together, raised his voice as though addressing a large audience and shrieked—shrieked—‘Ich werde Flugzeuge bauen, Flugzeuge bauen, Flugzeuge, Flugzeuge, und ich werde meine Feinde vernichten.’”

And you go on to say:

“Just then he seemed more like a phantom from a story book than a real person. I stared at him in amazement and turned to see how Göring reacted, but he did not turn a hair.”

Now, would you mind turning on to Page 53? No, just one sentence before the bit I read on Page 47, I just want to get that clear. You say: “His words became blurred and his behavior was that of a completely abnormal person.”

Now, you turn to Page 53. I want you to tell the Tribunal your impression of the way he treated the Defendant Göring. The Tribunal has heard a lot about the relations between them. At the bottom of the page you say this:

“From the very beginning of our conversation I had resented his manner toward Göring, his most intimate friend and comrade from the years of struggle. His desire to dominate was explicable, but to require such obsequious humility, as Göring now exhibited, from his closest collaborator seemed to me excessively repellent and unprepossessing.”

Would you just turn over to Page 54, the fifth line from the end?

“I realized that I was dealing with a person who could not be considered normal.”

That was your considered view, was it not, Mr. Dahlerus?

DAHLERUS: It was the opinion I formed the first time I met him.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was the Chancellor of Germany. Now I want you, for a moment, to deal with the Foreign Minister of Germany, according to the impressions that you formed. Generally, I think you got the impression that Von Ribbentrop was doing everything he could to interrupt and spoil your endeavors?

DAHLERUS: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But according to Göring, he went further than that. Will you look at Page 76? This is, you remember, when you were just saying goodbye to Göring, on, I think, your last visit to London, after he had drawn the map, which I will come to in a moment. Did you say this:

“Before we parted, he again went over the German standpoint, saying finally that if we never met again he would like to take the opportunity of thanking me for what I have done and for my tireless energy in the cause of peace. I was somewhat surprised by this farewell and could not help replying that in all probability we should meet again soon. His expression changed and he said solemnly: ‘Perhaps; but certain people are doing what they can to prevent your getting out of this alive.’”

That was said seriously and solemnly, Mr. Dahlerus?

DAHLERUS: Exactly.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you go on:

“At a meeting in October of the same year Göring told me that Ribbentrop had tried to arrange for my plane to crash. Hence Göring’s solemn mien when he bid me farewell.”

DAHLERUS: Well, he had mentioned Ribbentrop’s name just a minute before, and when he spoke about the plane crashing, he used the word “he.” I assumed he meant Ribbentrop.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was the Foreign Minister, according to Göring.

I want you now to turn to Page 100, because I want to collect these things. This is a description of the 1st of September, the afternoon of the day on which Poland had been attacked, and you saw the Defendant Göring, I think, in the Air Ministry or at one of his offices. Do you see it? It is just before the second break.

“To him”—that is, to Göring—“everything was lined up according to a plan which nothing could upset. Finally he called in the State Secretaries Körner and Gritzbach, gave them a long harangue, and presented each of them with a sword of honor, which he hoped they would carry gloriously through the war. It was as if all these people were in some crazy state of intoxication.”

Are these your words?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that is the impression? Of course you mean that they were mentally intoxicated with the idea of war?

DAHLERUS: They had changed their frame of mind within a short time.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that, of the three principal people in Germany, the Chancellor was abnormal; the Reich Marshal, or the Field Marshal, as he was then, was in a crazy state of intoxication; and, according to the Defendant Göring, the Foreign Minister was a would-be murderer who wanted to sabotage your plane?

[The witness nodded assent.]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let us proceed, quite shortly, with what happened after that.

On the week end of 26 and 27 August you went to England. You have told me that you did not know about the calling off of the attack on the morning of the 26th, and you did not know that the intention of Hitler was to eliminate English intervention. You did not know these points; so you went back to England on the 27th with these fuller terms, and the English answer was that, while they maintained their obligations, they hoped and recommended that the German and Polish Governments might begin negotiations between themselves with regard to the point?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that was the answer that you brought back.

Now, I just want you to think for a moment of the interview that you had at breakfast time with Göring, I think in his train or in his headquarters, on the 28th of August. You find it at Page 65 of the book, if you want to refresh your memory. At that time, did Göring not try and convince you that the return of Danzig and the Corridor would make no difference to Poland’s military situation?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Because, illustrating it from his own war maps, he thought that Germany was in a position to defeat the Poles anyhow, whether they had the Corridor or whether they hadn’t?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And his Air Forces and the troops were all in position to carry that out?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you now to come to the question of the meeting at which the terms were given to Sir Nevile Henderson. That was at 7:15 in the evening, on the 29th of August, and the meeting went on for some time. Do you remember that meeting?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And then, as I think one of the counsel has elicited from you, the difficulty arose over the demand for a plenipotentiary to be back in 24 hours, as you have explained.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I think Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes told you that that meeting had gone very badly, and then at 11:30 you saw Göring, and Göring said much the same as Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes as to how the meeting had gone.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And he said, that what had upset the Chancellor was that Sir Nevile Henderson had characterized or implied that this demand that the plenipotentiary should come within 24 hours was equivalent to an ultimatum.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you remember at that time that Göring underlined certain of the terms?

Will you turn to the preface of your book . . .

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see the facsimile. Have you a copy?

DAHLERUS: I have the original here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you will just look at it. Now, it is in German. If you follow the German, I want just to read the bits which Göring has underlined, and I will read it in English and you check to see that I have got the right piece:

“For the rest, in making these proposals the German Government has never had any intention of touching Poland’s vital interests or questioning the existence of an independent Polish State. The German Government, accordingly, in these circumstances, agrees to accept the British Government’s offer of its good offices in securing the dispatch to Berlin of a Polish emissary with full powers. It counts on the arrival of this emissary on Wednesday, 30 August 1939. The German Government will immediately draw up proposals for a solution acceptable to itself and will, if possible, place these at the disposal of the British Government before the arrival of the Polish negotiator.”

That is the bit which the Defendant Göring has underlined, just before the bit about the sending of the plenipotentiary.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that there was no doubt that the Defendant Göring was associating himself with the importance of that point.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you remember that at that time, during that interview, that is, the night of the 29th, the Defendant Göring made a great tirade against the Poles.

DAHLERUS: That is right.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not going to go into that in detail; but then he said to you that the Führer was preparing what I think in English is a “magnanimous offer.”

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And to show you the nature of the “magnanimous offer,” he hedged in a portion of the bits of Poland. That is also in the preface to your book.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

Sir DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, there are two points about what he hedged in. In fact, it was much more than had been taken from Germany under the Treaty of Versailles.

Secondly, it was entirely different from what was cabled over by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to Sir Nevile Henderson the next night.

DAHLERUS: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And, Mr. Dahlerus, I do not think I can put it better than in your own words, if you will turn to Page 75. Is this how you record it in your book, the second break:

“This map, a reproduction of which is given in this book, is extraordinarily interesting because it illustrates the rapidity and recklessness with which the decisions in this question were reached. I had the map with me when I left for London a few hours later, but it turned out that the boundaries drawn up on it differed very considerably from those given the well-known ‘Project Ribbentrop,’ presented at top speed to Henderson on the night between the 30th and 31st of August.”

That is rather less than 24 hours later.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And then you go on to describe what it showed. Well, it showed this quite clearly, that 24 hours before that was cabled over to Sir Nevile Henderson the German Government had never seriously considered what portion of the Corridor it was going to claim and what portion it was not going to claim. Is that so? Göring was putting an entirely different thing to you the night before, was he not?

DAHLERUS: The first proposal I brought with me on Sunday morning, the 27th. Yes, there it was only the small Corridor, and they extended the claims according to this last plan.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They extended the claim, so that the effect of what was put to you, what you were sent to announce—that a “magnanimous offer” was coming—was actually an extension of claims, and, equally actually, quite different from what was suggested the next night by the Defendant Ribbentrop.

DAHLERUS: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I just want to ask you one word about an interview which took place on the 31st of August. You will find it at Page 87. It is the interview at which Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes gave you an account of what M. Lipski had said. I want you just to tell me this: You did meet M. Lipski, did you not?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And, of course—obviously, the same could be said of everyone, I am sure of yourself also—M. Lipski was suffering from considerable strain in that most critical time?

DAHLERUS: He was very nervous.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very nervous. And did not Sir George Forbes tell you that M. Lipski made his opinion quite clear that the German offer was a breach of Polish sovereignty; and that, in his view, Poland and France and England must stand firm and show a united front; and that Poland, if left alone, would fight and die alone? That was M. Lipski’s mood, was it not, at the time?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to the other matter, I am not going into the details, but there is a considerable and significant difference between the Polish version of the telegram of instructions to M. Lipski and the version which the Defendant Göring showed to you?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, on the morning of the 1st of September I think you saw Göring at 8 o’clock. Would it be a correct description of the way in which he broke the fact that he had attacked Poland to say that it was very gradual or slow, with Göring almost walking backwards, when he broke the news to you that the attack had taken place?

DAHLERUS: Well, so much so that I immediately phoned London and got in contact with the Foreign Office and informed somebody that, according to the information I had received, the Poles had been attacked, and they naturally wondered what was happening to me when I gave that information.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, but he did eventually admit that they had attacked Poland, and then you had a further interview with Hitler. There is just one point I want you to clarify. I do not think you told the Tribunal about the time when he said he would fight for 10 years. Look at Page 98.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see there, after saying: “‘Will ich zehn Jahre kämpfen,’ he brandished his fist and bent down so that it nearly touched the floor.”

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So I take it, he was in the same state as at the time of your previous interview.

DAHLERUS: Well, if possible, more nervous.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, there is just one final matter, if you would look at Page 102, and then I shall leave your book.

You remember you saw the Defendant Göring on the morning of Saturday, 2d September?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you say this:

“To my surprise he was more inclined to listen to the viewpoints which I maintained, for, as soon as we had sat down in his private drawing-room car, he told me that there was talk of a mediation sponsored by Mussolini. Mussolini was said to be fervently trying to stop the war, and especially to prevent it from spreading.”

The next sentence is:

“Göring said that he wanted to inaugurate a new Munich.”

I do not want to put it unfairly, and therefore I ask you, Mr. Dahlerus, does the “he” in that sentence refer to Göring or to Mussolini?

DAHLERUS: I think it refers to Mussolini.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You think it refers to Mussolini. That is what I suspected, and therefore I will not trouble you further about it, except to ask you this:

I have taken you briefly—I hope you will agree, fairly—through the points on this matter, and on these facts that I have put to you, and with which you will agree, are they the basis of your opinion that the aim of the German Government, including Göring, was to split Poland and Great Britain and to occupy Poland with the consent of Great Britain?

DAHLERUS: Well, if I had known the facts that I heard later . . .

DR. STAHMER: I believe that this question goes too far. Therefore, I have to object to this question. It refers in general to the government and to a definite number of persons. Besides, it is an expression of opinion and not a fact about which the witness is to testify.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The question was: Are these facts the basis of your opinion?

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks it is a perfectly proper question and arises directly out of the examination in chief.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr. Dahlerus, you were answering. I had asked you are these facts . . .

DR. SAUTER: But then I should like to ask, Mr. President, that it be clarified what is to be understood under the term “German Government,” of which the prosecutor speaks constantly. The German Government consists of quite a number of ministers, and if one speaks here continuously of the German Government, without saying who is meant individually, the impression is created, that each and every one of the ministers was responsible and had participated in these negotiations, although, in fact, he knew nothing about it. I am representing one of these ministers who knew nothing about these negotiations, and therefore it would be of interest to me if the prosecutor would be kind enough to clarify who actually is meant by the term “German Government.” That is to say, whether the Minister of Economics, Funk, for instance, is also included, or whether it refers only to two or three other gentlemen.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I do not suppose . . .

THE PRESIDENT: We do not agree at all with what Dr. Sauter has said. We have already heard the Defendant Göring at considerable length about what the government consisted of, and it will be upon the defendants’ counsel, when the time comes to argue the case, to argue that the government did not include the members whom they represent.

Defendants’ counsel do not seem to understand that, what they call clarification is a matter which can be done in re-examination. Dr. Stahmer will have the opportunity of re-examining, and then can ask any questions that arise out of the cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will put it, Mr. Dahlerus, in this way: Are these facts which you have heard and agreed with this afternoon, are they the basis of the view which you expressed in answer to Dr. Stahmer’s question this morning?

DAHLERUS: Yes. At the time I thought I could contribute something to preventing a new war; I could definitely prove that nothing was left undone by the British, by His Majesty’s Government to prevent war. But had I known what I know today, I would have realized that my efforts could not possibly succeed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is one other point. I ask Your Lordship’s indulgence. Dr. Stahmer asked for the names of these English industrialists. My Lord, I am very anxious, as representative of the British Government, that there should be no concealment about this matter at all, and I should, therefore, ask, with all humility, that Your Lordship would allow me to ask Mr. Dahlerus to give the names, simply for that reason.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, if you wish to.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr. Dahlerus, will you tell us the names of the gentlemen that you met on your wife’s estate in Schleswig-Holstein?

DAHLERUS: Shall I read them or hand them in?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Read them if you will.

DAHLERUS: The Honorable Charles McLarn, S. W. Rossen, A. Holden, Sir Robert Renig, Bryon S. Mountain, C. F. Spencer, T. Menceford.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?

Dr. Stahmer, do you not wish to re-examine?

DR. HORN: Mr. President, I should like to put a question. May I ask, without being misunderstood, why these names could not be read this morning when Dr. Stahmer asked for them?

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you ask that question? What has it to do with the case of Von Ribbentrop?

DR. HORN: The witness Dahlerus was also approved for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, and I had reached an agreement with Dr. Stahmer as to certain questions. I, too, was interested in these questions this morning and also in the question about the people who had been there.

THE PRESIDENT: The reason why the names were not given this morning was because we wished to get on with this Trial, and we thought that the names of these gentlemen were irrelevant. But as Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe asked that they might be introduced in order that there could be no suggestion of concealment, the Tribunal has allowed them to be given.

DR. HORN: Thank you.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus, you said this morning that on 23 August you were called up by Göring in Stockholm and that he told you that the situation had become serious, and that, therefore, he was absolutely obliged to talk to you. Did he tell you for what reasons he considered the situation at that moment serious?

DAHLERUS: No.

DR. STAHMER: And you did not ask him about it?

DAHLERUS: No.

DR. STAHMER: You came then to Berlin on the 24th and conferred at once with Göring. Did Göring tell you on this occasion what had made the situation more serious in the meantime?

DAHLERUS: Not clearly.

DR. STAHMER: What did he tell you about the danger? In what did the seriousness of the situation consist?

DAHLERUS: He indicated that the fact that the Polish question was not yet solved, and that there was no indication that it would be solved, made the situation serious. He also said that it depended entirely on the British attitude and initiative whether a solution could be found.

DR. STAHMER: From this answer then you learned that Poland was the point of danger?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: You did transmit proposals then on 27 August which had as their main object the solution of the Polish question?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: In reply to my question with reference to the events of 26 September, you said this morning, according to my notes, that you were of the opinion at that time that Hitler’s plans were not quite clear. Then this afternoon you spoke of Göring. How do you account for that difference in your answer?

DAHLERUS: At the time I had to assume that the leading members of the German Government worked in close collaboration.

DR. STAHMER: Then you concluded that from this fact? You also said before, if you had known what you know today, you would not have intervened. What has brought about your change of opinion?

DAHLERUS: The facts disclosed, chiefly during the proceedings in this court, and as published.

DR. STAHMER: Which facts are these?

DAHLERUS: The incidents I quoted, the declaration of 11 April, 23 May, and 22 August.

DR. STAHMER: You have no further facts, have you?

DAHLERUS: Yes, but those are the main points.

DR. STAHMER: What are the minor points? What are your other misgivings?

DAHLERUS: One is the experience on 26 September 1939, the speech by Hitler on 6 October 1939, and a number of declarations made since.

DR. STAHMER: You mentioned before a plane crash, if I understood you correctly, which was to have been brought about by Ribbentrop. Were you really serious about that?

DAHLERUS: Well, I corrected my statement to say that I assumed that it was Ribbentrop, because his name had just been mentioned about a minute before.

DR. STAHMER: I have one more question for the witness. What about the map of Poland which had just been shown and which allegedly was drawn by Göring?

DAHLERUS: I have the original of that map in my possession.

DR. STAHMER: And what was the explanation given to you?

DAHLERUS: That it was a territory that held a majority of Germans, and not Poles.

DR. STAHMER: How do you explain, then, the difference between the later offer and that map?

DAHLERUS: I can only assume that the question had not been thoroughly discussed and various proposals had been made before the definite proposal was submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire; and the Tribunal will adjourn.

[The witness left the stand.]

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, you will continue your cross-examination, will you not?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have assumed, Your Honor, that, since Göring’s testimony was suspended in order to hear Dahlerus, on the ground that it might change some of his examination, Dr. Stahmer would complete any direct examination he may have on this subject with the Witness Dahlerus before I finish my cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, yes. Dr. Stahmer, will you ask any questions of the Defendant Göring that you wish to ask, arising out of the evidence of the Witness Dahlerus.

DR. STAHMER: I can ask him these questions only after I have spoken with him. I therefore consider it appropriate for Mr. Justice Jackson to continue his cross-examination, and after the cross-examination I can deal with these questions as well.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal considers that you ought to be prepared to go on now. It is you who asked for the evidence of Dahlerus to be interposed, and Dahlerus was your witness, not the Prosecution’s witness, and therefore presumably you knew what Dahlerus was going to say.

DR. STAHMER: Then I ask for the opportunity to discuss the matter with the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: The Court has just been adjourned for 10 minutes.

DR. STAHMER: I was not able to finish the matter in that short period of time.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that you must ask these questions now and go on with the examination. If you wish to examine the Defendant Göring on these matters you must do it now.

DR. STAHMER: Very well.

[The Defendant Göring resumed the stand.]

DR. STAHMER: [Turning to the defendant.] A map was mentioned previously which is supposed to have been drawn up by you and which is contained in Mr. Dahlerus’ book, the authenticity of which he confirmed this morning in answer to my question. I am having this map, which is to be found on Page 53 of his book, shown to you and I ask for your explanation of it.

GÖRING: In the discussion that took place in the night of 29-30 August between Dahlerus and me, I believe at the Führer’s, I tore a map from an atlas on the spur of the moment and outlined with a red pencil, and I believe a blue or green pencil, those regions—not the regions which we would demand, as declared here before by the Prosecution—but those regions of Poland in which Germans live. That the witness Dahlerus was also of this opinion can be seen most clearly from the fact that he repeated the same markings on another map and then wrote as follows, next to the marked section: “German population according to Göring;” and next to the dotted section: “Polish inhabitants according to Göring.”

He then goes on writing and draws boundaries: “Göring’s first proposal for the boundary” which agrees with the markings of the regions of German and Polish populations. That was not a boundary proposal, but a separation of the two populations. And then he writes: “Hitler’s proposal;” that is the final, the correct, and the only proposal transmitted to the Polish as well as to the British Government. If one compares my map one sees that here quite spontaneously and in a great hurry, with a two-color pencil, a quite superficial marking off of the approximate zones of population is made, that is, one in which the majority are Germans and one in which there are exclusively Poles. From the beginning Mr. Dahlerus was given only the broad outlines of the boundary proposal, which was later made more exact. That is the only one in question, the same one which was published, which was read to Ambassador Henderson, and which, as Henderson did not understand it, I had telephoned to the Embassy by Dahlerus during the night, and checked the next day.

DR. STAHMER: Will you please repeat the last sentence? I believe it did not come through.

GÖRING: I said, the boundaries of the Corridor, as outlined here at Hitler’s suggestion, were the official proposal which the Führer, as the only person entitled to make final proposals, had worked out. It is the same proposal that was read to Ambassador Henderson, and as he did not understand it, I turned the note which was read to Henderson, over to Dahlerus for him to dictate it so that I could be sure that the English Ambassador was informed of it in its entirety.

To do this was, as I have already said, actually an enormous risk, since the Führer had forbidden this information being made public at the moment, and, as I have stated already, only I could take that risk. But for the rest, as far as my markings are concerned, they show clearly on the map: “German population according to Göring; Polish population according to Göring.” But that was only approximate and done in a great hurry during the night, merely for his information, and on a map torn from an atlas.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus said that you called him up on the 23rd of August and asked him to come to Berlin immediately because in the meantime the situation had become serious. What made you consider the situation serious?

GÖRING: Through the statements of the Führer at the Obersalzberg on that 22d of August it was clear to me that the tension had reached its peak. The Führer had stated that he would have to bring about a solution of the problem, if it were not possible to obtain one diplomatically. On that occasion, since it was simply an address, without discussion, before the higher officers of troop formations which would be used in case of war, I, as senior officer present, confined myself to saying to the Führer at the end: “The Wehrmacht will do its duty.” Of course it has to do its duty, if it is called upon. At the same time, however, I wanted to exert every effort in order to make as soon as possible—it was now a matter of days; a definite date, the 25th or 26th, as decided at first, had not yet been set on this day—to make one more attempt at negotiations. I wanted to be able to say to the Führer, if such negotiations were successfully underway, that there were still prospects of and chances for a diplomatic solution.

Hence, the concurrence of events on the afternoon of the 22d: the Führer’s speech and my immediate reaction of sending for Dahlerus from Stockholm. I, of course, did not tell him, and I could not, of course, as a German, tell him, a foreigner—and especially not as an officer—that my reason lay in these factors which I have explained. Things are now being represented as if there could never have existed in Germany such an idea as “secret military matter,” or “secret,” or “top secret,” in German politics and in military life at all; as though we were obligated to make known every military and political step to the foreign press in advance. I therefore point out that we, of course, had the same procedures as those adopted in every other country of the world.

DR. STAHMER: How was it that you handled the negotiations personally and that the negotiations were not handled through the Foreign Office?

GÖRING: I was bent on having this question settled peacefully as far as it was at all possible. The work of the Foreign Office is official. Here we were working at it anyhow, and according to the guiding principles laid down by the Führer. I could make my influence felt only in a way which was as direct as possible but not expressly official, because for official action I did not hold the official position of Minister for Foreign Affairs as far as foreign countries were concerned. And at this time it was clear to me that it was not a question of formalities, but rather a question of the most practical and the quickest way of accomplishing something. If I wanted to influence the Führer, that was possible only if I had something in my hand, that is, if I could say to him: “On my own responsibility, but with your knowledge and without committing you and your Reich policy, I am conducting negotiations in order, circumstances permitting, to create an atmosphere which will facilitate official negotiations in the direction of a peaceful solution.”

In addition, it would be faster.

DR. STAHMER: This clear fact, that it was a personal step on your part that was being taken alongside official diplomatic negotiations—was that clear also to the British Government?

GÖRING: It must have been clear from the entire action that this was a nonofficial negotiation which only at one or two points touched the official negotiations, or overlapped them. For instance, the phase where Ambassador Henderson, instead of returning immediately to Berlin, remained 1 or 2 days in London in order, first of all, through the unofficial negotiator, Dahlerus, to explain to the British Government the basis of these intentions, or for the negotiations, or to explain the note, as I shall call it; and when that had been done, the preparation for entering into these conferences was thereby considerably improved. And that not I alone was of the honest conviction on that day that a considerable step had been taken in the direction of a peaceful solution at that time—I believe it was the 28th—is demonstrated by the fact that the same view was held at the British Embassy at that moment, as the Embassy Councillor, Sir Ogilvie-Forbes, has very clearly stated. The situation did not become worse until the 29th.

During all these negotiations it was not a question, as far as I was concerned, of isolating Poland and keeping England out of the matter, but rather it was a question, since the problem of the Corridor and Danzig had come up, of solving it peaceably, as far as possible along the lines of the Munich solution. That was my endeavor until the last moment. If it had been only a question of eliminating England from the matter, then, first of all, English diplomacy would surely have recognized that immediately—it certainly has enough training for that. However, it did enter into these negotiations. And, secondly, I probably would have used entirely different tactics.

It is not that I am reconstructing things in retrospect; I am speaking of what actually happened in those days, of what I thought and wanted. The descriptions given by the Witness Dahlerus today, and in his book regarding his talks with the Führer, by no means represent the way these talks took place. His descriptions are rather subjective, for the Führer probably would not long have been party to such talks.

There are also other subjective interpretations in the book, which perhaps are purely unessential, but which have been brought forward by the Prosecutor, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, that I, in a theatrical fashion, had handed to two collaborators two swords so that they might accomplish bold actions with them. One of those who allegedly received a sword from me was my civilian State Secretary Körner, not a soldier. The most I could have given him was a pen, since he had to draft decrees for the Four Year Plan. The second person was the chief of my office staff, a ministerial director, who also was no soldier and was not to earn any war laurels, but whose main task during the war was exclusively that of keeping my civilian, not my military, staff in order, and of insuring the functioning and progress of that work. For both these matters these gentlemen needed neither a sword nor any incitement, to behave in a military way.

DR. STAHMER: Is it correct that it was first intended to undertake aggressive action against Poland on the 26th of August, and that this date was later postponed?

GÖRING: It was provided that if by this time—official negotiations were being carried on before this, that must not be forgotten—if by then these negotiations had not led to a solution of the problem, as a consequence of the general mobilization of Poland and the deployment of troops which had likewise taken place, and as a consequence of very serious border incidents that had actually occurred—I remind you of the bloody Sunday of Bromberg, of the more than 70,000 Germans who had fled, and of the Germans slain—in other words, the atmosphere at this time was such that the Führer would have wanted to bring about a solution by means of war. Then this delay came about, precisely because one believed that a diplomatic solution could still be found, and thus I took it as a matter of course that I should intensify to the utmost the unofficial course which I had already pursued in my previous efforts and see it through. This explains Dahlerus’ frequent conferences in London and in Berlin, the frequent changes in those conferences, and the frequent flying to and fro.

When the last attempt was suggested by me on the 3rd of September, the situation was as follows, and it also has not been described quite correctly. The British Government at first did not send any ultimatum after the 1st of September, but it sent a note in which it demanded the withdrawal . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Will the interpreter please tell the Tribunal what the last question asked by counsel was? Perhaps the interpreter would not know it. Does the shorthand writer know what the last question was?—It does not seem to me that any answer has been given; it related to the 26th of August.

[The interpreter repeated the question.]

DR. STAHMER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that was the question, and as far as I have heard there has been no answer to it yet.

DR. STAHMER: I did not understand that, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: The question that you asked was whether the date of the 26th of August was arranged for the action to take place against Poland, and the Defendant Göring has been speaking for some considerable time and has not answered that question yet as far as I have heard.

GÖRING: The question—my answer to this question was that actually the 26th of August was at first planned by the Führer as the date for the invasion, since he considered this date necessary, in view of the situation that I have described. It was then possible, however, to persuade him once more to postpone this date, in order to carry on further negotiations.

DR. STAHMER: How is it to be explained that Hitler’s proposal failed?

GÖRING: Which proposal?

DR. STAHMER: The last proposal of 27 August, that Dahlerus delivered to London.

GÖRING: This proposal was, of course, an unofficial one and was followed by an official proposal that was read to the British Ambassador in the form of a note; that is, the British Government was informed what demands Germany would make on Poland. This proposal was not entirely understood, and was then unofficially—but de facto—made known not only to the British Government but also, to the Polish Ambassador, exactly and precisely, in the unofficial way that Dahlerus has described. It came to naught because the Polish Government did not agree to discuss this proposal. First there was a prolongation for a plenipotentiary to be appointed—I believe until the 30th or the 31st; but nevertheless we waited even longer for a plenipotentiary. On the intimation that the Polish Ambassador might be this plenipotentiary, circumstances permitting, we waited for a conference with him; when he declared that he was not authorized to accept any terms, the Führer decided on invasion the next day. This telegram I also sent to the British Ambassador via Dahlerus—the telegram of the Polish Government to their Ambassador, in which they forbade him, in a postscript, to conduct any negotiations regarding proposals, or to accept any proposal, or any note on the subject.

I immediately gave Dahlerus the decoded telegram, which I received from the investigation office mentioned the day before yesterday, so that he could hand it to Henderson, and I told him in addition, despite any scruples I might have had, that, since it was a matter of extraordinary importance, the British Government should find out as quickly as possible how intransigent the Polish attitude was, so that it might, circumstances permitting, influence the Polish Government in the direction of a conference. I thus gave away the key, that is, I showed that we had the Polish diplomatic code key and thus spoiled for Germany a real and important source of information. This was a unique step, that I could justify only by my absolute wish and determination to avert the conflict at the last moment. I should, therefore, like to read the appendix to the official dispatch; it is brief and runs: “From the Polish Government to the Polish Ambassador Lipski in Berlin.” I skip the first part and read only the following:

“As a particular secret instruction for the Ambassador, he is in addition informed that he should refrain from conducting official negotiations under any circumstances. In the event of oral or written proposals being made by the Reich Government, please state that you have no plenipotentiary powers to respond to or discuss them, and that you are empowered only to convey the above message to that Government and that you must have further instructions first.”

It is clearly seen from this that the Ambassador was not, as we had been told, authorized to do anything at all in the other direction, and this telegram, which the Führer also read, probably indicated to him very clearly the hopelessness of arriving at an understanding with Poland.

DR. STAHMER: Were these negotiations begun and carried out by you with the earnest intention of maintaining peace?

GÖRING: If one reads these writings in their context, that can be seen from this document; but I should not like to rely on the evidence of this book but on what I have to say here under oath. It was my firm determination to do everything to settle in a peaceful way this problem that had arisen. I did not want war; consequently I did everything I possibly could to avoid it. That has nothing to do with the preparations which I carried out as a matter of duty in my capacity as a high-ranking soldier.

DR. STAHMER: A matter was brought up here concerning a flying accident which might possibly have befallen Mr. Dahlerus. What about this remark?

GÖRING: The witness Dahlerus said at the conclusion of his testimony that he must correct himself, that he had not received this absurd information from me, but that this was a conclusion of his because I had mentioned Ribbentrop’s name shortly before in an entirely different connection. I had only one concern and that I indicated: Dahlerus flew in my own plane to London at that time; the tension was already very acute, and in all states mobilization and a threatened state of war had been proclaimed. Official air communications had been cut off long before. So it was possible that under certain circumstances a German plane flying to London with a courier or, vice versa, a British plane flying to Berlin at that time might incur danger from our anti-aircraft batteries or the like, and I wanted to obviate this danger as far as possible by telephoning Dutch and English authorities, as far as I remember. This was the only reason for my telling Dahlerus that I hoped he would arrive and return safely, because in those times an accident might easily have taken place.

Herr Von Ribbentrop knew nothing whatsoever about the fact that Dahlerus was being sent. During the whole time I never discussed the matter of Dahlerus with Herr Von Ribbentrop. Thus he did not know at all that he was flying, that he went back and forth between me and the British Government. All that is an absolute concoction.

DR. STAHMER: On 26 September 1939 were you present at the conference between Dahlerus and Hitler?

GÖRING: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: What did Hitler say then about Poland?

GÖRING: It is correct that he made statements to the effect that a restoration of Poland as she existed before the outbreak of war could no longer be considered after the course taken by the battle, but that he would now, of course, keep the old German provinces that had been taken in 1918. But even at that time he indicated that the Government General in Warsaw would not interest him and pointed out very emphatically to Dahlerus that this was a question which was to be settled chiefly and decisively by Germany and Russia, and that there could thus be no question of a unilateral settlement with England because the greater part of Poland was already occupied by Russia. And these were agreements that he could no longer make unilaterally with England. That was the gist of the Führer’s statements.

DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the testimony which you gave yesterday and ask you if it is correct.

“I think I was Deputy Chairman”—referring to the Reich Defense Council—“I do not even know, I heard about that, but I assure you under my oath, that at no time and at no date did I participate in a single meeting when the Council for the Defense of the Reich was called together as such.”

Is that a correct transcription of your testimony?

GÖRING: Yes, I said that in no single . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is all. That is all I asked you.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask to have your attention called to Document Number 3575-PS (Exhibit Number USA-781) which is the minutes of the Reich Defense Council of 18 November 1938, with you presiding.

I call your attention to the statement that the “meeting consisted solely of a 3-hour lecture by the Field Marshal. No discussion took place.”

Is that correct?

[Document 3575-PS was submitted to the defendant.]

GÖRING: I have to read it first, this is the first time I have seen the document.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You did not know when you testified yesterday that we had this document, did you? Would you kindly answer that question?

GÖRING: I have not seen this document before. I have to look at it first. It says here: “Notes on the session of the Reich Defense Council on 18 November 1938.”

The Reich Defense Council, as it was described here, comprised few people. Here there were present, however, all Reich ministers and state secretaries, also the commanders-in-chief of the Army and the Navy, the chiefs of the General Staff, of the three branches of the Armed Forces, Reichsleiter Bormann for the Deputy of the Führer, General Daluege, SS Gruppenführer Heydrich, the Reich Labor Führer, the Price Commissioner, the President of the Reich Labor Office, and others.

When I gave my testimony I was thinking only of the Reich Defense Council as such. This is dealing with the Reich Defense Council within the framework of a large assembly. Nevertheless, I was not thinking of that; this concerns, over and beyond the Reich Defense Council, an assembly that was much larger than that provided for under the Reich Defense Council.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the fact that the “Field Marshal stated it to be the task of the Reich Defense Council to correlate all the forces of the nation for accelerated building up of German armament.”

Do you find that?

GÖRING: Yes, I have it now.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The second paragraph?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Under II, “The Physical Task: The assignment is to raise the level of armament from a current index of 100 to one of 300.”

GÖRING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: I cannot quite see the reason why it repeatedly happens that the Defense does not receive documents that are discussed in Court and that are submitted to the Court. The document now discussed is also not known to us, at least not to me.

During the last few days I have noticed that several times documents were suddenly presented by the Prosecution without any effort having been made to inform us of their existence.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is perfectly true, and I think every lawyer knows that one of the great questions in this case is credibility, and that if we have, in cross-examination, to submit every document before we can refer to it in cross-examination, after we hear their testimony, the possibilities of useful cross-examination are destroyed.

Now, of course, he did not know; and we have had the experience of calling document after document to their attention, always to be met with some explanation, carefully arranged and read here from notes. No defendant has ever had better opportunity to prepare his case than these defendants, and I submit that cross-examination of them should not be destroyed by any requirement that we submit documents in advance.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you wish to say something?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I should like to make two points. First, I am entirely agreed if Mr. Justice Jackson wants to make use of the element of surprise. I should merely be thankful if the Defense then were also permitted to use the element of surprise. Yet we have been told heretofore that we must show every document we want to submit weeks ahead of time, so that the Prosecution has several weeks to form an opinion on it.

Secondly, if the element of surprise is being used, I believe that at least we, as Defense Counsel, should not be given this surprise at the moment when the document is submitted to the Court and to the witness. I have at this moment neither today’s documents nor the documents of the previous days.

THE PRESIDENT: What you have just said is entirely inaccurate. You have never been compelled to disclose any documents which you wished to put to a witness in cross-examination. This is cross-examination and therefore it is perfectly open to Counsel for the Prosecution to put any document without disclosing it beforehand; just as Defense Counsel could have put any document to witnesses called on behalf of the Prosecution, if they had wished to do so, in cross-examination.

I am sure that if counsel for the defendants wish to re-examine upon any such document as this, a copy of it will be supplied to them for that purpose.

The Tribunal now rules that this document may be put to the witness now.

DR. SIEMERS: Does the Defense also have the opportunity, now that it is known to the entire Court, of receiving the document?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

DR. SIEMERS: I should be thankful if I could have a copy now.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am frank to say I do not know whether we have adequate copies to furnish them to all the Defense Counsel now.

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe you have not, but you can let them have one or more copies.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But I do not think we should furnish copies until the examination with reference to that document is completed, that is to say . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Dix.

DR. DIX: I should like to make one request that at least the technical possibilities—that at least the counsel of these defendants who are being cross-examined also be given the document that is submitted to the defendant, so that they are in a position, just as the Tribunal is, to follow the examination.

If Justice Jackson says that it is his opinion that it would be right for the defense counsel−in this case my colleague Stahmer—to receive this document only after the examination—in this case of Göring—has ended, I beg earnestly, in the interest of the dignity and prestige of the Defense, to take objection to this suggestion of Justice Jackson’s. I do not believe that he means by that to insinuate that the Defense Counsel would be able—having these documents in its hands at the same time as the Tribunal and at the same time as the witness—somehow through signs or otherwise to influence the defendant and thereby disturb the cross-examination by Mr. Justice Jackson, or by the prosecutor. Mr. Justice Jackson certainly did not mean that, but one might draw that conclusion.

I therefore make this request: If in the cross-examination, for the purpose of the cross-examination, in view of the altogether justified element of surprise, a document is presented to a witness that at the same time is presented to the Tribunal, that at least a copy of this document be given at the same time to the defense counsel, the defense counsel concerned, either the one who has called the witness or the one whose defendant is in the witness box, so that he can have some idea of what the witness is being confronted with, for Göring could read this document, but Dr. Stahmer could not. In other words, he was not in a position to follow the next part of Mr. Justice Jackson’s cross-examination. That is certainly not intended, and would certainly not be fair, and I should therefore like to ask Mr. Justice Jackson to reply to my suggestion, and my application, in order to arrive at an understanding and thereby to relieve the Tribunal of the decision on a question that to me seems self-evident.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal is inclined to think—the Tribunal certainly thinks—that you are perfectly right, that there is no necessity at all, as I have already stated, to disclose the document to the defendants before you use it in cross-examination. But, at the time you use it in cross-examination, is there any objection to handing a copy of it to the counsel for the defendant who is being cross-examined?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In some instances it is physically impossible because of our situation in reference to these documents. A good many of these documents have come to us very lately. Our photostatic facilities are limited.

THE PRESIDENT: I am not suggesting that you should hand it to all of them, but only to Dr. Stahmer.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If we have copies, I have no objection to doing that, but if we do not have them in German—our difficulty has always been to get German copies of these documents.

DR. DIX: May I say something else. If it is not possible in German, then it should at least be possible in English, for one English copy will certainly be available. Furthermore, if it is a question of German witnesses, such as Göring, the document will be shown him in German anyhow; it will certainly be shown the witness in German. I believe that will surely be possible.

[Dr. Siemers approached the lectern.]

THE PRESIDENT: We do not really need to hear more than one counsel on this sort of point. I have already ruled upon your objection, which was that the document should be produced beforehand, but the Tribunal has already ruled that objection should be denied.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I am sorry. My motion was that the Defense Counsel should receive these documents at the same time the Tribunal does. I am not of the opinion expressed by Dr. Dix, that only one defense counsel should receive it. If it is a report regarding the Reich Defense Council, then it is a document important to several defendants. One copy is therefore not sufficient, but each defense counsel must have one. I believe that Mr. Justice Jackson . . .

THE PRESIDENT: But not at this moment. There are, as we all know, the very greatest difficulties in producing all these documents, and extraordinary efforts have been made by the Prosecution and the Translating Division to supply the defendants with documents, and with documents in German, and it is not necessary that every member of the Defense Counsel have these documents at the time the witness is being cross-examined. I am sure the Prosecution will do everything it can to let you have the documents in due course—any document that is being used.

In the opinion of the Tribunal it is perfectly sufficient if one copy of the document is supplied to the counsel for the witness who is being cross-examined. As I say, the Prosecution will doubtless let you have copies of these documents in due course.

You are appearing for the Defendant Raeder, and the Defendant Raeder, I am afraid, at the present rate will not be in the witness box for some time.

DR. SIEMERS: The result of that is that the defense counsel, who is not momentarily concerned, cannot understand the cross-examination. As to the technical question, I ask the Court to consider that I cannot follow Justice Jackson on this technical point. The document is mimeographed by means of a stencil. In mimeographing it makes no difference at all whether 20, 40, 80, or 150 copies are produced. It makes no difference from the point of view of time, except perhaps 4 or 5 minutes. I consider for this reason that one can hardly refer to technical difficulties in this matter.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution will consider what you say, but no rule has been made by the Tribunal that every document should be supplied to every counsel during cross-examination.

GÖRING: I should like to say again in regard to the document that this is not . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I respectfully ask that the witness be instructed to answer the question and reserve his explanations until his counsel takes him on. Otherwise, this cross-examination cannot successfully be conducted, in the sense of being reasonable in time.

THE PRESIDENT: I have already explained, on several occasions, that it is the duty of defendants when they are in the witness box, and the duty of witnesses, to answer questions directly, if they are capable of being answered directly, in the affirmative or in the negative; and if they have any explanation to make afterwards, they can make it after answering the question directly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to Item 3, under II, “Finances,” reading as follows:

“Very critical situation of the Reich Exchequer. Relief initially through the milliard imposed on the Jews and through profits accruing to the Reich from the Aryanization of Jewish enterprises.”

You find that in the minutes, do you not?

GÖRING: Yes, that is there.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you find the minutes signed by Woermann, do you not?

GÖRING: No, that is not true. I beg your pardon? Here on the photostat Woermann has signed it, that is not Bormann. I know Bormann’s signature well, it is quite different.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I said Woermann.

GÖRING: Woermann, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right, my poor pronunciation. Well, was it not a fact that you set up a working committee under the Reich Defense Council which did meet from time to time and did carry on certain work?

GÖRING: I have already explained recently: That was the committee of departmental chiefs.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I call your attention to Document Number EC-405, minutes of a meeting of the Working Committee of the Reich Defense Council, Meeting Number 10.

GÖRING: I understood the President to say before that when I have answered the question, I can add an explanation that seems necessary to me. Now that I have clearly answered your question with regard to the first document, I want to stress once again that this was not a meeting of the close Reich Defense Council but a general calling together of all ministers, state secretaries and numerous other persons. And that I began my statements as follows:

“I. Organization of the Reich Defense Council: The Reich Defense Council was already, by decision of the Cabinet of 1933 and 1934, called into being; but it has never met. Through the Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938 it was re-established. The Chairman is the Führer, who has appointed General Field Marshal Göring his permanent deputy.”

Concerning the Reich Defense Council, about which we have been talking, consisting of Schacht—or rather of the triumvirate—it is attested here in writing once more, as I have correctly said, that this Council never met. I ask to have the question about the second document repeated, as I have forgotten it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You testified that the movement into the Rhineland had not been planned in advance.

GÖRING: Only a short time in advance, I emphasized.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: How long?

GÖRING: As far as I recall, at the most 2 to 3 weeks.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to the minutes of the 10th meeting of the Working Committee of the Reich Defense Council, Document Number EC-405 toward the end of that document, the discussion on 6th month, 26th day of 1935, which reads as follows . . .

GÖRING: May I ask what page? This document is very long and is new to me. What page, please, otherwise I shall have to read the whole document.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Turn to the last paragraph and we will work backwards.

“Commitment to writing of directives for mobilization purposes is permissible only insofar as it is absolutely necessary for the smooth execution of the measures provided for the demilitarized zone. Without exception such material must be kept in safes.”

Do you find that part?

GÖRING: This document that has been handed to me contains alternating statements of various individuals, that is, a dialogue. May I ask once more . . . The last paragraph contains nothing of what you have stated, apparently there must be a difference between the German and English texts. The last paragraph here is altogether irrelevant. Where, please, am I to read in the document?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you find the third paragraph from the end? If my document is correct we have got the same document.

GÖRING: You must tell me who was speaking, for different persons speak here.

[The place in the document was indicated to the defendant.]

Now it has been shown to me. Under the name Jodl; I have to read through it first.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you find this:

“The demilitarized zone requires special treatment. In his speech of 21 May 1935 and in other statements, the Führer and Reich Chancellor declared that the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty and the Locarno Pact regarding the demilitarized zone would be observed.”

Do you find this?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And do you find the next paragraph,

“Since at present international entanglements must be avoided under all circumstances, all urgently needed preparations may be made. The preparations as such, or their planning, must be kept in strictest secrecy in the zone itself as well as in the rest of the Reich.”

Do you find this?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you also find,

“These preparations include in particular”—a) and b) are not important to my present question—“c) Preparation for the liberation of the Rhine.”

GÖRING: Oh, no, here you have made a great mistake. The original phrase—and this alone is the point in question—is: “c) Preparation for the clearing of the Rhine.” It is a purely technical preparation that has nothing at all to do with the liberation of the Rhineland. Here it says, first, mobilization measures for transportation and communications, then “c) Preparation for the clearing of the Rhine,” that is, in case of mobilization preparations the Rhine is not to be overburdened with freighters, tugboats, et cetera, but the river has to be clear for military measures. Then it continues: “d) Preparation for local defense,” et cetera. Thus you see, it figures among small quite general, ordinary and usual preparations for mobilization. The phrase used by the Prosecution . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Mobilization, exactly.

GÖRING: That, if you remember, I stressed clearly in my statement, that in the demilitarized zone general preparations for mobilization were made. I mentioned the purchase of horses, et cetera. I wanted only to point out the mistake regarding “clearing of the Rhine,” which has nothing to do with the Rhineland, but only with the river.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, those preparations were preparations for armed occupation of the Rhineland, were they not?

GÖRING: No, that is altogether wrong. If Germany had become involved in a war, no matter from which side, let us assume from the East, then mobilization measures would have had to be carried out for security reasons throughout the Reich, in this event even in the demilitarized Rhineland; but not for the purpose of occupation, of liberating the Rhineland.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You mean the preparations were not military preparations?

GÖRING: Those were general preparations for mobilization, such as every country makes, and not for the purpose of the occupation of the Rhineland.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But were of a character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers?

GÖRING: I do not think I can recall reading beforehand the publication of the mobilization preparations of the United States.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I respectfully submit to the Tribunal that this witness is not being responsive, and has not been in his examination, and that it is . . .

[The defendant interposed a few words which were not recorded.]

It is perfectly futile to spend our time if we cannot have responsive answers to our questions.

[The defendant interposed a few words which were not recorded.]

We can strike these things out. I do not want to spend time doing that, but this witness, it seems to me, is adopting, and has adopted, in the witness box and in the dock, an arrogant and contemptuous attitude toward the Tribunal which is giving him the trial which he never gave a living soul, nor dead ones either.

I respectfully submit that the witness be instructed to make notes, if he wishes, of his explanations, but that he be required to answer my questions and reserve his explanations for his counsel to bring out.

THE PRESIDENT: I have already laid down the general rule, which is binding upon this defendant as upon other witnesses.

Perhaps we had better adjourn now at this state.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 20 March 1946 at 1000 hours.]

EIGHTY-SIXTH DAY Wednesday, 20 March 1946

Morning Session

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If the Tribunal please, the last question which I asked last night referring to mobilization preparations in the Rhineland, as shown in the official transcript, was this: “But of a character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers?” The answer was: “I do not believe I can recall the publication of the preparations of the United States for mobilization.”

Now, representing the United States of America, I am confronted with these choices—to ignore that remark and allow it to stand for people who do not understand our system; or to develop, at considerable expense of time, its falsity; or to answer it in rebuttal. The difficulty arises from this, Your Honor, that if the witness is permitted to volunteer statements in cross-examination there is no opportunity to make objection until they are placed on the record. Of course, if such an answer had been indicated by a question of counsel, as I respectfully submit would be the orderly procedure, there would have been objection; the Tribunal would have been in a position to discharge its duty under the Charter and I would have been in a position to have shortened the case by not having that remark placed.

The Charter in Article 18 provides that the Tribunal shall rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever. We are squarely confronted with that question; we cannot discharge those duties if the defendant is to volunteer these statements without questions which bring them up. I respectfully submit that, if the ruling of the Tribunal that the defendant may volunteer questions of this kind is to prevail, the control of these proceedings is put in the hands of this defendant, and the United States has been substantially denied its right of cross-examination under the Charter, because cross-examination cannot be effective under this kind of procedure. Since we cannot anticipate, we cannot meet . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I quite agree with you that any reference to the United States’ secrecy with reference to mobilization is entirely irrelevant, and that the answer ought not to have been made, but the only rule which the Tribunal can lay down as a general rule is the rule—already laid down—that the witness must answer if possible “yes” or “no,” and that he may make such explanations as may be necessary after answering questions directly in that way, and that such explanations must be brief and not be speeches. As far as this particular answer goes, I think it is entirely irrelevant.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I must, of course, bow to the ruling of the Tribunal, but it is to the second part, I quite recall the admonition of the Court that there shall be answers “yes” or “no.” This witness, of course, pays not the slightest attention to that, and I must say I cannot blame him; he is pursuing his interests. But we have no way of anticipating, and here we are confronted with this statement in the record, because when these statements are volunteered they are in the record before the Tribunal can rule upon them and I have no opportunity to make objections, and the Tribunal have no opportunity to rule. And it puts, as I said before, the control of these proceedings in the hands of the defendant, if he first makes the charges and then puts it up to us to ignore them or answer them by long cross-examination in rebuttal; and I think the specific charge made against the United States of America from the witness stand presents that.

Your Honor now advises the United States that it is an improper answer, but it is in the record and we must deal with it. I respectfully submit that unless we have . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What exactly is the motion you are making? Are you asking the Tribunal to strike the answer out of the record?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, no; in a Trial of this kind, where propaganda is one of the purposes of the defendant, striking out does no good after the answer is made, and Göring knows that as well as I. The charge has been made against the United States and it is in the record. I am now moving that this witness be instructed that he must answer my questions “yes” or “no” if they permit an answer, and that the explanation be brought out by his counsel in a fashion that will permit us to make objections, if they are irrelevant, and to obtain rulings of the Tribunal, so that the Tribunal can discharge its functions of ruling out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever. We must not let the Trial degenerate into a bickering contest between counsel and the witness. That is not what the United States would expect me to participate in. I respectfully suggest that if he can draw any kind of challenge . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Are you submitting to the Tribunal that the witness has to answer every question “yes” or “no” and wait until he is re-examined for the purpose of making any explanations at all?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is the rule of cross-examination under ordinary circumstances. The witness, if the question permits it, must answer, and if there are relevant explanations they should be reserved until later.

Now let me come back to the specific problem I have right here this morning. Here is an answer given which the Tribunal now rules is irrelevant. But we have no opportunity to object to it. The Tribunal had no opportunity to rule upon it. The witness asks, “Did you ever hear of the United States publishing its plan of mobilization?” Of course, we would have objected. The difficulty is that the Tribunal loses control of these proceedings if the defendant, in a case of this kind where we all know propaganda is one of the purposes of the defendant, is permitted to put his propaganda in, and then we have to meet it afterwards. I really feel that the United States is deprived of the opportunity of the technique of cross-examination if this is the procedure.

THE PRESIDENT: Surely it is making too much of a sentence the witness has said, whether the United States makes its orders for mobilization public or not. Surely that is not a matter of very great importance. Every country keeps certain things secret. Certainly it would be much wiser to ignore a statement of that sort. But as to the general rule, the Tribunal will now consider the matter. I have already laid down what I believe to be the rule, and I think with the assent of the Tribunal, but I will ascertain . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me say that I agree with Your Honor that as far as the United States is concerned we are not worried by anything the witness can say about it—and we expected plenty. The point is, do we answer these things or leave them, apart from the control of the Trial? And it does seem to me that this is the beginning of this Trial’s getting out of hand, if I may say so, if we do not have control of this situation. I trust the Tribunal will pardon my earnestness in presenting this. I think it is a very vital thing.

THE PRESIDENT: I have never heard it suggested that the Counsel for the Prosecution have to answer every irrelevant observation made in cross-examination.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That would be true in a private litigation, but I trust the Court is not unaware that outside of this courtroom is a great social question of the revival of Nazism and that one of the purposes of the Defendant Göring—I think he would be the first to admit—is to revive and perpetuate it by propaganda from this Trial now in process.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Doctor Stahmer?

DR. STAHMER: I just wanted to explain the following: An accusation has been made as if we intended to make propaganda here for Nazism, or in some other direction. I do not think this accusation is justified. Neither do I believe that the defendant intended to make an accusation against the United States. I think we have to consider the question that was put to him. That is, it was pointed out to him by the Prosecution that this document which was submitted to him was marked “secret.” Then he stated that he had never heard that a document of that kind would have been made public in the United States. If instead of the U.S.A, he had said any other nation, then the remark would have been considered harmless.

In my opinion the answer was quite justified. The witness should be given the possibility not only to answer “yes” or “no,” but to give reasons for his answer, as ruled by the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal considers that the rule which it has laid down is the only possible rule and that the witness must be confined strictly to answering the question directly where the question admits of a direct answer, and that he must not make his explanation before he gives a direct answer; but, after having given a direct answer to any question which admits of a direct answer, he may make a short explanation; and that he is not to be confined simply to making direct answers “yes” or “no,” and leaving the explanation until his counsel puts it to him in his re-examination.

As to this particular observation of the defendant, the defendant ought not to have referred to the United States, but it is a matter which I think you might well ignore.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I shall bow to the ruling, of course.

I wish to make a statement to the Tribunal about one of the documents. At the conclusion of the session yesterday we were considering Document Number EC-405. The Defendant Göring challenged the use of a word which he said should have been translated “clearance” rather than “liberation.” We have since had the translation checked and find that the defendant is correct. This document was introduced under Exhibit Number GB-160 on the 9th of January, at Page 2396 of the Tribunal’s records (Volume V, Page 28), and since it has already been received in evidence and it is before the Tribunal, we think it incumbent upon the Prosecution to make that correction now for the record.

[Turning to the witness.] You stated yesterday that the minutes of the Reich Defense Council with which you were presented were not minutes of a meeting of the Reich Defense Council as such?

GÖRING: Yes, I said that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And your testimony, notwithstanding that document, still stands, I take it, that the Reich Defense Council never met?

GÖRING: I said that also, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I now ask to have you shown a document which has just come into our possession, the minutes of the second session of the Reich Defense Council. I should have said, just come to us for translation. We have not had it translated; we just discovered it among our great collection of documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Could Doctor Stahmer have a copy in English or not?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We have not even had a chance to get it into English. I do not know what it says except that it is the minutes of their meeting. We have a photostat.

[Turning to the witness.] Are those not the minutes of the second meeting of the Reich Defense Council held on the 23rd of June 1939?

GÖRING: I must read it first.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the fact that the chairman is Minister President General Field Marshal Göring. You will find that on Page 1.

GÖRING: I have never disputed that. It was fixed by law. This deals with the second Reich Defense Council, not the first one. Besides, I was not present at this meeting; and I point out that on the left is a list of the authorities who took part in the meeting, and in my case it says “Minister President Field Marshal Göring,” and on the right, as representative for him, “State Secretary Körner and State Secretary Neumann.” But I shall have to look through the document first in order to find out whether I took part personally.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Does it not say on Page 1, directly under the place of meeting, “Chairman: Minister President Göring”?

GÖRING: Yes. I have to read it first.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you deny the authenticity of those minutes?

GÖRING: I have not looked them through yet.

It seems to be an absolutely authentic copy of the minutes; I admit that. But here again we are dealing with a meeting not, as I said when answering my counsel, of the Reich Defense Council, but of a larger meeting in which many other departments participated; and it is a matter of the second Reich Defense Council, which was set up after 1938, not a secret council such as was the case from 1933-38.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In other words, in interpreting your testimony, we must understand that, when you say there was no meeting of the Reich Defense Council, you mean only that there were no meetings at which no other people were present?

GÖRING: No, that is not correct. There were two Reich defense laws concerning the Reich Defense Council, which I tried to explain in my statement: the Secret Council of 1933 to 1938, which was not made public, and the Reich Defense Council which was created in 1938 and converted into the Ministerial Council in 1939; the latter held meetings which were in no way confined to its own members.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you say that this was not the Defense Council that met under the ban of secrecy?

GÖRING: The Prosecution want me to answer first with “yes” or “no.” It is hard to answer this question with “yes” or “no.” I assert that the Secret Defense Council, which was not made public and which arose out of a meeting of ministers in 1933, never met. After 1938 a new Reich defense law created a new council. At that time it was clear that our military sovereignty had already been declared. This first council, which the Prosecution called the secret one, never met, and the document of yesterday proved that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Will you refer to Page 19 of this document, please, and tell me whether one of the very things with which this meeting concerned itself was not the lifting of the secrecy ban from the Reich defense law?

GÖRING: No, that is not the way it reads here. If I may translate it, the last point on the agenda: Consequences resulting from the lifting of the secrecy ban on the Reich defense law and measures to expedite procedures have already been dealt with by a letter from the Reich Defense Committee on 26 June: “Consequences resulting from the lifting of the secrecy ban with a view to expediting written communications.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have stated that on the Jewish question, some of the members of the government were more radical than you. Would you state who these were?

GÖRING: Broadly speaking, when we took over the government, we only demanded their removal from political and other leading positions in the State.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is not what I asked you.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not a direct answer to the question. The question was that you said some members of the government were more radical toward Jews than you were. Would you tell us which of the members of the government were more radical than you were?

GÖRING: Excuse me, I did not understand the question to mean who were more radical, but in what way they were more radical. If you ask who, then I would say that those were primarily Minister Goebbels and Himmler.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you also include your co-defendant, Streicher, as more radical than you?

GÖRING: Yes, but he was not a member of the government.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: He was the Gauleiter, was he not, for this very territory in which we are sitting.

GÖRING: That is correct; but he had very little or no influence on government measures.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What about Heydrich?

GÖRING: Heydrich was subordinate to Himmler. If I said Himmler, I, of course, include Heydrich.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Heydrich is then included in the list of the more radical ones to whom you refer?

GÖRING: That is right; yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What about Bormann?

GÖRING: It was only during the later years that I observed that Bormann was becoming more radical. I do not know anything about his attitude in the beginning.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I want to review with you briefly what the Prosecution understands to be public acts taken by you in reference to the Jewish question. From the very beginning you regarded the elimination of the Jews from the economic life of Germany as one phase of the Four Year Plan under your jurisdiction, did you not?

GÖRING: The elimination, yes; that is partly correct. The elimination as far as the large industries were concerned, because there were continual disturbances due to the fact that there were large industries, also armament industries, still partly under Jewish directors, or with Jewish shareholders, and that gave rise to a certain anxiety among the lower ranks.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, do I understand that you want the Tribunal to believe that all you were concerned about was the big Jewish enterprises? That is the way you want to be understood?

GÖRING: I was not at first disturbed by the small stores. They did not come into the Four Year Plan.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When did you become disturbed by the small stores?

GÖRING: When trade had to be limited, it was pointed out that this could be done first by closing the Jewish stores.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, let us go through the public acts which you performed on the Jewish question. First, did you proclaim the Nuremberg Laws?

GÖRING: As President of the Reichstag, yes. I have already stated that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What date was that?

GÖRING: 1935, I believe; here in Nuremberg, in September.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That was the beginning of the legal measures taken against the Jews, was it not?

GÖRING: That was a legal measure.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That was the first of the legal measures taken by your government against the Jews, was it not?

GÖRING: No, I believe the removal from office was before.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When was that?

GÖRING: I could not state the exact date, but I believe that happened in 1933.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then on the first day of December 1936, you promulgated an act making it a death penalty for Germans to transfer property abroad or leave it abroad; the property of a culprit to be forfeited to the State, and the People’s Court given jurisdiction to prosecute, did you not?

GÖRING: That is correct; the “Decree Governing Restriction on Foreign Currency.” That is to say, whoever had an account in a foreign country without permission of the government.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, your third public act was on 22 April 1938 when you published penalties for veiling the character of a Jewish enterprise within the Reich, was it not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then on 28 July 1939, you, Hermann Göring, published certain prescriptions on the competence of the courts to handle those matters by the decree, did you not?

GÖRING: Please, would you kindly read the law to me? I cannot recall it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will not take time reading it. Do you deny that you published the Reichsgesetzblatt law, 1939, found on Page 1370, referring to the competence of the courts to handle penalties against Jews? If you do not remember, say so.

GÖRING: Yes, I say that I cannot remember the law. If it is in the Reichsgesetzblatt and bears my name, then, of course, it is so; but I do not remember the contents.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, on 26 April 1938 you, under the Four Year Plan, published a decree providing for the registration of Jewish property and provided that Jews inside and outside Germany must register their property, did you not?

GÖRING: I assume so. I no longer remember it, but if you have the decree there, and if it is signed by me, there cannot be any doubt.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: On 26 April 1938 you published a decree under the Four Year Plan, did you not, that all acts of disposal of Jewish enterprises required the permission of the authorities?

GÖRING: That I remember.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you published on 12 November 1938 a decree, also under the Four Year Plan, imposing a fine of a billion marks for atonement on all Jews?

GÖRING: I have already explained that all these decrees at that time were signed by me, and I assume responsibility for them.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I am asking you if you did not sign that particular decree? I am going to ask you some further questions about it later.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then on the 12th of November 1938, you also signed a decree that, under the Four Year Plan, all damage caused to Jewish property by the riots of 1938 must be repaired immediately by the Jews, and at their own expense; and their insurance claims were forfeited to the Reich. Did you personally sign that law?

GÖRING: I did sign a similar law. Whether it was exactly the same as you have just read, I could not say.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You do not disagree that that was the substance of the law, do you?

GÖRING: No.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And on the 12th of November 1938, did you not also personally sign a decree, also under the Four Year Plan, that Jews may not own retail stores, or engage independently in handicrafts or offer goods, or services, for sale at markets, fairs, or exhibitions; or act as leaders of enterprises or as members of co-operatives? Do you recall all of that?

GÖRING: Yes. Those are all parts of the decrees for the elimination of Jewry from economic life.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, on the 21st of February 1939, you personally signed a decree, did you not, that the Jews must surrender all objects of precious metals and jewels purchased, to the public office within 2 weeks?

GÖRING: I do not remember that, but without doubt, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I refer to Volume I of the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1939, Page 282. You have no recollection of that?

GÖRING: I have not the Reichsgesetzblatt in front of me now, but if there is a decree in the Reichsgesetzblatt, or a law signed with my name, then I signed that law and decreed it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not also, on the 3rd of March 1939, sign a further decree concerning the period within which items of jewelry must be surrendered by Jews—Reichsgesetzblatt, Volume I, 1939, Page 387?

GÖRING: I assume that was the decree for the execution of the decree for surrender previously mentioned. A law sometimes requires regulations and decrees for execution consequent upon the law. Taken together, this is one single measure.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not also sign personally a decree under the Four Year Plan, of the 17th of September 1940, ordering the sequestration of Jewish property in Poland?

GÖRING: Yes, as I stated before, in that part of Poland which, I may say, as an old German province, was to return to Germany.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not also, on the 30th day of November 1940, personally sign a decree which provided that the Jews should receive no compensation for damages caused by enemy attacks or by German forces, and did you not sign that in the capacity of President of the Reich Defense Council? I refer to the Reichsgesetzblatt, Volume I, 1940, Page 1547.

GÖRING: If you have it there before you, then it must be correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have no recollection of that?

GÖRING: Not of all the separate laws and decrees. That is impossible.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, it was you, was it not, who signed, on the 31st day of July 1941, a decree asking Himmler, and the Chief of Security Police and the SS Gruppenführer Heydrich to make the plans for the complete solution of the Jewish question?

GÖRING: No, that is not correct. I know that decree very well.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask to have you shown Document 710, Exhibit Number USA-509.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that 710-PS?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 710-PS, Your Honor.

[Turning to the witness.] That document is signed by you, is it not?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it is addressed to the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, and to SS Gruppenführer Heydrich, isn’t it?

GÖRING: That is also correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am not certain whether the entire thing has been read into the record, but I think it should be; and, that we may have no difficulty about the translation of this, you correct me if I am wrong:

“Completing the task that was assigned to you on the 24th of January 1939 . . .”

GÖRING: Here is a mistake already. It says: “Complementing” not “completing” the task which has been assigned to you.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Very well, I will accept that.

“. . . which dealt with arriving at a thorough furtherance of emigration and evacuation, a solution of the Jewish problem, as advantageously as possible, I hereby charge you with making all necessary preparations in regard to organizational and financial matters for bringing about a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe.”

Am I correct so far?

GÖRING: No, that is in no way correctly translated.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Give us your translation of it?

GÖRING: May I read it as it is written here?

“Complementing the task which was conferred upon you already on 24 January 1939, to solve the Jewish problem by means of emigration and evacuation in the best possible way according to present conditions, I charge you herewith to make all necessary preparations as regards organizational, factual, and material matters. . . .”

Now comes the decisive word which has been mistranslated: “for a total solution,” not “for a final solution.”

“. . . for a total solution of the Jewish question within the area of German influence in Europe. Should these come within the competence of other governmental departments, then such departments are to co-operate.

“I charge you further to submit to me as soon as possible a general plan showing the organizational and material measures for reaching the desired total solution of the Jewish question. . . . Complementing the task assigned to you on 24 January 1939. . . .”

That was at a time when there was no war or prospect of a war.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now are you reporting the instrument or are you making an explanation?

GÖRING: I wanted to add an explanation to the quotation and just to point out the date.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. Well, I just did not want it to appear that it was a part of the instrument. The last that is contained in the instrument is:

“I charge you furthermore to send me, before long, an over-all plan concerning the organizational, factual, and material measures necessary for the accomplishment of the desired solution of the Jewish question.”

Is that not a substantially accurate translation of your order to Heydrich and Himmler?

GÖRING: To Heydrich and the other government departments which had anything to do with it. That can be seen from the first part of the letter, the last sentence.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us have no misunderstanding about this translation now. This letter was directed to the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, and SS Gruppenführer Heydrich. We are right about that, are we not?

GÖRING: That is correct, but I have to make an explanation in connection with that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right.

GÖRING: The reason I sent this letter to him was that, by the decree of 24 January 1939, Heydrich, or it may have been Himmler, had been given the task of dealing with the emigration of the Jews. Therefore, this was the government department concerned, and it was to the department which had been given the task that I had to apply concerning all material and economic matters arising therefrom.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And you ordered all other governmental agencies to co-operate with the Security Police and the SS in the final solution of the Jewish question, did you not?

GÖRING: There is nothing about the SS here; only about the Sicherheitspolizei, a governmental agency. The fact that Heydrich was SS Gruppenführer had no direct bearing on it, because it was sent to the Chief of the Security Police—mentioning his rank as SS Gruppenführer Heydrich.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And mentioning his rank in the SS was just superfluous and has nothing to do with the case?

GÖRING: I have to explain that. For instance, if I write to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, then I write: “To the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Colonel General or Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch.” And if I write to the Chief of the Security Police, then I must address it: “To the Chief of the Security Police, SS Gruppenführer Heydrich.” That was his rank and his title. However, that does not mean that the SS had anything to do with it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, at the time that you issued this order you had received complete reports as to the 1938 riots and Heydrich’s part in them, hadn’t you?

GÖRING: At that time I had no knowledge of Heydrich’s part in the riots—only Heydrich’s report on the riots, for which I had asked.

MR. JUSTICE, JACKSON: All right. Now we will show you Document Number 3058-PS, in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-508.

[Document 3058-PS was submitted to the witness.]

That is the report written by Heydrich which you say you had received, and it is dated 11 November 1938, is it not?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it recited to you the looting of Jewish shops, the arrest of 174 persons for looting, the destruction of 815 shops, 171 dwellings set on fire or destroyed, and that this indicated only a fraction of the actual damage caused; 191 synagogues were set on fire, and another 76 completely destroyed; in addition, 11 parish halls, cemetery chapels, and similar buildings were set on fire, and 3 more completely destroyed; 20,000 Jews were arrested; also, 7 Aryans and 3 foreigners—the latter were arrested for their own safety; 36 deaths were reported, and the seriously injured were also numbered at 36. Those killed and injured are Jews. One Jew is still missing. The Jews killed include 1 Polish national, and those injured include 2 Poles.

You had that report on or about the 11th day of November 1938, did you not?

GÖRING: That is correct. That is the report mentioned by me and which I had asked the police to supply, because I wanted to know what had happened up to then.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Exactly. And the note was made at the top of it, “The General Field Marshal has been informed and no steps are to be taken.” Was it not?

GÖRING: That is not quite correct. It says here, “General Field Marshal has taken note. No steps are to be taken by any other office,” because I myself wanted to take them.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you know that that is not true, do you not, that steps were to be taken by some other office? I put it to you squarely whether you are telling this Tribunal the truth when you say that no steps were to be taken by anyone else.

GÖRING: This is a note by my staff department, that nothing was to be done by that quarter, because I said I was going to deal with it personally. In fact I went straight to the Führer with this report.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. Did you receive a report from the Chief Party Judge of the Nazi Party, dated Munich, the 13th of February 1939, concerning the proceedings taken by the Party in these matters?

GÖRING: That is correct. I received that report much later.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And at the time you appointed—I withdraw the question. It is obvious from the dates of the documents. You acknowledged the receipt of that document, did you not, to Party member Buch?

GÖRING: That is also correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the only proceedings that were taken about these riots were those taken by the Party Court, were they not?

GÖRING: Not quite; some were brought before the law courts. That is in the report also.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask that he be shown the report, which is Document 3063-PS. It is not in evidence. Since the document apparently has not been brought here, I will ask you from your recollection.

GÖRING: I know it fairly well.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I thought so.

GÖRING: No, because it has been submitted to me before, here.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, it has not been kept from you. Now, in the first place, the Party Court reported that it was probably understood—I quote—“by all of the Party leaders present, from oral instructions of the Reich Propaganda Director, that the Party should not appear outwardly as the originator of the demonstrations, but in reality should organize and execute them.” Was that the report of the Party Court?

GÖRING: The Party Court, as a result of its investigation, established that the Propaganda Chief, Dr. Goebbels, had given these directives. May I ask, if we are dealing with a report dated March or maybe April?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The 13th of February 1939, is the date.

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct; that is the result of investigations after the incidents.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. Now, as a result of the riots, did the Court, the Party Court, not also report this to you: that the Supreme Party Court has reserved itself the right to investigate the killings, also the severe mistreatment and moral crimes and will request the Führer to drop proceedings against any person whom the Party Court did not find guilty of excesses?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the Party Court was made up of Gauleiter and Group Leaders of the Party?

GÖRING: The Party Court changed. I cannot say just now, without having the document, who made up the Party Court at that time. I see that I am being given the document.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to Page 4, toward the bottom, where the report says, “Gauleiter and Group Leaders of the branches served as jurors at the trials and decisions.”

GÖRING: Yes, it was a matter of course that the jurors of the Party Court were always taken from these categories according to their importance. I wanted only to say I did not know which persons were taking part here.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the Party Court found five persons guilty of offenses, did they not? Number 1, a Party member, was guilty of a moral crime and race violation and he was expelled. Is that right?

GÖRING: And turned over to the penal court. That is what it says in the last sentence.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. Another Party member, Case Number 2, was suspected of race violation and expelled from the Nazi Party.

GÖRING: Expelled for suspected race violation and theft, and turned over to the ordinary court.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes; and Number 2, Gustav, was expelled from the Party and SA for theft. Right?

GÖRING: You are at Number 3?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have Number 2, Gustav, the first name mentioned.

GÖRING: Gustav is the first name—Gerstner—yes, for theft, also turned over to the ordinary court for suspected race violation.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, Number 3 dealt with two expulsions of Party members on the grounds of moral crimes against a Jewess, and they are now held in protective custody. Right?

GÖRING: Expelled from the NSDAP and taken into protective custody; they were also turned over to the civil court later. I know that very well.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, we come to Cases 4 and 5, the first of which was a man, a Party member and SA member, who was reprimanded and declared unfit to hold office for 3 years because of a disciplinary offense, namely, for killing the Jewish couple Selig, contrary to order. Is that right?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And in the last of these cases the offender was reprimanded and declared unfit to hold office for 3 years for shooting a 16-year-old Jew, contrary to orders after completion of the drive. Is that right?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We now come to the cases of the killing of Jews, where proceedings were suspended or minor punishments pronounced. I will not go through those in detail, but it is a fact that only minor punishments were pronounced by the Supreme Court of the Party for the killing of Jews, were they not?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I now ask you to turn to Page 8.

GÖRING: One moment please.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the language in regard to Cases 3 to 16.

GÖRING: Which page, please?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Nine, I believe it is. The Supreme Party Court asks the Führer to quash the proceedings in the State criminal courts.

GÖRING: To quash them, to beat them down, that does not mean suppress. A penal proceeding can be “niedergeschlagen.” In Germany that is a different thing from “suppress.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you give us your version of it and tell us what it is. What does beating down a proceeding mean? Does it mean that it has ended?

GÖRING: That is what it means, but it can only be ordered by an office which has authority to do it; that is to say, the Führer can at any time “beat down” a proceeding by way of an amnesty. The Cabinet could at any time pass a resolution to “beat down” a proceeding—suppressing it would have been illegal. In Germany, “niedergeschlagen” is a legal term meaning “to suspend.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And one further question. It was also reported to you, was it not, in that report—I refer to Page 11:

“The public down to the last man realize that political drives, like those of 9 November, were organized and directed by the Party, whether this is admitted or not. When all the synagogues burned down in one night, it must have been organized in some way and can only have been organized by the Party.”

That also was in the report of the Supreme Party Court, was it not?

GÖRING: I have not found it yet. It is not the same page as mine.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us find it and not have any mistake about it. Page 11. I should think it would be at the very bottom of Page 10, perhaps, where it starts.

GÖRING: Yes, I have just found it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did I give a reasonably correct translation of it?

GÖRING: That is correct.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off? Before we break off, will you offer in evidence these documents that you have been putting to the witness? Those which are not already in evidence?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, they should be, Your Honor, I will do that.

THE PRESIDENT: I think Document 3575-PS may have been offered yesterday, but not strictly offered in evidence; and Document 3063-PS today; and one other document the number of which I have not got.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I appreciate very much your calling my attention to it.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. HORN: Mr. President: I ask you, Your Honor, to permit the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to be absent from tomorrow’s session, as there are still some fundamental questions I have to discuss with him in order to prepare his counterevidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, your suggestion as I understand it, is that the Defendant Ribbentrop should be absent from tomorrow morning’s sitting in order that you may consult with him in reference to the preparation of his defense. Is that right?

DR. HORN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to that course being taken provided that you make arrangements with some other Defense Counsel to look after Defendant Ribbentrop’s interests if any questions arise. The Tribunal does not wish that you should come hereafter and say that you and Defendant Ribbentrop were out of court and object to what may have happened in your absence. You understand what I mean?

DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, and I give you my assurance that I will not use an objection of that nature, and shall ask one of my colleagues to act on my behalf.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to your taking that course of action, but of course you realize that the Trial cannot be held up by any delay which might be caused in the future by the fact that you were not present.

DR. HORN: Mr. President, the purpose of my request is such that it will help me to avoid future delays.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I quite understand that. I was only saying that in allowing you to do this, which is perfectly reasonable, the Tribunal is merely indicating they will not allow any future delays. The Trial must continue.

DR. HORN: I understand that and I wish to thank you.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [Turning to the witness.] Now, the Völkischer Beobachter of the 12th of March 1933 quotes a speech of yours delivered at Essen on the 11th of March 1933, including the following—and I refresh your recollection by calling it to your attention:

“I am told that I must employ the police. Certainly I shall employ the police, and quite ruthlessly, whenever the German people are hurt; but I refuse the notion that the police are protective troops for Jewish stores. No, the police protect whoever comes into Germany legitimately, but it does not exist for the purpose of protecting Jewish usurers.”

Did you say that?

GÖRING: When did you say that was?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you say that on the 11th of March 1933 in a speech at Essen, either that, or that in substance?

GÖRING: That is correct, but the circumstances were different. Before I answer, I would like to ask whether you have finished with the document in the book that was submitted to me previously. I gave no explanation and will ask my counsel to have me questioned later in regard to that document.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is satisfactory.

After the riots of November 9th and 10th, you have testified that you called a meeting on the 12th of November and ordered all officials concerned to be present, and that the Führer had insisted on Goebbels being present.

GÖRING: Yes, all chiefs of the economic departments.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Could you tell us who was there in addition to yourself and Goebbels?

GÖRING: As far as I recall, the following were there for the purpose of reporting: The Chief of the Secret State Police, concerning the events, the Minister of Economy, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Interior . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Will you please state their names so that there will not be any mistake about who was there at that time.

GÖRING: I can quote only from memory. There were present to draw up a report: The leader of the Secret State Police in Berlin, Heydrich; the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick; Dr. Goebbels you have mentioned already; the then Minister of Economy, Funk, was there; the Finance Minister, Count Schwerin von Krosigk; and Fischböck from Austria.

Those are the only names I can recall at present, but there may have been a few others there too.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Part of the time, Hilgard, representing the insurance companies, was also present, was he not?

GÖRING: He was summoned and waited there. His views were asked on special questions.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you have been shown the stenographic minutes of that meeting which are in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-261, being Document Number 1816-PS, have you not, in your interrogation?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask that they be shown to you, and now, so that we may have no misunderstanding about the translations.

You opened the meeting with this statement. I will read it: “Gentlemen . . .” I think perhaps we had better be clear about which meeting it was. This is the meeting held on the 12th day of November 1938 at the office of the Reich Air Ministry. That is correct, is it not?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You opened the meeting:

“Gentlemen, today’s meeting is of a decisive nature. I have received a letter written on the Führer’s orders by the Stabsleiter of the Führer’s Deputy, Bormann, requesting that the Jewish question be now, once and for all, co-ordinated and solved one way or another.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Further down, I find this:

“Gentlemen, I have had enough of these demonstrations. They do not harm the Jews, but finally devolve on me, the highest authority for the German economy. If today a Jewish shop is destroyed, if goods are thrown into the street, the insurance company will pay the Jew for the damages so that he does not suffer any damage at all. Furthermore, consumer goods, goods belonging to the people, are destroyed. If, in the future, demonstrations occur—and on occasion they may be necessary—then I ask that they be so directed that we do not cut our own throats.”

Am I correct?

GÖRING: Yes, quite correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Skipping two or three paragraphs, I come to this . . .

GÖRING: But the supplement has been omitted.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you can supplement it any way you want to.

GÖRING: “. . . then I ask that they be so directed that we do not cut our own throats. For it is absurd to empty and set fire to a Jewish store, when a German insurance company has to cover the damage, and the goods which I sorely need are burned. I might as well take and burn the raw materials when they come in.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. You read any part of it that you want to as we go along, in addition to what I read.

“I am not going to tolerate a situation in which the German insurance companies are the ones to suffer. To prevent this, I will use my authority and issue a decree. In this, of course, I ask for the support of the competent government agencies, so that everything shall be settled properly and the insurance companies will not be the ones who suffer.

“But another problem immediately emerges: It may be that these insurance companies have re-insurance in foreign countries. If there are such re-insurances, I would not want to give them up, because they bring in foreign exchange. The matter must be looked into. For that reason, I have asked Mr. Hilgard from the insurance company to attend, since he is best qualified to tell us to what extent the insurance companies are covered by re-insurance against such damage. I would not want to give this up under any circumstances.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: That is absolutely correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “I do not want to leave any doubt, gentlemen, as to the purpose of today’s meeting. We have not come together merely to talk again, but to make decisions; and I earnestly ask the competent departments to take trenchant measures for the Aryanizing of German economy and to submit them to me as far as is necessary.”

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I then skip a considerable portion, unless there is more that you wish to put in, and come to this statement:

“The State Trustee will estimate the value of the business and decide what amount the Jew shall receive. Naturally, this amount is to be fixed as low as possible. The State Trustee will then transfer the business to Aryan ownership. The aim is thus accomplished, inasmuch as the business is transferred to the right ownership and its goodwill and balance sheet remain unimpaired.

“Then the difficulties begin. It is easily understandable that attempts will be made on a large scale to get Party members into all these stores and thus give them some compensation. I have witnessed terrible things in the past; little chauffeurs of Gauleiter have profited so much by these transactions that they have raked in half a million. You gentlemen know it. Is that correct?”

And they assented.

GÖRING: Yes, I said that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Would you care to read anything further in connection with that?

GÖRING: Perhaps only the next sentence:

“These are, of course, things which are not permissible, and I shall not hesitate to deal ruthlessly with such underhand dealings. If a prominent person is involved I shall go straight to the Führer and report these dirty tricks quite impartially.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is, if any individual was attempting to profit by Jewish possessions—is that what you meant?

GÖRING: By Aryanization.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will quote another portion:

“In other words, it must be an ordinary business transaction. One sells his business and another buys it. If there are Party members among the would-be purchasers, they are to be given preference if they fulfill the same conditions. First of all should come those who have suffered damage. After that, preference should be given on grounds of Party membership.”

I will skip a line or two:

“This Party member should have a chance to buy the business for as cheap a price as possible. In such a case, the State will not receive the full price, but only the amount the Jew received.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: Just a moment, please, I believe you skipped something.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, we did. If you want to put it in, you may read it.

GÖRING: No, I want to put it quite briefly, so that it will not take too long. I said what you have already said, that all things being equal, the Party member is to be given preference, the first on the list being the member who suffered prejudice by having his business license cancelled because he was a Party member. Then follows the paragraph which you read and which is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you then speak at considerable length of the method by which you intended to Aryanize Jewish businesses, is that right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then you take up the Aryanization of Jewish factories.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You speak of the smaller factories first.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Have you found the place where you speak of the factories?

GÖRING: Yes, I have found it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I quote.

“Now the factories. With regard to the smaller and medium-sized ones, two things will have to be made clear: First, which are the factories for which I have no use, and which can be shut down? Could they not be put to another use? If not, then these factories are to be pulled down. Second, if the factory should be needed, it will be turned over to Aryans in the same manner as the stores.”

That is correct, isn’t it?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you care to say any more on that subject?

GÖRING: No, those are the basic elements for the laws.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to the second paragraph, starting, “Take now the larger factories.” Do you find that?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Dealing with the larger factories, do you not say the solution is very simple, that the factory can be compensated in the same manner as the stores, that is, at a rate which we shall determine, and the Trustee shall take over the Jew’s interest, as well as his shares, and in turn sell or transfer them to the State as he thinks fit.

GÖRING: That means any one who has any interest in the factories will receive compensation, according to the scale laid down by us.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the reparation will be turned over to the State Trustee, will it not?

GÖRING: Yes, to the State Trustee. The matter was simply this: The Jew relinquished his ownership and received bonds. That was to be settled by the Trustee through 3 percent bonds.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we will pass on to where you deal with the foreign Jews, do you recall that?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: At that point a representative of the Foreign Office claimed the right to participate on behalf of the Foreign Minister, is that right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, now, we will pass on to the point of the conversation between yourself and Heydrich.

GÖRING: Just a moment, please. Part of the minutes are missing. All right. I have found the place where Heydrich is mentioned for the first time.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You inquired how many synagogues were actually burned, and Heydrich replied, “Altogether there were 101 synagogues destroyed by fire, 76 synagogues demolished, and 7,500 stores destroyed in the Reich.” Have I quoted that correctly?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, then Dr. Goebbels interposed, “I am of the opinion that this is our chance to dissolve the synagogues.” And then you have a discussion about the dissolving of the synagogues, have you not?

GÖRING: By Dr. Goebbels, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, Dr. Goebbels raised the question of Jews traveling in railway trains?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me know if I quote correctly the dialogue between you and Dr. Goebbels on that subject. Dr. Goebbels said:

“Furthermore, I advocate that Jews be banned from all public places where they might cause provocation. It is still possible for a Jew to share a sleeper with a German. Therefore, the Reich Ministry of Transport must issue a decree ordering that there shall be separate compartments for Jews. If this compartment is full, then the Jews cannot claim a seat. They can only be given separate compartments after all Germans have secured seats. They must not mix with the Germans; if there is no more room, they will have to stand in the corridor.”

Is that right?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Göring: I think it would be more sensible to give them separate compartments.

“Goebbels: Not if the train is overcrowded.

“Göring: Just a moment. There will be only one Jewish coach. If that is filled up the other Jews will have to stay at home.

“Goebbels: But suppose there are not many Jews going, let us say, on the long-distance express train to Munich. Suppose there are two Jews on the train, and the other compartments are overcrowded; these two Jews would then have a compartment to themselves. Therefore, the decree must state, Jews may claim a seat only after all Germans have secured a seat.

“Göring: I would give the Jews one coach or one compartment, and should a case such as you mention arise, and the train be overcrowded, believe me, we will not need a law. He will be kicked out all right, and will have to sit alone in the toilet all the way.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: Yes. I was getting irritated when Goebbels came with his small details when important laws were being discussed. I refused to do anything. I issued no decrees or laws in this connection. Of course, today, it is very pleasant for the Prosecution to bring it up, but I wish to state that it was a very lively meeting at which Goebbels made demands which were quite outside the economic sphere, and I used these expressions to give vent to my feelings.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then Goebbels, who felt very strongly about these things, said that Jews should stand in the corridor, and you said that they would have to sit in the toilet. That is the way you said it?

GÖRING: No, it is not. I said that they should have a special compartment; and when Goebbels still was not satisfied, and harped on it, I finally told him, “I do not need a law. He can either sit in the toilet or leave the train.” These are utterances made in this connection which, however, have nothing to do with the world-wide importance of the great conflict.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us go down to where Goebbels brings up the subject of the German forests.

GÖRING: Just a moment. Yes. It starts where Goebbels asked for a decree which would prevent Jews from going to German holiday resorts. To which I replied “Give them their own.” And then he suggested that it would have to be considered whether we should give them their own resorts, or place some German bathing places at their disposal, but not the best ones so that people might say: “You allow the Jews to get fit by using our bathing resorts.” The question must also be considered whether it was necessary to forbid the Jews to go into the German forests. Herds of Jews are today running around in Grunewald; that is a constant provocation—and so on. Then when he broke in again, I replied very sharply, “It would be better to put a certain part of the forest at the disposal of the Jews,” as he wanted them out of the whole of the forests. Then I made the remark which seems to be of so much interest.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us have that remark. Is it not correct, you did state:

“We will give the Jews a certain part of the forest, and Alpers will see to it that the various animals, which are damnably like the Jews—the Elk too has a hooked nose—go into the Jewish enclosure and settle down among them.”

Is that what you said?

GÖRING: Yes, I said it, but it should be linked up with the whole atmosphere of the meeting. Goebbels comes back on it again in the next sentence and says he considers my attitude provoking. I too can say I was provoked by his insistence on unimportant things, when such far-reaching and decisive matters were being discussed.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you come to the point where you ask Mr. Hilgard from the insurance company to come in. Can you find that?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you made a statement to Mr. Hilgard when he came in.

“The position, is as follows: Because of the justified anger of the people against the Jews, the Reich has suffered a certain amount of damage. Windows have been broken, goods damaged, and people hurt; synagogues have been burned, and so forth, I suppose many of the Jews are also insured against damage committed by public disorder?

“Hilgard: Yes.

“Göring: If that is so, the following situation arises. The people in their justified anger meant to harm the Jews, but it is the German insurance companies which have to compensate the Jews for the damage. The thing is simple enough. I have only to issue a decree to the effect that damage resulting from these riots shall not have to be paid by the insurance companies.”

Is that what you said?

GÖRING: Yes, I said all that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Hilgard then outlined three kinds of insurance. He pointed out that at least as far as plate glass insurance was concerned, the majority of the sufferers were Aryans who owned buildings and that, as a rule, the Jews only rented them. Is that right?

GÖRING: Yes, those are the details of the discussion.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Hilgard said:

“May I draw your attention to the following facts: Plate glass is not manufactured by the Bohemian glass industry, but is entirely in the hands of the Belgian glass industry. In my estimation the damage amounts to 6 millions; that is to say, under the insurance policies, we shall have to pay the owners, who for the most part are Aryans, about 6 millions compensation for the glass.”

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, before you pass from that page, in the third paragraph, just for the sake of accuracy, it appears that the name “Mr. Hilgard” is wrongly placed, does it not, because he seems both to put the question and to answer it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think that is . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Probably the Defendant Göring put the question. It is the third paragraph on my page.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I take the minutes to read that when Hilgard appeared, Göring addressed him as “Mr. Hilgard.”

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But it is correct, as Your Honor suggests.

GÖRING: I wish to point out what was said before concerning the broken glass. Goebbels said: “The Jews must pay for the damage,” and I said, “It is no use, we have no raw material, it is all foreign glass. That will require foreign currency. It is like asking for the moon.” Then Hilgard comes with the discussions just mentioned.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, and Hilgard pointed out that:

“Incidentally the amount of damage equals about half a year’s production of the whole of the Belgian glass industry. We believe that the manufacturers will take 6 months to deliver the glass.”

Do you recall that?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, passing down, you come to a point at which Hilgard tells you about a store on Unter den Linden which was attacked. Can you find that?

GÖRING: He said, “The biggest incident is the case of Margraf, Unter den Linden.” Isn’t that so?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “The damage reported to us amounts to 1,700,000 because the store was completely ransacked.” Is that right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Göring: Daluege and Heydrich, you must get me these jewels by large-scale raids.” Is that the order you gave?

GÖRING: Yes, of course, so that the stolen goods should be brought back.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Brought back to you, not to the Jews?

GÖRING: Not to me personally, I beg your pardon, that is quite clear.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Brought back to the State—you did not intend to return them to the Jews?

GÖRING: It does not say that here. The main thing is, that they should be brought back.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “We are trying to get the loot back,” as Heydrich put it, is that right? And you added, “And the jewels?”

GÖRING: If a large jewelry shop is plundered, something must be done about it because with these valuables a great deal of trouble could be caused. Therefore, I ordered raids to be carried out to have these things, as well as other stolen goods, brought back. When a business was Aryanized, its stock was also transferred to the new owner. The main point, however, was that action should be taken against those who had stolen and plundered, and in fact 150 had already been arrested.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Heydrich went on to report on the method of these raids after you reminded him to bring back, to get the jewels.

“It is difficult to say. Some of the articles were thrown into the street and picked up. The same happened with the furriers. For example, in the Friedrichstrasse in the district of Police Station C. There the crowd naturally rushed to pick up mink and skunk furs, et cetera. It will be very difficult to recover them. Even children filled their pockets just for the fun of the thing. It is suggested that the Hitler Youth should not be employed on such actions without the Party’s consent. Such things are very easily destroyed.”

GÖRING: Yes, so it says.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Daluege then suggests:

“The Party should issue an order to the effect that the police must immediately be notified if the neighbor’s wife—everybody knows his neighbor very well—has a fur coat remodeled or somebody is seen wearing a new ring or bracelet. We should like the Party to assist in this matter.”

Correct?

GÖRING: This is absolutely correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, Hilgard objected to your plan of releasing the insurance companies from paying the claims, did he not?

GÖRING: Yes, this is also correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And he gave the reasons:

“Hilgard: If I may give the reasons for my objection, the point is that we do a large international business. Our business has a sound international basis, and in the interests of the foreign exchange position in Germany we cannot allow the confidence in the German insurance business to be shaken. If we were now to refuse to fulfill commitments entered into by legal contracts it would be a blot on the escutcheon of the German insurance business.

“Göring: But it would not be if I were to issue a decree or a law.”

Am I quoting correct?

GÖRING: Yes, and in Hilgard’s reply—and that is the reply I wanted to come to—he pointed out that the insurance companies could not get out of paying claims unless a law provided for it. If the sovereign state passes a law to the effect that the insurance sums must be forfeited to the state, then the insurance companies are no longer under any obligation.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I suggest to you that that is not correct, but that even though you proposed to issue a decree absolving the German insurance companies, the companies insisted on meeting their obligations; and then Heydrich interposed and said: “By all means, let them pay the claims and when payment is made it will be confiscated. Thus we will save our face.”

Correct?

GÖRING: Heydrich said that, but I issued a law.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not then say:

“One moment. They will have to pay in any case because Germans suffered damage. There will, however, be a law forbidding them to make direct payments to Jews. They will also have to make payment for damage suffered by Jews, not to the Jews, but to the Minister of Finance.

“Hilgard: Aha.”

GÖRING: I have just said so.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You accepted Heydrich’s suggestion, which was quite contrary to the one you made?

GÖRING: No, I did not accept Heydrich’s suggestion, but I issued a law to the effect that insurance money due to Jews must be paid to the Minister of Finance, as I did not agree with Heydrich that insurance money should be paid out and then surreptitiously confiscated. I went about it in a legal way and was not afraid to make the necessary law and to take the responsibility for the claims to be paid to the State, that is, to the Minister of Finance.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, the Tribunal will judge for itself, we have the evidence.

Now, Hilgard, representing the insurance companies, then raised the question that the amount of glass insurance premium was very important, that glass insurance was the companies’ greatest asset, “but the amount of the damage now caused is twice as high as in an ordinary year,” and he pointed out that the whole of the profits of the German insurance companies would be absorbed, did he not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And also the question of the number of the stores destroyed—Heydrich reported 7,500, is that right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to the following conversation.

Daluege . . .

Who, by the way, was he?

GÖRING: Daluege was the leader of the Schutzpolizei.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “One question has still to be discussed. Most of the goods in the stores were not the property of the shopkeepers but were on consignment from other firms which had supplied them. Now the unpaid invoices are being sent in by these firms, which are certainly not all Jewish, but Aryan, in respect to these goods on consignment.

“Hilgard: We will have to pay for them too.

“Göring: I wish you had killed 200 Jews instead of destroying such valuables.

“Heydrich: There were 35 killed.”

Do I read that correctly?

GÖRING: Yes, this was said in a moment of bad temper and excitement.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Spontaneously sincere, wasn’t it?

GÖRING: As I said, it was not meant seriously. It was the expression of spontaneous excitement caused by the events, and by the destruction of valuables, and by the difficulties which arose. Of course, if you are going to bring up every word I said in the course of 25 years in these circles, I myself could give you instances of even stronger remarks.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then Funk interposed to discuss the foreign exchange point, did he not? He contributed to the discussion, did he not, for a while? I will not bother to go into it.

GÖRING: Yes, but not everything is put down in the minutes, which are not clear on this point. I regret the minutes are incomplete. That is strange.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I join you in that.

Hilgard returned again to the subject of the profit of the insurance companies, did he not?

GÖRING: Yes, of course.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you made this statement, did you not?

“The Jew must report the damage. He will get the insurance money, but it will be confiscated. The final result will be that the insurance companies will gain something, as not all damages will have to be made good. Hilgard, you can consider yourself damned lucky.

“Hilgard: I have no reason for that. The fact that we shall not have to pay for all the damage is called a profit.

“Göring: Just a moment. If you are legally bound to pay 5 millions and all of a sudden an angel, in my somewhat corpulent shape, appears before you and tells you you may keep 1 million, hang it, is this not a profit? I should like to go 50-50 with you or whatever you call it. I only have to look at you, your whole body exudes satisfaction. You are getting a big rake-off.”

Am I quoting correctly?

GÖRING: Yes, of course, I said all that.

THE PRESIDENT: We will break off now.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess): Mr. President, the Defendant Hess has expressed the wish to be excused from attending this afternoon’s session, because he wants to prepare himself for his examination as a witness, which will take place in the next few days. I do not believe that this will cause a delay in the proceedings, and I should like to ask the Tribunal to grant this request.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, on the same conditions as before, namely, that you arrange with somebody to protect your interests while you are absent.

DR. SEIDL: I will not be absent myself, only Hess.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [To the witness.] I would like to call your attention again to the Exhibit USA-261, Document 1816-PS. Would you turn to Part 5, where you were speaking of Margraf’s jewels that disappeared?

GÖRING: That is going back to something already dealt with.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, for a time, to Part 5. I call your attention to your statement as follows:

“Now we come to the damage sustained by the Jew, the disappearance of the jewels at Margraf’s, et cetera. Well, they are gone and he will not get them refunded. He is the one who has to suffer the damage. Any of the jewels which may be returned by the police will belong to the State.”

Do you find that?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct, but on the basis of the laws he was compensated for that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, there was a representative of Austria present at this meeting, was there not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I ask you to turn to his statement in reference to conditions in Austria, a page or so farther on.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I ask you whether he did not report to your meeting as follows:

“Your Excellency, in this matter, we have already a very complete plan for Austria. There are 12,000 Jewish workshops and 5,000 Jewish retail shops in Vienna. Even before the National Socialist revolution we already had, concerning these 17,000 shops, a definite plan for dealing with all tradesmen. Of the 12,000 workshops about 10,000 were to be closed definitely . . .”

GÖRING: The interpreter did not follow . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you find it?

GÖRING: I have found it, but the interpreter has not.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Regarding this total of 17,000 stores, of the shops of the 12,000 artisans, about 10,000 were to be closed definitely and 2,000 were to be kept open. Four thousand of the 5,000 retail stores were to be closed and 1,000 kept open, that is, were to be Aryanized. According to this plan, 3,000 to 3,500 of the total of 17,000 stores would be kept open, all others closed. This was decided following investigations in every single branch and according to local needs, in agreement with all competent authorities, and is ready for publication as soon as we shall receive the law which we requested in September. This law shall empower us to withdraw licenses from artisans quite independently of the Jewish question. That would be quite a short law.

“Göring: I shall have this decree issued today.”

GÖRING: Of course. This concerns a law for the curtailment of the heavy retail trade which, even apart from the Jewish question, would have reduced the number of retailers. That can be seen from the minutes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Very well, let us go on a little further. Do you mean to inform the Tribunal that this did not apply to Jewish shops; that it had no connection with the Jewish question?

GÖRING: I have said that independently of the Jewish question, in view of the overfilled retail trade, a limitation of the number of tradesmen would have followed, and that it can be seen from the following statement by Mr. Fischböck, which you have read, that I asked for a law which would authorize us to withdraw licenses, without any connection with the Jewish question. That would be a brief law. Whereupon I answered, “I will issue the decree today.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, if you will . . .

GÖRING: Naturally, above all, Jewish stores were to be eliminated, as I said in the beginning.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Please go on down two paragraphs to where this was reported:

“But I do not believe that there will be 100 stores, probably fewer; and thus, by the end of the year, we would have liquidated all the recognized Jewish-owned businesses.

“Göring: That would be excellent.

“Fischböck: . . .”

GÖRING: Yes, yes, that was the import of that meeting.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Fischböck: Out of 17,000 stores 12,000 or 14,000 would be shut down and the remainder Aryanized or handed over to the Trustee’s office, which belongs to the State.

“Göring: I have to say that this proposal is grand. This way the whole affair in Vienna, one of the Jewish capitals so to speak, would be wound up by Christmas or by the end of the year.

“Funk: We can do the same thing here. I have prepared a law elaborating that. Effective 1 January 1939, Jews shall be prohibited from operating retail stores and wholesale establishments, as well as independent workshops. They shall be further prohibited from keeping employees, or offering any ready-made products on the market; from advertising or receiving orders. Whenever a Jewish shop is operated the police shall shut it down.

“From 1 January 1939 a Jew can no longer be head of an enterprise, as stipulated in the law for the organization of national labor of 20 January 1934. If a Jew has a leading position in an establishment without being the head of the enterprise, his contract may be declared void within 6 weeks by the head of the enterprise. With the expiration of this period all claims of the employee, including all claims to maintenance, become invalid. That is always very disagreeable and a great danger. A Jew cannot be a member of a corporation. Jewish members of corporations will have to be retired by 31 December 1938. A special authorization is unnecessary. The competent ministers of the Reich are being authorized to issue the provision necessary for execution of this law.

“Göring: I believe we can agree with this law.”

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now I ask you to pass a considerable dialogue relating to the Vienna situation, and I call your attention to the point at which Funk inquires of you:

“Why should the Jew not be allowed to keep bonds?

“Göring: Because in that way he would actually be given a share.”

GÖRING: Yes, that was the purpose, to get him out of the enterprise. If he kept the bonds, on the basis of his rights as stockholder he still had an interest in the enterprise, and on the basis of ownership of stocks his will would still carry weight in the enterprise.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You turned Funk’s suggestion down that the Jews be allowed to keep bonds?

GÖRING: Yes. I replaced the bonds with securities.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we will pass several more pages of debate, unless there is something you want to call attention to; and I come to the point where Heydrich is stating his position. I call your attention to this dialogue:

“Heydrich: At least 45,000 Jews were made to leave the country by legal measures.

“Göring: . . .”

GÖRING: One moment, please. I find it now.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “At least 45,000 Jews were made to leave the country by legal measures.

“Göring: How was this possible?”

And then Heydrich tells you that: “. . . through the Jewish societies we extracted a certain amount of money from the rich Jews who wanted to emigrate. By paying this amount and an additional sum in foreign currency they made it possible for a number of poor Jews to leave. The problem was not to make the rich Jews leave but to get rid of the Jewish mob.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: One moment. I do not find it here yet, but generally that is correct, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Pass on a little further. Heydrich is making suggestions and says:

“As for the isolating, I would like to make a few proposals regarding police measures, which are important also because of their psychological effect on public opinion.

“For example, anybody who is Jewish according to the Nuremberg Laws will have to wear a certain badge. That is a possibility which will facilitate many other things. I see no danger of excesses, and it will make our relationship with the foreign Jews easier.

“Göring: A uniform?

“Heydrich: A badge. In this way we could put an end to foreign Jews being molested who do not look different from ours.

“Göring: But my dear Heydrich, you will not be able to avoid the creation of ghettos on a very large scale in all the cities. They will have to be created.”

Is that what you said?

GÖRING: I said that. At that time the problem was also to get the Jews together in certain parts of the cities and in certain streets, because on the basis of the tenancy regulations there was no other possibility, and if the wearing of badges was to be made obligatory, each individual Jew could have been protected.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, passing further in the discussion, I call your attention to this warning from Heydrich about, the measures which have been discussed:

“Göring: Once we have a ghetto, we could determine what stores ought to be there and we would be able to say, ‘You, Jew so and so, together with so and so, shall take care of the delivery of goods,’ then a German wholesale firm will be ordered to deliver the goods for this Jewish store. The store would then not be a retail shop but a co-operative store, a co-operative society for Jews.

“Heydrich: All these measures will eventually lead to the institution of a ghetto. I must say: nowadays one should not want to set up a ghetto, but these measures, if carried through as outlined here, will automatically drive the Jews into a ghetto.”

Did Heydrich give that warning?

GÖRING: Here it says so, yes, but it can be seen from the following discussion that I said: “Now comes that which Goebbels mentioned before, compulsory renting. Now the Jewish tenants will come together.” It was a question of the Jewish tenants drawing together in order to avoid the disagreeable results which arose from reciprocal subletting.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have omitted that Funk also remarked at this point that “Jews will have to stand together. What are 3 million? Every one will have to stand up for the next fellow. Alone he will starve.”

Do you find that?

GÖRING: Yes. But in another part of these minutes it is stated very clearly: “One cannot let the Jews starve, and therefore the necessary measures must be taken.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Toward the close of that meeting you said the following, didn’t you?

“I demand that German Jewry as a whole shall, as a punishment for the abominable crimes, et cetera, make a contribution of 1,000,000,000 marks. That will work. The pigs will not commit a second murder so quickly. Incidentally, I would like to say again that I would not like to be a Jew in Germany.”

GÖRING: That was correct, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Were you joking about that too?

GÖRING: I have told you exactly what led to the fine of 1,000,000,000.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You pointed out that the chauffeurs of Gauleiter must be prevented from enriching themselves through the Aryanization of Jewish property, right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We will now take up the subject of art.

I call your attention to Document 141-PS, Exhibit Number USA-308. That is the decree establishing priorities on the claim for Jewish art property. Do you recall that?

GÖRING: That has been mentioned several times, and I have recently spoken about it in detail.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The order was issued as here stated, was it not?

GÖRING: Yes, certainly; I emphasized that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In Paragraph 5 reference is made to art objects that are suitable to be given to French museums, and which were to be sold by auction. The profit from this auction was to be given to the French State for the benefit of war widows and children. You say that this was never done?

GÖRING: I did not say that this never happened. That was my intention in that decree.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I am asking you if it ever has been done.

GÖRING: As far as Paragraph 5 is concerned, I cannot say. I can only refer to the payments mentioned in Paragraph 2—the things that I pointed out:—which I had had effected after an estimate, and I said the other day that this amount was kept in readiness and that I repeatedly asked into which account it should be paid. And among the objects destined to go into the collection which I was to make, I had every single item valued.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Where was this amount kept?

GÖRING: In my bank, under the name “Art Funds.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In what bank?

GÖRING: It was—I cannot say for sure, there were several banks—in which bank exactly the art fund was deposited, I cannot say. I would have to have the documents here for that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In the several interrogations you have never been able to point out where that fund is, have you?

GÖRING: I cannot say, but you would only have to question my secretary who kept account of all the funds; she can tell you quite accurately.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This order, 141-PS, was carried out by the Rosenberg Special Staff (Einsatzstab), wasn’t it?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you know who carried it out, who actually was there? Did you know Turner?

GÖRING: I did not understand the name.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you know Mr. Turner?

GÖRING: I know a certain Turner, who, however, had nothing to do with the Einsatzstab, the Rosenberg Special Staff and who, as far as I know, was in Yugoslavia.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Wasn’t State Counsellor Turner in Paris in connection with the art collections?

GÖRING: I repeat again so that no error is possible, you said Turner, T-u-r-n-e-r, or Körner, K-ö-r-n-e-r?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Turner.

GÖRING: Körner?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: T-u-r-n-e-r.

GÖRING: Turner—I do not know whether he had anything to do with Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But you knew him, did you not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And did you know a Dr. Bunjes?

GÖRING: Bunjes, B-u-n-j-e-s, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You knew him?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: He had to do with captured or confiscated Jewish art treasures, did he not?

GÖRING: I do not believe that Dr. Bunjes had anything to do with that. He was competent in a different field of art; but the Einsatzstab Rosenberg and certain departments of the military administration, had something to do with it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask to have you shown, so that you can follow me, to refresh your memory, Document 2523-PS, Exhibit Number USA-783, a letter from Dr. Bunjes, and ask you if this refreshes your recollection of certain events.

“On Tuesday, 4 February 1941, at 1830 hours I was ordered for the first time to report to the Reich Marshal at the Quai d’Orsay. Field Commander Von Behr of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg was present. It is, of course, difficult to describe in words the cordial atmosphere in which the conversation was held.”

Do you recall such a meeting?

GÖRING: No, it was not important enough for me to remember it, but I do not deny it, in any case.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We shall see if this refreshes your recollection:

“The Reich Marshal dropped the subject for the time being and asked for the report of the present state of the seizure of Jewish art property in the occupied western territories. On this occasion he gave Herr Von Behr the photographs of those objects of art that the Führer wants to bring into his possession. In addition, he gave Herr Von Behr the photographs of those objects of art that the Reich Marshal wants to acquire for himself.”

GÖRING: I cannot follow here.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You mean you do not find these words, or you do not recall the events?

GÖRING: No, I have not found the passage yet, and I would like to have a little time to see the context of this letter, which was neither written by me nor addressed to me.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me call your attention to a further paragraph of it and see if it does not refresh your recollection:

“On Wednesday, 5 February 1941, I was ordered to the Jeu de Paume by the Reich Marshal. At 1500 o’clock, the Reich Marshal, accompanied by General Hanesse, Herr Angerer, and Herr Hofer, visited the exhibition of Jewish art treasures newly set up there.”

GÖRING: Yes, I have already stated before that at Jeu de Paume I selected the art treasures which were exhibited there. That is right.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right; now we are getting there.

“Then, with me as his guide, the Reich Marshal inspected the exhibited art treasures and made a selection of those works of art which were to go to the Führer, and those which were to be placed in his own collection.

“During this confidential conversation, I again called the Reich Marshal’s attention to the fact that a note of protest had been received from the French Government against the activity of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg, with reference to the Hague Rules on Land Warfare recognized by Germany at the Armistice of Compiegne and I pointed out that General Von Stülpnagel’s interpretation of the manner in which the confiscated Jewish art treasures are to be treated, was apparently contrary to the Reich Marshal’s interpretation. Thereupon, the Reich Marshal asked for a detailed explanation and gave the following orders:

“‘First, it is my orders that you have to follow. You will act directly according to my orders. The art objects collected in the Jeu de Paume are to be loaded on a special train immediately and taken to Germany by order of the Reich Marshal. These art objects which are to go into the Führer’s possession, and those art objects which the Reich Marshal claims for himself, will be loaded on two railroad cars which will be attached to the Reich Marshal’s special train, and upon his departure for Germany, at the beginning of next week, will be taken along to Berlin. Feldführer Von Behr will accompany the Reich Marshal in his special train on the journey to Berlin.’

“When I made the objection that the jurists would probably be of a different opinion and that protests would most likely be made by the military commander in France, the Reich Marshal answered, saying verbatim as follows, ‘Dear Bunjes, let me worry about that; I am the highest jurist in the State.’

“The Reich Marshal promised to send from his headquarters by courier to the Chief of the Military Administrative District of Paris on Thursday, 6 February, the written order for the transfer to Germany of the confiscated Jewish art treasures.”

Now, does that refresh your memory?

GÖRING: Not in the least, but it is not at all in contradiction to what I have said with respect to the art treasures, with the exception of one sentence. It is pure nonsense that I should have said that I was the highest jurist in the state because that, thank God, I was not. That is something which Mr. Bunjes said, and I cannot be held responsible for every statement which anyone may have made to somebody else without my having any possibility of correcting it. As for the rest, it corresponds to the statement I made recently.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the art objects then were loaded on cars and shipped to Berlin, were they not?

GÖRING: A part of them, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I now call your attention to, and ask to have you shown, Document 014-PS, Exhibit Number USA-784. Now, I ask you to refresh your recollection by following this report to the Führer with me, and tell me if this conforms with your testimony:

“I report the arrival . . .”

GÖRING: I would like to point out that this report did not come from me.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I understand that. I am asking if it is right or wrong.

“I report the arrival of the principal shipment of ownerless Jewish treasures of art at the salvage point Neuschwanstein by special train on Saturday the 15th of this month. It was secured by my Einsatzstab, in Paris. The special train, arranged for by Reich Marshal Hermann Göring, comprised 25 express baggage cars filled with the most valuable paintings, furniture, Gobelin tapestries, works of artistic craftmanship, and ornaments. The shipment consisted mainly of the most important parts of the collections of Rothschild, Seligmann”—and half a dozen others.

Have you found that and is it correct?

GÖRING: I do not know whether this is correct, since the report did not come from me. The only thing which I can remember is that I was asked by the Einsatzstab to see to it that a sufficient number of special cars, box cars was put at their disposal to ship the art treasures, since Jeu de Paume was not a safe place in case of air attacks. Neuschwanstein lies south of Munich. This concerns the objects destined for the Führer.

I should like, however, to refer to the next sentence of this document, which was not written by me. It goes as follows:

“The confiscation actions of my Einsatzstab were begun in October 1940 in Paris according to your order, my Führer.”

That coincides with what I have said in my previous statements.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And would you care to read further?

GÖRING: You mean where it says:

“Besides this special train, the main art objects selected by the Reich Marshal—mainly from the Rothschild collection—had previously been shipped in two special cars to Munich and were there put into the air raid shelter of the Führerhaus.”

They are those most precious works of art which I had designated for the Führer, and which were to be sent, at the wish of the Führer, to the air raid shelter. This had nothing to do directly with my affairs, but I did not dispute the fact, and I have explained it in detail.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When you were examined by the American Foreign Assets Commission, you estimated your art objects as having a value, at the time you turned them over to the government, of 50 million Reichsmark, as I recall it. Am I right?

GÖRING: That is not quite correct. The Commission insisted on a valuation, and the discussion continued a long time backwards and forward. I expressly told the Commission that I could not assess the value because I did not have the objects in hand nor a list of them, and I could not quote them from memory; furthermore, that the estimates were subject to fluctuation depending on the one hand upon the prices art lovers might pay and, on the other, upon the actual market value. Since I did not see a copy of the minutes, in spite of my pleas, and especially as minutes of this nature often give rise to misunderstandings, I can only acknowledge the records which I have signed.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, do you question this fact? “When I gave the news to the Minister of Finance I estimated the value at that time at 50 million marks.” Did you say that or did you not?

GÖRING: I cannot estimate the value. I only told the Finance Minister that the entire collection, including my own, would be turned over to the State. And since I know my passion for collecting, I thought that it was quite possible that something might suddenly happen to me, and that as I had put my entire fortune into these works of art, the entire collection might possibly become State, that is, public property, and my family would thus be deprived of every means of subsistence. I therefore asked him to provide for a pension or some compensation for my family. That was the negotiation with the Finance Minister, to which he can testify.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What proportion of your art collection was acquired after 1933?

GÖRING: I did not understand the question.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What proportion of your art collection was acquired after 1933?

GÖRING: That I could not say in detail—quite a number of pictures and statues.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you have claimed that some part of your art collection you bought?

GÖRING: Certainly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And in connection with that some inquiry was made into your financial transactions, was there not?

GÖRING: I do not know who made the inquiries.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you were asked, were you not, about your receipt of 7,276,000 Reichsmark from the Reemtsma cigarette factory?

GÖRING: No, I was never asked about that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were never asked about it?

GÖRING: No, neither about the amount nor about the cigarette factory, nor anything else.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me refresh your recollection about that. Did you not tell them and did you not tell Colonel Amen in interrogations that this money was given to you by this cigarette factory and that their back taxes were canceled?

GÖRING: No, I even denied that their back taxes were ever canceled. I remember now that the question was put to me in a different connection. A sum of money was set aside for the so-called Adolf Hitler Fund, and this amount the Führer put at my disposal for general cultural tasks.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: By the cigarette factory?

GÖRING: Not by the cigarette factory; a number of business men subscribed to the Adolf Hitler Fund, and Mr. Reemtsma gave me this sum from the fund in the course of the years, after agreement with the Führer. A part of it was allotted to the State theaters, another part for building up art collections, and other cultural expenditure.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you were interrogated on the 22d day of December 1945 by the External Assets Branch of the United States Investigation of Cartels and External Assets, were you not?

GÖRING: May I first say explicitly that I had been asked whether I would be ready to make any statements about it, and was told that these statements would in no way be connected with this Trial. Therefore the presence of my defense counsel would not be necessary. This was expressly told me, and was repeated to me by the prison authorities, and before the interrogation it was again confirmed to me that these statements should in no way be brought in in connection with this Trial. However, that is all the same to me. You may produce them as far as I am concerned. But because of the method employed, I desire to have this made known here.

DR. STAHMER: I protest against the use of the statements for the reason that has just been given by the witness. I myself sometime ago—I think it was around Christmas—was asked by, I believe, members of the United States Treasury whether they could interrogate the Defendant Göring on questions of property, adding expressly that I did not have to be present at the interrogation because this had nothing to do with the Trial, and would not be used for it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am not able either to affirm or deny, and therefore I will not pursue this subject further at this time. I do not believe that any stipulation was made that these facts should not be gone into. I was not informed of it, and if there has been, of course, it would be absurd.

[Turning to the witness.] Now, you were asked about receiving some art objects from Monte Cassino.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask you if it is not the fact that an altar statue taken from the Cassino Abbey was brought and delivered to you, and that you expressed great appreciation for it.

GÖRING: I am glad to be able to clarify this affair also. After the monastery of Monte Cassino had been completely destroyed by shelling and had been defended by a paratroop division, a delegation arrived one day bringing along a statue of some saint, entirely worthless from an artistic point of view, as a souvenir of this destroyed monastery. I thanked the men and showed the statue to the curator of my art collection, and he also considered the statue as of absolutely no value. It then remained in the box and was put away somewhere. The other . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think this is coming through sufficiently loud for the shorthand writers to hear.

GÖRING: The rest of the art treasures from Monte Cassino, according to my knowledge, were shipped in the following manner: A large part, especially those objects which belonged to the old monastery itself, was sent to the Vatican. I must assume this from the fact that the abbot of the monastery sent me and my division a letter written in Latin in which he expressed his extreme gratitude for this action.

Secondly, as far as I remember, the art treasures from the museum in Naples, which were at Monte Cassino, were for the greater part sent by us to Venice and there turned over to the Italian Government. Some pictures and statues were brought to Berlin, and there they were turned over to me. On the very same day I gave the list to the Führer, and some time later also the objects themselves which were in my air raid shelter, so that he could negotiate about the matter with Mussolini. I did not keep a single one of these objects for my own collection. If my troops had not intervened, these priceless art treasures, which were stored in Monte Cassino and belonged to the monastery there, would have been entirely destroyed by enemy bombardment, that is to say, by the British-American attackers. Thus they have been saved.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you say of no value—no substantial value?

GÖRING: That is even now my conviction, and I depended, above all, on the judgment of my experts. I never took this statue out of its packing case. It did not interest me. On the other hand, I wanted to say a few words of thanks to the men who brought it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The labor shortage in the Reich was becoming acute by November of 1941, was it not?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you yourself gave the directives for the employment of Russian prisoners of war, did you not?

GÖRING: Employment for what?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: For war industry—tanks, artillery pieces, airplane parts.

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That was at the conference of the 7th of November 1941, that you gave that order, was it not?

GÖRING: At what conference that was I could not tell you; I issued these directives only in a general way.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the directive was that Russian prisoners of war should be selected in collecting camps beyond the Reich border, and should be transported as rapidly as possible and employed in the following order of priority: mining, railroad maintenance, war industry—tanks, artillery pieces, airplane parts, agriculture, building industry, et cetera. You gave that order, did you not?

GÖRING: If I have signed it, the order is from me. I do not remember details.

THE PRESIDENT: What was the number of that, Mr. Jackson?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask to have you shown Document Number 1193-PS.

GÖRING: I have not seen it yet.

[Document 1193-PS was submitted to the witness.]

This document, which you have just mentioned . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I did not get the answer.

GÖRING: Excuse me. I have just received a document about the use of Russian troops. Is that the document of which you speak?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. I call your attention to the fact that it is referred to as an annex in the letter signed by Göring.

GÖRING: I want to point out that this document is not signed by me, but by Körner, which, however, does not diminish my responsibility.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you do not question that on the 7th day of November 1941, you gave the order, as Körner reports it, do you, in the document referred to as 1193-PS?

GÖRING: I said only that it was not signed by me but by Körner, and here even a still younger official, a Regierungsrat, and I wanted only to explain that this was my field and that therefore I assume responsibility. But I have not read it through yet. This deals with directives and outlines which I gave in general and which were then filled in and revised by the department concerned, whereby naturally not every word or every sentence written here was said or dictated by myself. But that does not alter the fact that I bear the responsibility for it, even if I did not know it in detail, or would have perhaps formulated it differently. But the general directives were given by me and implemented accordingly by the lesser authorities.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You also gave the order, did you not, that 100,000 men were to be taken from among the French prisoners of war not yet employed in armament industry? Gaps in manpower resulting therefrom will be filled by Soviet prisoners of war. The transfer of the above-named French prisoners of war is to be accomplished by October the 1st. You gave the order, did you not?

GÖRING: That is correct. Here we deal primarily with the fact that a large part of French skilled workers who were prisoners of war were turned into free workers on condition that they worked in the German armament industry. The shortages which occurred at their previous places of work at that time, where they had worked as prisoners of war, were to be remedied by Russian prisoners of war, because I considered it pointless that qualified skilled industrial workers should be employed in agriculture, for instance, or in any other field not corresponding to their abilities. Thus there was an incentive in the fact that these people could become free workers instead of remaining prisoners of war, if they would agree to these conditions. The directives were given by me.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And did you know that there was any forced labor employed in Germany?

GÖRING: Compulsory labor.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not testify under interrogation on the 3rd of October 1945, that:

“I would like to add something to the last question of the interrogation. The Colonel asked me if the forced labor program was effective, and I said ‘Yes’. There are two remarks I would like to make to that.

“All right.

“I must say that in the results as such it was effective. However, a great number of acts of sabotage did occur, and also treason and espionage.

“Question: But on the whole you would say it was a successful program from the German point of view?

“Answer: Yes. Without this manpower many things could never have been achieved.”

Did you say that?

GÖRING: That is obvious, because without workers one cannot do any work.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you answered the question. The question was if you said the forced labor had been a success. What do you have to say to that? Did you say that?

GÖRING: I have said what I did in answering the question whether the manpower used was successful; yes, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you were shown a document, 3700-PS, written by Schacht to you, and you have said that you received it?

GÖRING: Yes, I remember.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you and Schacht were somewhat rivals in the economic field at one period, were you not?

GÖRING: I explained that only recently, and to what extent.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You wanted his position abolished in the event of war and he wanted your position abolished in event of war, did he not—your economic position?

GÖRING: Not quite. They were two similar authorities having similar powers at the same time, two personalities, and that in the long run was not possible. It simply had to be decided which one of the two should be the sole authority. That would have been especially necessary in case of a mobilization.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You, in testifying on the 17th day of October last, as to your relations with Schacht, made this statement, did you not, in reference to your disagreements with Schacht: “This I must underline: Schacht always tried to maneuver for a new post, while all the other ministers co-operated absolutely.” Did you say that?

GÖRING: Not exactly as it is there, but I wanted to emphasize that, contrary to the other ministers who obediently followed my directives for the Four Year Plan, I had certain difficulties with Schacht, which I have already explained, due to his original and strong personality.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The question was whether you made that statement in substance or in those words?

GÖRING: Not exactly in these words, but as I have just explained, in substance.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, do you have in mind Schacht’s letter to you, Document Number 3700-PS?

GÖRING: Yes, I read it a short time ago.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And in that letter Schacht said this to you, did he not, referring to 3700-PS? “It may be militarily necessary . . .” Do you want to follow it?

[Document 3700-PS was submitted to the witness.]

“It may be militarily necessary to conscript the 15-year-olds, but it will heavily tax the fighting morale of the German people. The facts as the German people see them are as follows:

“First, the original prospect of a short war has not been realized.

“Second, the prospective quick victory over England by the Air Force did not materialize.

“Third, the public statement that Germany would remain free of enemy air raids has not been fulfilled.

“Fourth, the repeated announcements that the Russian resistance was definitely broken have been proved to be untrue.

“Fifth, Allied supplies of arms to Russia, and the manpower reserves of Russia have, on the contrary, been sufficient to bring continuous heavy counterattacks against our Eastern Front.

“Sixth, the original victorious advance into Egypt has been halted after repeated attempts.

“Seventh, the landing of the Allies in North and West Africa, declared impossible, has nevertheless been accomplished.

“Eighth, the extremely large amount of shipping space which was required for this landing has shown that our U-boats, in spite of their great successes, did not suffice to prevent this transport. In addition, the reductions in civilian traffic, in material for armaments, and in the availability of manpower are obvious to all the people.

“The conscription of the 15-year-olds will increase the doubts concerning the termination of this war.”

Can you fix any more definitely than you have done the date when you received that letter?

GÖRING: I can only say again that it is dated the 3rd of November, but the year is missing. If I were to be given a copy where the year is stated, I could give an exact answer. I have said recently that, according to my knowledge of events, it is a question of either November 1944 or November 1943. But, unfortunately, that is not indicated here. I can only see 3rd of November. The year is missing.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you know when Schacht was sent to the concentration camp? Do you know the date of that?

GÖRING: Not exactly, but now that you remind me of it, I can say that this letter certainly was not written in 1944 because in November 1944, I believe, Mr. Schacht was already in the concentration camp; consequently, it must date back to November 1943.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And he was sent to the concentration camp shortly after dispatching that letter to you, wasn’t he?

GÖRING: No, that is not correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: How much longer was he at large?

GÖRING: The letter is of 3 November 1943, as we have just found. I heard about the arrest of Schacht only after the attempt on the life of the Führer and after my return a few days later, after an illness of some time, that is to say, in September 1944. There is not the least connection between this letter and his arrest, because, when I asked about his arrest, I was told definitely it was in connection with the 20th of July.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you make an agreement, as Supreme Commander of the Air Force, with the Reichsführer SS, the Youth Führer of the German Reich, and the Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern Territories, about the recruiting of youthful Russians, Ukrainians, White Russians, Lithuanians, and Tartars between the ages of 15 and 20? Did you come to some agreement with Himmler and Rosenberg about that?

GÖRING: That I personally concluded such an agreement, I do not think so. It is possible and even probable that my office did so, however.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you have testified yesterday or the day before—I think Friday—as follows; let me refresh your recollection about the questions of confiscations.

“Now, about the question of confiscation of State property and it was only such property that was confiscated. As far as I know, private property is mentioned in the official report as far as the winter of 1941 and 1942 is concerned, that might have been the case in the matter of furs or perhaps fur boots, and some soldiers may have taken little odds and ends from the people; but on the whole there was no private property and so none could be confiscated.”

And I think you also said that you never took anything, not even so much as a screw or a bolt, when you were in occupation of foreign territory. Do you recall that testimony?

GÖRING: Very exactly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you still stand on it?

GÖRING: Of course.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask to have you shown a Document EC-317.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, that is a secret command matter, is it not, dated the 7th of September 1943? Is that right?

GÖRING: I have a letter here before me of 21 February 1944.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you have the wrong exhibit—EC-317, Page 3.

GÖRING: Yes; Page 3.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This letter of transmittal we will not bother about. Your secret command matter is dated 7 September 1943, is it not?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it reads as follows:

“Concerning the removal of the harvested crops and the destruction of the means of production in the agricultural and food economy in parts of the Occupied Eastern Territories.

“By direction of the Führer, I give the following orders:

“First: In the territories east of the line fixed by the highest military command, the following measures are to be taken gradually, according to the military situation at the time. The measures are to be determined by the commanders of the army groups:

“(1) All agricultural products, means of production, and machinery of enterprises serving the agriculture and food industry are to be removed.

“(2) The factories serving the food economy, both in the field of production and of processing, are to be destroyed.

“(3) The basis of agricultural production, especially the records and establishments, storage plants, et cetera, of the organizations responsible for the food economy, are to be destroyed.

“(4) The population engaged in the agricultural and food economy is to be transported into the territory west of the fixed line.”

Right?

GÖRING: Absolutely correct; but I want to make the following statement in connection with it. We are dealing here with purely military measures in a retreat, and may I comment on these four points: I emphasized the other day that a great number of agricultural machines had been brought to Russia by us. As the Russians, in their retreat, destroyed everything, we had all the less military reason to allow the machinery of industries which we had set up and brought there to fall into their hands undestroyed. This concerns an urgently necessary military order which had been issued during a retreat, and which was executed in the same way as before in the reverse sense. It does not deal with any sort of private property.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it was signed by you?

GÖRING: Yes, this order bears my signature.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am about to go into a different subject, may it please Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will adjourn now.

[A recess was taken.]

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask that the witness be shown a document, 3786-PS, of which there are no extra copies available because it came to us so late. I will ask you to examine that and tell me whether you recall the meeting to which these minutes refer?

GÖRING: We are apparently concerned here with a report dealing with a meeting which took place daily with the Führer. As meetings occurred once or twice daily, I naturally cannot, with any accuracy, without first having read the report, recall the report of 27 January 1945, for I was present at a great number of these meetings during the course of the war.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I shall call your attention to specific incidents in it. The minutes indicate that the Führer, yourself, Keitel, and Jodl were present, were they not?

GÖRING: That is according to the notes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I will call your attention to Page 31 and ask you to follow with me the notes and see if it refreshes your recollection. Now this relates to 10,000 imprisoned air force officers. I quote what is attributed to you.

“Göring: Near Sagan, there are 10,000 imprisoned air force officers. Their custody is the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief of the Reserve Army (B.d.E.). Personnel for guarding or transporting them is said to be lacking. The suggestion was made as to whether the prisoners should not be left to their Soviet Russian allies. It would give them 10,000 airmen.

“The Führer: Why did you not remove them earlier? This is an unequaled bungling.

“Göring: That is the business of the commander of the B.d.E. We have nothing to do with it. I can only report it.

“The Führer: They must be removed, even if they have to go on foot. The Volkssturm must be called in. Anyone who escapes will be shot. Any means must be used.

“Göring: That is from Sagan, there are 10,000 men.

“Guderian: In the transfer process the 4th Armored Division has been moved out completely, also the 227th Division; the remainder of the 32d Division is now moving out. The next in line is the Headquarters of the 3rd SS Panzer Corps which will move tonight, and tomorrow night the Division Niederland, which has already pulled out. Parts of the Division Nordland have also been withdrawn from the front.

“The Führer: Are they to get replacements? Are they already on the move?

“Guderian: Fegelein took care of that. He has already ordered that they should be replenished immediately.

“The Führer: It is absolutely clear that the Army Group Vistula has nothing, for the time being, besides the Corps Nehring, the one group, and what it has on the Vistula. This must be organized. It will come from here and partly from Germany. It must be done, notwithstanding.

“Göring: How many cattle cars are needed for 10,000 men?

“The Führer: If we transport them according to German standards, then we need at least 20 transport trains for 10,000 men. If we transport them according to Russian standards, we need 5 or 3.

“Göring: Take their pants and boots off so that they cannot walk in the snow.”

Do you recall that incident?

GÖRING: I remember this incident but vaguely.

Now that I have given the answer I would like to give a short explanation of the value of this document.

I understood that this document has just now arrived, but I have already been interrogated with respect to this document long before the beginning of the proceedings. Already at that time I pointed out that at the stenographic recording of a meeting two stenographers took notes at the same time, since the meetings often lasted 4 or 5 hours, and therefore these stenographic notes always had to be gone over afterwards, especially as frequently, because of the presence of many men, inaccuracies occurred in the recordings so that statements made by one person were credited to another in the minutes. For that reason I said at that time already that not only did I not remember this statement, but that in my opinion I have never made this statement. We were concerned solely with the preparation of motor vehicles for transport.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I must say that you were interrogated with reference to the incident, but not with reference to these notes which were not transcribed.

GÖRING: In respect to this transcript and this incident, it was especially emphasized that we were concerned with the stenotype record of the report of the meeting, and I already uttered a similar opinion at that time. It was not submitted to me at that time.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Not stenotype, but stenographic.

You are also reported on Page 35. I call your attention to this and ask you, is it attributed to you mistakenly?

“Göring: The 10,000 prisoners in Sagan should be transported away by Obergruppenführer Jüttner.” Perhaps I do not pronounce the word as you would.

“The Führer: These prisoners must be removed by all available means. Volkssturm must be employed with the most energetic men. All who attempt to flee will be shot.

“Fegelein: We have a man for that who guards the concentration camps. That is Gruppenführer Glücks. He must do the job.”

Did that occur?

GÖRING: That I do not know. I have already testified before that the B.d.E. had to take charge of the transportation, because we had nothing to do with it. What ideas and opinions the other gentlemen expressed in the discussions I cannot completely testify to, or state here. It was a question of whether these 10,000 were to be surrendered or shipped away.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask you a question or two about the Warsaw bombing. Was it known to you that on the 3rd of September, the house of the Ambassador of the United States, situated some 17 kilometers out of Warsaw, was bombed by the German Air Force?

GÖRING: No; that is unknown to me.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your Air Force took a good many pictures of the Polish villages and of Warsaw and used them for distributing among the German people, didn’t they?

GÖRING: That is possible, I was not concerned with that. In any event, the Luftwaffe did not distribute pictures to the German people. It is possible that pictures taken by the Luftwaffe might have got into the German press by way of the Propaganda Ministry. But distribution, in the sense of the Luftwaffe’s distributing photographs like leaflets, never occurred.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The Luftwaffe did take the pictures for the purpose of determining the efficiency of its hits, did it not?

GÖRING: The Luftwaffe took pictures before the target was bombed, and again after the target had been bombed, to determine whether the target had actually been hit.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask to have you shown five photographs and ask you if those are not photographs taken by the Luftwaffe, following the attack on Poland.

[Photographs were shown to the witness.]

GÖRING: To answer the first question, whether the pictures had actually been taken by the German Air Force, I regret I cannot give a positive answer for there is no indication that these were made by the German Air Force. Four out of the five pictures were, if you observe them closely, taken from an oblique angle, as though they had been taken from a church steeple rather than from an airplane, from which generally only vertical pictures are taken because of the built-in camera.

The picture showing the destruction of parts of Warsaw can be regarded technically as such an aerial photo. The date is lacking here. But none of these pictures give any proof that they were taken by the Luftwaffe.

However, let us assume that they were taken by the Luftwaffe, so that further questions will be facilitated.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You say you will assume they were by the Luftwaffe?

GÖRING: Yes, although I doubt it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I do not want you to give away anything here. If you think they were not taken by the Luftwaffe, I do not want you to admit it.

GÖRING: I said there is no proof. I did not take the pictures, I do not recognize them, they were not submitted to me as Luftwaffe pictures and from a purely technical point of view they could only have been taken from a plane with a private camera from a very oblique angle. They are not true aerial pictures, that is vertical pictures as taken by the Air Force.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we will pass them then and go to something else.

Let us take up Document 638-PS, Exhibit Number USA-788, about which you have been interrogated and which, as I recall, you authenticated.

[Document 638-PS was submitted to the witness.]

This is the document which was signed by Dr. Joel and I ask you to follow me.

“From the Reich Marshal’s plans of 24 September 1942.

“First: The Reich Marshal is looking for daring fellows who will be employed in the East as Sonderkommandos and who will be able to carry out the task of creating confusion behind the lines. They are to be formed into bands under leadership, and with interpreters assigned to them. For this purpose the Reich Marshal is considering convicts who are first offenders, who have committed not particularly heinous offenses for which there can be some human understanding.

“The Reich Marshal first of all mentioned persons convicted of poaching. He knew, of course, that the Reichsführer SS had picked out the so-called poachers, and they were already in his hands. He requests, however, that the question be re-examined. The only suitable men are those with a passion for hunting, who have poached for love of the trophy, not men who have laid snares and traps. The Reich Marshal also mentioned fanatical members of smuggling gangs, who take part in gun battles on the frontiers and whose passion it is to outwit the customs at the risk of their own lives, but not men who attempt to bring articles over the frontier in an express train or by similar means.

“The Reich Marshal leaves it to us to consider whether still another category of convicts can be assigned to these bands or pursuit commands.

“In the regions assigned for their operations, these bands, whose first task should be to destroy the communications of the partisan groups, could murder, burn and ravish; in Germany they would once again come under strict supervision.

“Signed: Dr. Joel, 24 September 1942.”

Do you wish to make an explanation of that document to the Tribunal?

GÖRING: Yes, with the same that I made once before. The first two paragraphs clearly show that I wanted only those people who had committed no offenses involving laws of honor, such as poachers, distinguishing between those having a passion for hunting and those who only want to steal. I made a distinction also with regard to smugglers, between those who take personal risks showing a certain passion for their activity, and those who do it in a dishonorable way.

Both these main paragraphs plainly show that I did not wish to use criminals of any type, and that is why I explicitly denied having said what is stated in the last paragraphs. It is not a question of the minutes but of the notes taken by an official with whom I discussed these things. He should be able to testify where and if he heard these words uttered by me. But they contradict my ideas so much, and I particularly emphasize this, and in particular, as I have clearly said, as regards rape, which I always punished with death even if committed against citizens of enemy states, that I rejected that statement; and I again pointed out that the main paragraphs are in utmost contradiction to the last remark, because if it had been a matter of indifference to me, I could have selected criminals.

Thirdly, I expressly stated above, that their main task behind the lines was to create confusion, to disrupt communications, to destroy railways, and the like. Fourthly and lastly, the whole thing never took place.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You objected to the word “ravish” which had been translated the first time “rape”, and that is the only objection you made to this document when it was presented to you. Is that not correct?

GÖRING: No, it is not correct that way. I say this because it is a most significant concept which has always particularly contradicted my sense of justice, for shortly after the seizure of power I instigated a sharpening of this phase of German penal laws. And I wanted to show by this word and this concept, that this entire latter part could not have been uttered by me, and I deny having said it. I will absolutely and gladly take responsibility for even the most serious things which I have done, but I deny this statement, as being in complete contradiction to my opinions.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Who is the signer of this document?

GÖRING: Dr. Joel.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes—you knew him?

GÖRING: I knew him slightly. I saw him at this conference.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: He was present at the conference?

GÖRING: I instructed him to come to tell him that I wished that type of people.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you dealt in economic matters with the various occupied countries through Reichskommissars?

GÖRING: I testified the other day that all sorts of authorities, including the Reichskommissars had to follow my economic directives and orders.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And were to report to you on economic matters?

GÖRING: Not about all of them, only insofar as they concerned my directives.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And who was your Reichskommissar in Poland?

GÖRING: There was no Reichskommissar in Poland. There was a Governor General in Poland, that was Dr. Frank.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And who was the Reichskommissar in the Netherlands?

GÖRING: Dr. Seyss-Inquart was Reichskommissar for Holland.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Who was the Reichskommissar for Norway?

GÖRING: In Norway the Gauleiter Terboven was Reichskommissar.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Terboven—he was also a Gauleiter you say?

GÖRING: He was Gauleiter at Essen.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You appointed him to Norway or attained his appointment?

GÖRING: I neither appointed him for Norway—because that was beyond my jurisdiction—nor did I have him appointed. I did not oppose his appointment in any way as I considered he would make a very competent Reichskommissar.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And he was there from 1940 until 1945?

GÖRING: I believe that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I will ask to have you shown Document R-134, a communication from Terboven to you.

[Document R-134 was submitted to the witness.]

That is a communication of the 1st of May 1942, is it not?

GÖRING: I note the date; yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And that reports to you as follows, does it not—it is addressed to you as Reich Marshal, “My esteemed Reich Marshal”, is that right?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Omitting the first paragraph, unless you are to give it.

“Several days ago on an island west of Bergen we captured a Norwegian sabotage unit, trained by the Secret Service, and found extensive stores of sabotage instruments, some of them of a new kind, including probably poison and bacteria. Those which appeared unfamiliar were forwarded to the Reich Security Main Office for closer examination.

“Besides other tasks, this sabotage unit was to begin its sabotage work, on Sola and Herdla using the explosive of which a sample is enclosed herewith. This appears from written directives found. Since it must be assumed that similar actions are under way on airfields on the rest of the European coast, and assuming that a means of sabotage actually unknown until now is involved, I am communicating with you by the fastest possible means, in order to give you an opportunity to issue an appropriate warning.

“Unfortunately, two especially reliable officers of the Security Police were killed in the fight against the sabotage unit. We buried them this morning at 1000 hours in the Heroes’ Cemetery in Bergen.

“On the same day and at the same hour 18 Norwegians were shot on my order. These had been captured some time previously in the attempt to go to England illegally.

“On the same day, the entire village which had harbored the sabotage unit was burned down and the population deported. All the males were taken to a German concentration camp without any notification being sent to their families. The women were sent to a female forced labor camp in Norway, and those children who were not capable of working went to a children’s camp. Heil Hitler! Yours obediently, Terboven.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: It says so in the letter, a copy of which is before me.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Terboven remained after that report until 1945, didn’t he?

GÖRING: That’s correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, later in the same year, 1942, you adopted very similar means to those reported by Terboven to you, did you not?

GÖRING: I did not understand the question.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you adopted later in the same year the same means as Terboven, didn’t you?

GÖRING: I? Where?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I will ask that you be shown Document 1742-PS.

[Document 1742-PS was submitted to the witness.]

Now, this is a decree of 26 October 1942, by Göring. I ask you to follow me:

“Simultaneously with the intensified combating of guerrilla activity ordered by the Führer, and the cleaning up of the land behind the lines, in particular that behind the Army Group Center, I request that the following points be taken into consideration, and the conclusions drawn therefrom be put into practice:

“1. Simultaneously with the combating of the underground forces and the combing out of the areas contaminated by them, all available livestock must be driven off to safe areas. Similarly, food supplies are to be removed and brought into safety, so that they will no longer be available to the guerrillas.

“2. All male and female labor suitable for any kind of employment must be forcibly recruited and allocated to the Plenipotentiary General for Labor, who will then employ them in safe areas behind the lines or in the Reich. Separate camps must be organized behind the lines for the children.”

Is that right?

GÖRING: Absolutely. It concerns areas overrun by guerrillas, and no one could expect me to leave cattle and foodstuffs at their disposal. Furthermore, people who were repeatedly being incited to guerrilla activities and revolts against us had to be brought back to safe areas and put to work. I would like to emphasize that this was absolutely vital for the security of the troops. But I may emphasize again that you said I gave the same orders which you read from Terboven’s letter. I did not order villages to be burned, and did not order the shooting of hostages. This was something basically different.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You simply seized all the men, women and children and moved them out. That is what I referred to.

By May of 1944 your problem in the loss of fighter aircraft and fighter personnel was becoming serious?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: On the 19th of May, 1944, you had a conference in your office, on the subject of fighter aircraft and the losses of fighter personnel, did you not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you have been shown the minutes of that meeting and authenticated them in your interrogations?

GÖRING: It is not the minutes of that conference. It is a short and brief summary by an officer of a meeting which, as far as I know, lasted 2 days.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask to have you shown Document L-166. It is entitled, “Most Secret Document,” isn’t it?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it is also entitled, “Minutes of conference on fighter aircraft with the Reich Marshal on 15 and 16 May 1944.” That is correct, too, is it not?

GÖRING: No, it says, “Notices of a conference on fighter aircraft at the Reich Marshal’s on 15 and 16 May 1944.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Notices,” you translate it “notices”?

GÖRING: It says “memorandum” here and that is the original.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Notes of Conference on Fighter Aircraft.”

GÖRING: Lasting 2 days.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And at first General Galland described in detail the situation regarding fighter personnel. That took place, didn’t it, and he reviewed the losses?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And reviewed the losses?

GÖRING: That is right.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then he reviewed at some length under Item 2, “Remedial Measures,” is that right?

GÖRING: According to the memorandum, yes, but whether that actually took place I cannot say.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This conference took place, didn’t it?

GÖRING: Absolutely, 2 days.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And under Item 3 General Galland made certain proposals, did he not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then after considerable discussion General Schmidt made certain proposals, Items 12 and 13, is that right?

GÖRING: It must have been so. At any rate it says so according to the memorandum.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You recommended a conference between the chief of the General Staff and the chief of artillery, as soon as possible, did you not? Item 13?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And General Schmidt’s recommendations and requests appear in Items 14 and 15 and 16 and 17 and 18?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you decided:

“The Reich Marshal has decided that only the III-groups of fighter squadrons are to remain in the Reich, and that all the fighters fit for operations are to be pressed into service.”

That occurred, did it not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then:

“The Reich Marshal desires that when low-level attack on airfields are made, causing considerable loss in personnel and material, the measures taken for defense and dispersal are to be re-examined by the Luftwaffenführungsstab.”

Number 19. That occurred, did it not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Item 20 reads:

“The Reich Marshal wishes to propose to the Führer that American and English crews who shoot indiscriminately over towns, at moving civilian trains, or at soldiers hanging to parachutes should be shot immediately on the spot.”

Have I correctly read that?

GÖRING: It says so here. And I objected at once at that time that this was not correct. This passage has no connection at all with the context of these notes, 19-21. Besides the expression “soldiers hanging to parachutes” is entirely misleading and not commonly used. I thought for a long time about how this could have got into the notes, which I never saw and which were drawn up over a period of 2 days, and can only find the explanation that I pointed out—as can be gathered from the other evidence—that around that time the Führer gave a directive in that connection, and that in any event there must be a mistake; that is, it should not be that the Reich Marshal wants to propose, et cetera, to the Führer, but that I might have suggested that the Führer had some such intention. But about this the author of these notes would have to be consulted. No other item in all these notes refers to this. Even the next item is entirely different. Whereas everything else stands in relationship, this one point is extraneous.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In all the notes of the 2 days, this is the one thing that you say is mistaken.

Now I ask to have you shown Document 731-PS.

[Document 731-PS was submitted to the witness.]

Now, the conference, the notes of which I have just read you, was followed within a week by the order, 731-PS, was it not, the memorandum, 731-PS, which reads:

“The Führer has reached the following decision in regard to measures to be taken against Anglo-American air crews in special instances:

“Enemy airmen who have been brought down are to be shot without court martial proceedings in the following instances . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, shouldn’t you refer to a passage four lines above that, after “Report of the Reich Marshal”?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I did not, but perhaps for the record it ought to be in full.

“Chief of the Command Staff of the Armed Forces, Chief WFSt. Please direct drafting of order. W (Warlimont). K (Keitel), Deputy Chief of Command Staff of the Armed Forces. Must go to Reichsführer SS. According to the report of the Reich Marshal, General Korten made the following statement: ‘Memorandum’”—I think the next line is not in the original—

“‘The Führer has given the following ruling in regard to measures to be taken against Anglo-American air crews in special instances:

“‘Enemy airmen whose machines have been shot down are to be shot without trial by court martial in the following cases:

“‘(1) In the event of the shooting of our own German air crews while they are parachuting to earth.

“‘(2) In the event of aerial attacks upon German planes which have made emergency landings and whose crews are in the immediate vicinity.

“‘(3) In the event of attacks upon railway trains engaged in public transport.

“‘(4) In the event of low-level aerial attacks upon individual civilians, farmers, workers, single vehicles, and so forth.’”

Now, there is a note: “In the event of low-level aerial attacks on individual civilians, single civilian vehicles, and so forth,” is there not?

GÖRING: On my copy, “In the event of low-level aerial attacks—on single”—“single” is crossed out here and there are two words written above which I cannot read. Before the expression, “single vehicles,” is the word “civilian” and referring to Point 2, it says:

“I consider it doubtful, because the destruction of a plane which has made an emergency landing cannot be designated as gangster methods but rather as a measure in keeping with the strictest standards of civilized warfare.”

We are concerned with the entire series of questions discussed in these days and weeks and to which Von Brauchitsch also testified recently.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That note about that emergency landing is signed by “J,” isn’t it, which, stands for “Jodl”?

GÖRING: Certainly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is all I care to ask.

There are a number of documents which should be introduced in this connection, and I think it will be best perhaps if we tabulate them and get them ready over the evening and present them in the morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, Mr. Justice Jackson, you can put them all in then.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to ask you first some questions about the matter of the British Air Force officers who escaped from Stalag Luft III. Do you remember that you said in giving your evidence that you knew this incident very completely and very minutely? Do you remember saying that?

GÖRING: No—that I had received accurate knowledge; not that I had accurate knowledge—but that I received it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let me quote your own words, as they were taken down, “I know this incident very completely, very minutely, but it came to my attention, unfortunately, at a later period of time.” That is what you said the other day, is that right?

GÖRING: Yes, that is what I meant; that I know about the incident exactly, but only heard of it 2 days later.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You told the Tribunal that you were on leave at this time, in the last period of March 1944, is that right?

GÖRING: Yes, as far as I remember I was on leave in March until a few days before Easter.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you said, “As I can prove.” I want you to tell the Tribunal the dates of your leave.

GÖRING: I say again, that this refers to the whole of March—I remember it well—and for proof I would like to mention the people who were with me on this leave.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I want to know is, where you were on leave.

GÖRING: Here, in the vicinity of Nuremberg.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So you were within easy reach of the telephone from the Air Ministry or, indeed, from Breslau, if you were wanted?

GÖRING: I would have been easily accessible by phone if someone wanted to communicate with me.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want you to help me with regard to one or two other dates of which you have spoken. You say: “I heard 1 or 2 days later about this escape.” Do you understand, Witness, that it is about the escape I am asking you, not about the shooting, for the moment; I want to make it quite clear.

GÖRING: It is clear to me.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you mean by that, that you heard about the actual escape 1 or 2 days after it happened?

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you hear about it from the office of your adjutant or from your director of operations?

GÖRING: I always heard these things through my adjutant. Several other escapes had preceded this one.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that’s right. There had been a number of escapes from this camp.

GÖRING: I cannot tell you exactly whether they were from this camp. Shortly before several big escapes had taken place, which I always heard of through the office of my adjutant.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want you to tell the Tribunal another date: You say that on your return from leave your chief of staff made a communication to you. Who was your chief of staff?

GÖRING: General Korten was chief of staff at that time.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Can you tell us the date at which he made this communication to you?

GÖRING: No, I cannot tell you that exactly. I believe I discussed this incident with my chief of staff later, telling him what I had already heard about it from other sources.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Who was the first to tell you about it? Was it your chief of staff who told you about the shootings? Do you mean that some one else had told you about the shooting?

GÖRING: I cannot say exactly now whether I heard about the shooting from the chief of staff, or from other sources. But in any event I discussed this with the chief of staff.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What was the date that you talked about it with your chief of staff?

GÖRING: I cannot tell you the date exactly from memory, but it must have been around Easter.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be just about the end of March, wouldn’t it?

GÖRING: No. It might have been at the beginning of April, the first half of April.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And then you had an interview with Himmler, you have told us?

GÖRING: Yes, I talked with Himmler about this.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Can you fix that?

GÖRING: Of course I cannot establish this date with certainty. I saw Himmler, and, at the first opportunity after I had heard about this incident, spoke to him about it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that you can’t fix the date in relation to your coming back from leave, or the interview with your chief of staff, or any other date, or Easter?

GÖRING: Without any documents it is, as I said, impossible for me today to fix the date. I can only mention the approximate period of time; and that I have done.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You said the other day that you could prove when you were on leave. Am I to take it that you haven’t taken the trouble to look up what your leave dates were?

GÖRING: I have already said that I was on leave during March. Whether I returned on the 26th or the 28th or the 29th of March I cannot tell you. For proof of that you would have to ask the people who accompanied me, who perhaps can fix this date more definitely. I know only that I was there in March.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Witness, will it be perfectly fair to you if I take the latest of your dates, the 29th of March, to work on?

GÖRING: It would be more expedient if you would tell me when Easter was that year, because I do not recall it. Then it will be easier for me to specify the dates, because I know that a few days before Easter I returned to Berchtesgaden in order to pass these holidays with my family.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A few days before Easter you went back to Berchtesgaden?

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So you had come back on leave some day before that. Before you went to Berchtesgaden you had come back from your March leave?

GÖRING: Berchtesgaden was then at the same time the headquarters of the Führer. I returned from my leave to Berchtesgaden, and with my return my leave ended, because I returned to duty. The return to Berchtesgaden was identical with the termination of my leave.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I can’t give you Easter offhand, but I happen to remember Whitsuntide was the 28th of May, so that Easter would be early, somewhere about the 5th of April. So that your leave would finish somewhere about the end of March, maybe the 26th or the 29th; that is right, isn’t it?

Now, these shootings of these officers went on from the 25th of March to the 13th of April; do you know that?

GÖRING: I do not know that exactly.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You may take that from me, because there is an official report of the shooting, and I want to be quite fair with you. Only 49 of these officers were shot on the 6th of April, as far as we can be sure, and one was shot either on the 13th of April or later. But the critical period is the end of March, and we may take it that you were back from leave by about the 29th of March.

I just want you to tell the Tribunal this was a matter of great importance, wasn’t it? Considered a matter of great importance?

GÖRING: It was a very important matter.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: General Milch—I beg pardon—Field Marshal Milch has said that it was a matter which would require the highest authority, and I think you have said that you know it was Hitler’s decision that these officers should be shot; is that so?

GÖRING: The question did not come through clearly.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It was Hitler’s decision that these officers should be shot?

GÖRING: That is correct; and I was later notified that it was Hitler’s decree.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want you just to remember one other thing, that immediately it was published, the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Eden, at once said that Great Britain would demand justice of the perpetrators of these murders; do you remember that?

GÖRING: I cannot remember the speech to the House of Commons given by Eden. I myself do not know the substance of this speech even today. I just heard that he spoke in Parliament about this incident.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want you to tell the Tribunal just who the persons in your ministry involved were. I will tell you; I think it would be shorter in the end. If you disagree you can correct me.

The commandant of Stalag Luft III was Oberst Von Lindeiner of your service, was he not?

GÖRING: That is quite possible. I did not know the names of all these commandants. There was a court martial against him and that was because the escape was possible. He was not connected with the shootings.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, but he was commandant of the camp, and I suppose you had to review and confirm the proceedings of the Zentralluftwaffengericht which convicted him and sentenced him to a year’s imprisonment for neglect of duty. That would come to you, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t that come to you for review?

GÖRING: No, only if larger penalties were involved. One year imprisonment would not come to my attention. But I know, and I would like to certify, that court proceedings were taken against him for neglect of duty at the time of the escape.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In May of 1943, Inspectorate Number 17 had been interposed between the Luftwaffe and the Prisoners of War Organization of the OKW, the Kriegsgefangenenwesen; do you remember that?

GÖRING: I do not know the details about inspection nor how closely it concerned the Prisoners of War Organization of the OKW, or how it was otherwise.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to remind you of who your own officers were. You understand, Witness, that your own officers are involved in this matter. I want to remind you who they were. Was the head of Inspectorate 17 Major General Grosch of the Luftwaffe?

GÖRING: Major General Grosch is of the Luftwaffe.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You told the Tribunal the other day—I am quoting your own words—that you knew from information, you knew this incident very completely and very minutely. You are now telling the Tribunal you don’t know whether Major General Grosch was head of Inspectorate Number 17 of the Luftwaffe.

GÖRING: That is irrelevant. I told the High Tribunal that I heard an accurate account of the incident of the shooting of these airmen, but that has no connection with General Grosch and his inspectorate, for he did not participate in the shooting.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will show you that connection in one minute if you will just answer my questions. Was Grosch’s second in command Oberst Welder; do you remember that?

GÖRING: I do not know the particulars of the organization for inspection of prisoner-of-war camps, nor the leaders, nor what positions they held. At least not by heart. I would like to emphasize again, so that there will be no confusion, that when I said I knew about this matter, I mean that I knew how the order was issued and that the people were shot, that I came to know all about this; but not as far as this was related to inspections, possibilities of flight, et cetera.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And did General Grosch, as head of Inspectorate 17, have to report to General Fōrster, your director of operations at the Luftwaffe Ministerium?

GÖRING: That I cannot tell you without having the diagram of the subordinate posts before me. General Fōrster was, I believe at that time, head of the Luftwehr, or a similar designation, in the ministry. I concerned myself less with these matters, because they were not directly of a tactical, strategic, or of an armament nature. But it is quite possible and certain that he belonged to this department.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I put it to you quite shortly, and if you don’t know I will leave it for the moment. Did you know Major General Von Graevenitz was head of the Defendant Keitel’s department, the Kriegsgefangenenwesen, that dealt with prisoners of war?

GÖRING: I first heard about General Graevenitz here, for this department did not directly concern me. I could not know all of these military subordinate commanders in their hundreds and thousands of departments.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So I take it that you did not know Colonel, now General Westhoff, of the department under Von Graevenitz?

GÖRING: Westhoff I never saw at all, and he did not belong to the Luftwaffe.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not suggesting that Von Graevenitz and Westhoff belonged to the Luftwaffe. I wanted to make it clear that I was suggesting they belonged to General Keitel’s organization.

GÖRING: I did not know either; and I did not know what posts they occupied.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Up to that time you still had a considerable influence in the Reich, didn’t you?

GÖRING: At this time no longer. This no longer concerns 1944.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But you were still head of the Luftwaffe and head of the Air Ministry, weren’t you?

GÖRING: Yes, I was.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you had, as head of the Luftwaffe and head of the Air Ministry, been responsible for six prisoner-of-war camps for the whole of the war up to that time, hadn’t you?

GÖRING: How many prisoner-of-war camps I do not know. But of course I bear the responsibility for those which belonged to my ministry.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: To the Air Force?

GÖRING: Yes, those which were subordinate to the Air Force.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You knew about the general plan for treatment of prisoners of war, which we have had in evidence as the “Aktion Kugel” plan, didn’t you?

GÖRING: No. I knew nothing of this action. I was not advised of it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You were never advised of Aktion Kugel?

GÖRING: I first heard of Aktion Kugel here; saw the document and heard the expression for the first time. Moreover no officer of the Luftwaffe ever informed me of such a thing; and I do not believe that a single officer was ever taken away from the Luftwaffe camps. A report to this effect was never presented to me, in any case.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know what Aktion Kugel was: That escaped officers and noncommissioned officers, other than British and American, were to be handed over to the police and taken to Mauthausen, where they were shot by the device of having a gun concealed in the measuring equipment when they thought they were getting their prison clothes. You know what Aktion Kugel is, don’t you?

GÖRING: I heard of it here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you telling the Tribunal that you did not know that escaped prisoners of war who were picked up by the police were retained by the police and taken to Mauthausen?

GÖRING: No, I did not know that. On the contrary, various prisoners who escaped from my camps were caught again by the police; and they were all brought back to the camps; this was the first case where this to some extent did not take place.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But didn’t you know that Colonel Welder, as second in command of your ministry’s inspectorate, issued a written order a month before this, in February 1944, that prisoners of war picked up by the Luftwaffe should be delivered back to their camp, and prisoners of war picked up by the police should be held by them and no longer counted as being under the protection of the Luftwaffe; didn’t you know that?

GÖRING: No. Please summon this colonel to testify if he ever made a report of that nature to me, or addressed such a letter to me.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, of course I cannot tell whether your ministry was well run or not. But he certainly issued the order, because he says so himself.

GÖRING: Then he must say from whom he received this order.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Well, he says that he issued this order, and you know as well as I do that prisoners of war is a thing that you have got to be careful about, because you have got a protecting power that investigates any complaint; and you never denounced the Convention and you had the protecting power in these matters all through the war, had you not? That is right, isn’t it?

GÖRING: That is correct, but I take the liberty to ask who gave him this order, whether he received this order from me.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, he would not get it direct from you. I do not think you had ever met him, had you? He would get it from Lieutenant General Grosch, wouldn’t he?

GÖRING: Then Grosch should say whether he received such an order from me. I never gave such an order.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. So you say that you had never heard—this was 3½ years after the beginning of the war—and you had never heard that any escaped prisoners of war were to be handed over to the police. Is that what you ask the Tribunal to believe?

GÖRING: To the extent that escaped prisoners of war committed any offenses or crimes, they were of course turned over to the police, I believe. But I wish to testify before the Court that I never gave any order that they should be handed over to the police or sent to concentration camps merely because they had attempted to break out or escape, nor did I ever know that such measures were taken.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is my last question: I want to make it quite clear, Witness, that I am referring to those who had escaped, who had got away from the confines of the camp and were recaptured by the police. Didn’t you know that they were handed over to the police?

GÖRING: No. Only if they had committed crimes while fleeing, such as murder and so on. Such things occurred.

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

EIGHTY-SEVENTH DAY Thursday, 21 March 1946

Morning Session

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Witness, do you remember telling me last night that the only prisoners of war handed over to the police were those guilty of crimes or misdemeanors?

GÖRING: I did not express myself that way. I said if the police apprehended prisoners of war, those who had committed a crime during the escape, as far as I know, were detained by the police and were not returned to the camp. To what extent the police kept prisoners of war, without returning them to a camp, I was able to gather from interrogations and explanations here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you look at Document D-569? Would you look first at the top left-hand corner, which shows that it is a document published by the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht?

GÖRING: The document which I have before me has the following heading at the top left-hand corner: “The Reichsführer SS,” and the subheading: “Inspector of Concentration Camps.”

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is a document dated the 22d of November 1941. Have you got it?

GÖRING: Yes, I have it now.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, look at the left-hand bottom corner, as to distribution. The second person to whom it is distributed is the Air Ministry and Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force on 22 November 1941. That would be you.

GÖRING: That’s correct. I would like to make the following statement in connection with this . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just for a moment. I would like you to appreciate the document and then make your statement upon it. I shall not stop you. I want you to look at the third sentence in Paragraph 1. This deals with Soviet prisoners of war, you understand. The third sentence says:

“If escaped Soviet prisoners of war are returned to the camp in accordance with this order, they have to be handed over to the nearest post of the Secret State Police, in any case.”

And then Paragraph 2 deals with the special position—if they commit crimes, owing to the fact that:

“. . . at present these misdemeanors on the part of Soviet prisoners of war are particularly frequent, due most likely to living conditions still being somewhat unsettled, the following temporary regulations come into force. They may be amended later. If a Soviet prisoner of war commits any other punishable offense then the commandant of the camp must hand the guilty man over to the head of the Security Police.”

Do I understand this document to say that a man who escapes will be handed over to the Security Police? You understand this document says a man who escapes will be handed over to the Secret Police, a man who commits a crime, as you mentioned, will be handed over to the Security Police. Wasn’t that the condition that obtained from 1941 up to the date we are dealing with in March 1944?

GÖRING: I would like to read the few preceding paragraphs so that no sentences are separated from their context.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, while the witness is reading the document, might I go over the technical matter of the arrangement of exhibits? When I cross-examined Field Marshal Kesselring I put in three documents, UK-66, which becomes Exhibit GB-274; D-39, which becomes GB-275; TC-91, which becomes GB-276; so this document will become GB-277.

[Turning to the witness.] Have you had an opportunity of reading it, Witness?

GÖRING: Yes, I have.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I am right, am I not, that the Soviet prisoners of war who escaped were to be, after their return to the camp, handed over to the Secret State Police. If they committed a crime, they were to be handed over to the Security Police, isn’t that right?

GÖRING: Not exactly correct. I would like to point to the third sentence in the first paragraph. There it says, “If a prisoner-of-war camp is in the vicinity, then the man who is recaptured is to be transported there.”

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But read the next sentence, “If a Soviet prisoner of war is returned to the camp”—that is in accordance with this order which you have just read—“he has to be handed to the nearest service station of the Secret State Police.” Your own sentence.

GÖRING: Yes, but the second paragraph which follows gives an explanation of frequent criminal acts of Soviet prisoners of war, et cetera, committed at that time. You read that yourself; that is also connected with this Paragraph Number 1. But this order was given by itself and it was distributed to the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. And I would like to give the explanation of its distribution. In this war there were not only hundreds, but thousands of current orders which were issued by superiors to subordinate officers and were transmitted to various departments. That does not mean that each of these thousands of orders was submitted to the Commander-in-Chief; only the most decisive and most important were shown to him. The others went from department to department. Thus it is that this order from the Chief of the High Command was signed by a subordinate department, and not by the Chief of the High Command himself.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This order would be dealt with by your prisoner-of-war department in your ministry, wouldn’t it?

GÖRING: This department, according to the procedure adopted for these orders, received the order, but no other department received it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think the answer to my question must be “yes.” It would be dealt with by the prisoner-of-war department—your ministry. Isn’t that so?

GÖRING: I would say yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is quicker, you see, if you say “yes” in the beginning; do you understand?

GÖRING: No; it depends upon whether I personally have read the order or not, and I will then determine as to my responsibility.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, the escape . . .

THE PRESIDENT: You were not asked about responsibility; you were asked whether it would be dealt with by your prisoner-of-war department.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the escape about which I am asking you took place on the night of the 24th to the 25th of March. I want you to have that date in mind. The decision to murder these young officers must have been taken very quickly, because the first murder which actually took place was on the 26th of March. Do you agree with that? It must have been taken quickly?

GÖRING: I assume that this order, as I was informed later, was given immediately, but it had no connection with this document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, no; we are finished with that document; we are going into the murder of these young men. The Grossfahndung—a general hue and cry, I think, would be the British translation—was also issued at once in order that these men should be arrested; isn’t that so?

GÖRING: That is correct. Whenever there was an escape, and such a large number of prisoners escaped, automatically in the whole Reich, a hue and cry was raised, that is, all authorities had to be on the lookout to recapture the prisoners.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that in order to give this order to murder these men, and for the Grossfahndung, there must have been a meeting of Hitler, at any rate with Himmler or Kaltenbrunner, in order that that order would be put into effect; isn’t that so?

GÖRING: That is correct. According to what I heard, Himmler was the first to report this escape to the Führer.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, General Westhoff, who was in Defendant Keitel’s Kriegsgefangenenwesen, in his prisoner-of-war set-up, says this, that

“On a date, which I think was the 26th, Keitel said to him, ‘This morning Göring reproached me in the presence of Himmler for having let some more prisoners of war escape. It was unheard of.’”

Do you say that General Westhoff is wrong?

GÖRING: Yes. This is not in accordance with the facts. General Westhoff is referring to a statement of Field Marshal Keitel. This utterance in itself is illogical, for I could not accuse Keitel because he would not draw my attention to it, as the guarding was his responsibility and not mine.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: One of the Defendant Keitel’s officers dealing with this matter was a general inspector, General Röttich. I do not know if you know him.

GÖRING: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, General Westhoff, as one could understand, is very anxious to assure everyone that his senior officer had nothing to do with it, and he goes on to say this about General Röttich:

“He was completely excluded from it by the fact that these matters were taken out of his hands. Apparently at that conference with the Führer in the morning, that is to say, the conference between Himmler, Field Marshal Keitel, and Göring, which took place in the Führer’s presence, the Führer himself always took a hand in these affairs when officers escaped.”

You say that is wrong? You were at no such conference?

GÖRING: I was not present at this conference, neither was General Westhoff; he is giving a purely subjective view, not the facts of the case.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that we find that—you think that—Westhoff is wrong? You see, Westhoff, he was a colonel at this time, I think, and now he finishes as a major general, and he asks that the senior officers be asked about it; he says this: “It should be possible to find out that Himmler made the suggestion to the Führer—to find that out from Göring who was present at the conference.” Again and again Westhoff, who after all is a comparatively junior officer, is saying that the truth about this matter can be discovered from his seniors. You say that it cannot.

GÖRING: I would not say that. I would like just to say that General Westhoff was never present for even a moment, therefore he cannot say, I know or I saw that Reich Marshal Göring was present. He is assuming it is so, or he may have heard it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What he says is, you know, that Keitel blamed him, as I have read to you; that Keitel went on to say to him at General Von Graevenitz’, “Gentlemen, the escapes must stop. We must set an example. We shall take very severe measures. I am only telling you that, that the men who have escaped will be shot; probably the majority of them are dead already.” You never heard anything of that?

GÖRING: I was neither present at the Keitel-Westhoff-Graevenitz conversation nor at the Führer-Himmler conversation. As far as I know General Westhoff will be testifying here. Moreover, Field Marshal Keitel will be able to say whether I was there or not.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well then, I am bound to put this to you. I come on to your own ministry. I suppose in general you take responsibility for the actions of the officers of your ministry from the rank of field officer and above—colonels and major generals and lieutenant generals?

GÖRING: If they acted according to my directives and my instructions, yes; if they acted against my directives and instructions, no.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just let us see what happened in your own ministry. You know that—do you know, that Colonel Walde made a personal investigation of this matter at the camp? Did you know that?

GÖRING: The particulars about this investigation, as I explained yesterday, are unknown to me; I know only that investigations did take place.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, on the 27th of March, that was a Monday, did you know that there was a meeting in Berlin about this matter? Just let me tell you who were there before you apply your mind to it, so you will know. Your ministry was represented by Colonel Walde, because Lieutenant General Grosch had another meeting, so he ordered his deputy to attend; the Defendant Keitel’s organization was represented by Colonel Von Reurmont; the Gestapo was represented by Gruppenführer Müller; the Kripo was represented by Gruppenführer Nebe. Now, all these officers were of course not on the policy level, but they were high executive officers who had to deal with the actual facts that were carried out, were they not?

GÖRING: They were not executive officers, insofar as it has not been definitely established that executive powers are within an officer’s province. To the first question, whether I knew about this meeting, I would say no. Colonel Walde I do not even know personally.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You mean to say, you are telling the Tribunal, that you were never told about this meeting at any time?

GÖRING: Yes, I am saying that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just want you to look at—let him have Walde’s statement—I want you to look at the statement of one of the officers of your own ministry on this point. This is a statement made by Colonel Ernst Walde, and—I am sorry I have not another German copy, but I will get one in due course—and in my copy, Witness, it is at the foot of Page 2, the beginning of the paragraph which I want you to look at, is: “As recaptured prisoners were not to be taken back to their camp, according to an order issued several weeks previously . . .”—can you find it?

GÖRING: Where is it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, in the English version it is at the middle of the second page, and I want to ask you about the—the middle of that paragraph; I do not know if you see a name—it stands out in my copy—Major Dr. Hühnemörder; do you see that?

GÖRING: Yes, I have found it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, it is the sentence after the name Major Dr. Hühnemörder appears: “On this Monday”—have you got this?

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Thank you.

“On this Monday a conference took place at the Reich Security Main Office at Berlin, Albrechtstrasse. As far as I remember this conference had been called by the Chief of the Prisoner-of-War Organization OKW, and I attended as representative of Luftwaffe Inspektion 17, since General Grosch was unable to attend in person, for reasons which I cannot remember; the Chief of the Prisoner-of-War Organization, as far as I know, was represented by Colonel Von Reurmont, while the Security Office was represented by Gruppenführer Müller and Gruppenführer Nebe, the Chief of the Criminal Police at that time. I find it impossible to give a verbatim account of the conversation or to state what was said by every single person. But I remember this much: That we were informed about a conference which had taken place on the previous day, that is Sunday, at the Führer’s headquarters in connection with the mass escape from Sagan, in the course of which heated discussions had taken place between the participants. In this connection the names of Himmler, Göring, and Keitel were mentioned. Whether Ribbentrop’s name was also mentioned I do not remember. The Führer was not mentioned. At this conference appropriate measures were said to have been discussed, or taken, to check any such mass escapes in the future. The nature of these measures was not disclosed. Later, and more or less in conclusion, Gruppenführer Müller declared that requisite orders had already been given and put into effect the previous morning. Regarding the search for escaped prisoners, he could or would not make any statement; he merely declared that according to reports so far received, shootings had taken place at some points for attempted escapes. I think he said that the number was 10 or 15.

“After these remarks by Gruppenführer Müller, which unmistakably caused a shattering effect, it became clear to me that a decision had been made by the highest authority, and that therefore any intervention by subordinate departments was impossible and pointless.”

Now, this was announced at a meeting of persons that I would call executives, that the shooting had already begun. Are you telling this Tribunal that this matter was made clear to these executives, including one of your own officers, and was never told to you? Are you still saying that?

GÖRING: I am still saying that. Firstly, that I have never heard anything about this conference. Secondly, that the officer in question is only surmising when he mentions the names, he makes no assertion. And thirdly, I would like to ask you also to mention the beginning of this statement, which begins as follows:

“In this matter of the mass escape of British Air Force officers from Prisoner-of-War Camp Number III, at Sagan on 24 or 25 March 1944, I make the following statement:

“I have to point out that in view of the absence of any documents, I am forced to reconstruct completely from memory events which happened almost a year and 9 months ago; I therefore ask that this fact and the possibility thus arising of my making a mistake be taken into consideration, and that due allowances be made.”

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is a perfectly fair point, and the answer to it is that I will show you what this officer reported at the time to his general.

Give the witness General Grosch’s statement.

[The document was submitted to the witness.] We are getting reasonably high up. This officer, General Grosch, signs it as a Lieutenant General. Now, would you like, if you can, to help me again—you were most helpful last time—to try to find the place? This is a statement by Lieutenant General Grosch.

GÖRING: I request to have permission to read this document first, to see whether similar modifications apply here also.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you read the first sentence? I do not want to take up time to read an account of the general matter. It says: “During my interrogation on 7 December 1945 I was told to write down all I knew about the Sagan case.” And then he wrote it down. But I would like you to look at Number 1, the first page. Do you see at the foot of the page an account of the pyramid in your ministry of administration? Do you see that at the foot of Page 1?

[There was no response.]

SIR DAVID. MAXWELL-FYFE: Witness, do you see at the foot of Page 1 the pyramid?

GÖRING: I see it but—I am now at the place.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It comes in about the fourth paragraph.

GÖRING: I can see it, but I should like to read the other first.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, if you will look about four small paragraphs on, it begins: “A few days after the day of the escape—I cannot remember the date any more—Colonel Walde informed me that OKW had called a conference in Berlin.”

Do you see that?

I do not mind you running through it quickly, but you may take it that the first two pages are what I said were there, the pyramid of your ministry.

GÖRING: Yes, I have found it. Which paragraph, please?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is Part C, the fourth paragraph, the Sagan case. “A few days after the escape. . . .” Do you find that?

GÖRING: Yes, I have the place.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Thank you.

“A few days after the day of the escape—I cannot remember the date any more—Colonel Walde informed me that the OKW had called a conference in Berlin—I believe on the premises of a high SS and police authority, and that the Inspectorate Number 17 was to send representatives. I should have liked to have gone myself, but had to attend another conference in Berlin, and asked Colonel Walde to attend as representative. After his return Colonel Walde informed me that the spokesman of the OKW had informed them that there was a decision by the Führer to the effect that, on recapture, the escaped British airmen were not to be handed back to the Luftwaffe but were to be shot.”

Then missing a paragraph and taking the last line of the next paragraph:

“It is, however, certain that the danger of their being shot was even then clearly recognizable. I asked Colonel Walde whether such a far-reaching decision would be notified in writing to the High Command of the Luftwaffe or the Reich Air Ministry or whether he had been given anything in writing. Colonel Walde gave me to understand that the assembly were told by the spokesman of the OKW, that they would receive nothing in writing, nor was there to be any correspondence on this subject. The circle of those in the know was to be kept as small as possible. I asked Colonel Walde whether the spokesman of the OKW had said anything to the effect that the Reich Marshal or the High Command of the Luftwaffe had been informed about the matter. Colonel Walde assured me that the OKW spokesman had told them that the Reich Marshal was informed.”

I will not ask you about that for the moment. I want you to look at what your general did. It says:

“Up to the time of Colonel Walde’s report I had not received even so much as a hint anywhere that escaped prisoners of war should be treated in any other way than according to the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

“The same afternoon I rang up my superior officer, the Chief of Air Defense, to ask time for an interview with General der Flieger Förster. This was fixed for the next morning.

“When I came there to report I found General Förster together with his chief of staff. I asked General Förster for permission to speak to him alone and put the facts before him. In conclusion, I expressed the opinion that if the British airmen were to be shot, (a) there would be a breach of the Geneva Convention, (b) reprisal measures endangering the lives of German airmen held by the British as prisoners of war would have to be expected. I asked General Förster to bring the matter to the notice of the Reich Marshal even at this very late stage, and to stress those two points.

“General Förster was immediately prepared to do this. When it came to the choice of the way in which the matter could be brought to the attention of the Reich Marshal, it was decided to report to State Secretary Field Marshal Milch.

“In my presence General Förster rang up the office of the state secretary and obtained the interview at once. General Förster left the room, and while doing so he instructed me to wait for his return in his study. After some time General Förster came back and told me that he had reported the matter to the state secretary and that Field Marshal Milch had made the necessary notes.”

Look at the last paragraph:

“I gave Colonel Walde the order, despite the ban by the OKW, to incorporate a detailed written statement about the conference in our records. So far as I know, this was done.”

DR. STAHMER: Counsel Stahmer on behalf of the Defendant Göring.

We have had submitted here a series of affidavits given by witnesses who are in Nuremberg and who, in my opinion, could be brought as witnesses in person. Because of the importance of this matter, not only for Göring but for other defendants, I object to this procedure, on the assumption that the same rules apply for cross-examination as examination in chief. By that I mean that we should not be satisfied with an affidavit and depend on an affidavit, if the Prosecution can, without difficulty, summon the witness in order to have him testify before the Tribunal, so that the Defense may be in position to cross-examine these witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, what you have said is entirely inaccurate. The rules with reference to cross-examination are not the same as rules with reference to examination in chief, and what is being done at the present moment is that the Defendant Göring is being cross-examined as to his credit. He has said that he knew nothing about this matter, and he has been cross-examined to prove that he has lied when he said that.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, according to my opinion the procedure should be that the witness be brought here in person. The fact remains that, in our estimation, a reference to an affidavit is a less desirable means than the personal testimony of a witness, which affords the Defense the possibility of adducing evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, as I have already pointed out to you, you are quite in error in thinking that the rules for cross-examination are the same as for examination in chief. The witness at the present moment is being cross-examined and is being cross-examined as to credit; that is to say, to prove whether or not he is telling the truth.

As to the calling of this witness—I think his name is Grosch—you can apply to call him if you want to do so. That is an entirely different matter.

DR. STAHMER: Yes. I quite understand, Mr. President; but I had to have the possibility of calling the people who are mentioned in this affidavit, in case I consider it necessary.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can apply to do that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: [Turning to the witness.] You understand, what I am suggesting to you is that here was a matter which was not only known in the OKW, not only known in the Gestapo and the Kripo, but was known to your own director of operations, General Förster, who told General Grosch that he had informed Field Marshal Milch. I am suggesting to you, that it is absolutely impossible and untrue that in these circumstances you knew nothing about it.

GÖRING: I would like first to establish an entirely different point. In the German interpretation regarding the first objection by Dr. Stahmer, the following came through:

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal does not want you to discuss legal objections.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you please answer the question that is put to you? You have already been told that you must answer a question directly and make any explanation afterwards, and shorten it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you still say, in view of that evidence, in view of these statements from the officers of your own ministry, that you knew nothing about this?

GÖRING: Precisely these statements confirm this, and I would like to make a short explanation. You determined a date. You said it was the 27th. But in this statement by Grosch this date is not determined. It says: “A few days after the escape, I do not recall the date, Colonel Walde informed me.”

Secondly, it says here that General Förster, who was not chief of my operational branch but chief of another branch of the ministry, mentioned this matter to State Secretary Field Marshal Milch, without referring to the date. General Field Marshal Milch was here as a witness, but unfortunately, he was never questioned as to whether he gave me this report, and at what time, and whether to me direct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh yes, he was, and General Field Marshal Milch took the same line as you, that he knew nothing about it, that Förster had never spoken to him. It was asked by my friend, Mr. Roberts, “Didn’t General Förster speak to you about it?”.

What I am suggesting is that both you and Field Marshal Milch are saying you knew nothing about it, when you did, and are leaving the responsibility on the shoulders of your junior officers. That is what I am suggesting and I want you to understand it.

GÖRING: No, I do not wish to push responsibility on to the shoulders of my subordinates, and I want to make it clear—that is the only thing that is important to me—that Field Marshal Milch did not say that he reported this matter to me. And, secondly, that the date when Förster told Milch about this is not established. It could have been quite possible that on the date when this actually happened, the Chief of the General Staff of the Luftwaffe might already have conferred with me about it. The important factor is—and I want to maintain it—that I was not present at the time when the command was given by the Führer. When I heard about it, I vehemently opposed it. But at the time I heard of it, it was already too late. That a few were shot later, was not yet known at the time, neither was the exact time of the event. Most of them had been shot already.

Thirdly, those who escaped, and were captured in the direct vicinity of the camp by our guards were returned to the camp and were not handed over. Those prisoners who were captured by the police and the Grossfahndung, and returned to the camp before the Führer had issued the decree, were likewise not handed over and shot.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know that, according to Wielen, who is going to give evidence, the selection of the officers to be shot—a list as regards the selection of officers to be shot—a list had been prepared by the camp authorities at the request of Department 5, that is of the RSHA Kripo Department, in which those officers were regarded as disturbing elements—plotters and escape leaders, having been specifically mentioned. The names were selected either by the commandant or by one of these officers. Thereupon, the shooting of the officers mentioned by name was accordingly ordered by Department 4 of the RSHA and corresponding instructions sent to the Staatspolizei.

Are you telling the Tribunal you did not know that your own officers were selecting the men to be shot on the ground that they were plotters and escape leaders? In any other service in the world, attempt to escape is regarded as a duty of an officer, isn’t it, when he is a prisoner of war? Isn’t that so?

GÖRING: That is correct, and I have emphasized that. To your first question, I would like to put on record very definitely that we are dealing with the utterances of a man who will be testifying as a witness. As to whether he actually asked for a list and saw a list, his utterance is illogical. There was no selection made for shooting. Those who were captured by the police were shot without exception, and those who had not been returned to the camp. No officers were selected as representing disturbing elements, but those who had returned to the camp were not shot. Those who were recaptured by the police outside the camp were shot without exception, on the orders of the Führer. Therefore, the utterance is entirely illogical and not in accordance with the facts.

I know nothing about such a list being asked for, nor about the carrying out of such a wish. I personally pointed out to the Führer repeatedly that it is the duty of these officers to escape, and that on their return after the war, they would have to give an account of such attempts, which as far as I can remember should be repeated three times, according to English rules.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You remember that the Government of Germany sent an official note about this matter, saying that they had been shot while resisting arrest while trying to escape? Do you remember that?

GÖRING: I heard for the first time that there had been a note to this effect when the reply to it was sent. I had no part in the drawing up of the note. I know of its contents only through the reply, for I happened to be there when the reply came in.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not at the moment on the point that everyone now admits that the note was a complete and utter lie. I am on the point of the seriousness of this matter. Do you know that General Westhoff says in his statement: “Then, when we read this note to England in the newspaper, we were all absolutely taken aback. We all clutched our heads, mad.” According to Mr. Wielen, who will be here, it was a contributory cause for General Nebe of the Kripo, for nights on end, not going to bed but passing the night on his office settee. You will agree, won’t you, Witness, that this was a serious and difficult matter? All these officers that had to deal with it found it a serious and difficult matter, isn’t that so?

GÖRING: Not only these officers found this matter serious and difficult, but I myself considered it the most serious incident of the whole war and expressed myself unequivocally and clearly on this point, and later, when I learned the contents of the note, I knew that this note was not in accordance with the truth. I gave expression to my indignation, inasmuch as I immediately told my Quartermaster General to direct a letter to the OKW to the effect that we wished to give up the camps for prisoners of war, because under these circumstances, we no longer wished to have anything to do with them.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And according to your evidence in chief, what you did was to turn to Himmler, asking him if he had received the order, and then you said,

“I told him what excitement would result in my branch, because we could not understand such measures; and if he had received such orders, he would please inform me before carrying them through so that I would have the possibility to prevent such orders from being carried out, if possible”—and then you said that you—“talked to the Führer and that he confirmed that he had given the order and told me why.”

You, according to that evidence, still had enough influence in Germany, in your opinion, to stop even Himmler issuing such orders or carrying—I am sorry, I said “issuing”—carrying out such orders.

GÖRING: You are giving my statement a completely wrong meaning. I told Himmler plainly that it was his duty to telephone me before the execution of this matter, to give me the possibility, even at this period of my much diminished influence, to prevent the Führer from carrying out this decree. I did not mean to say that I would have been completely successful, but it was a matter of course that I, as Chief of the Luftwaffe, should make it clear to Himmler that it was his duty to telephone me first of all, because it was I who was most concerned with this matter. I told the Führer in very clear terms just how I felt, and I saw from his answers that, even if I had known of it before, I could not have prevented this decree, and we must keep in mind that two different methods of procedure are in question. The order was not given to the Luftwaffe, that these people were to be shot by the Luftwaffe personnel, but to the police. If the Führer had said to me, “I will persist in this decree which I gave the police,” I would not have been able to order the police not to carry through the Führer’s decree. Only if this decree had had to be carried out by my men, would it have been possible for me perhaps to circumvent the decree, and I would like to emphasize this point strongly.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that may be your view that you could not have got anywhere with the Führer; but I suggested to you that when all these officers that I mentioned knew about it, you knew about it, and that you did nothing to prevent these men from being shot, but co-operated in this foul series of murders.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, are you passing from that now?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You are putting in evidence these two documents?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am putting them in. I put them to the witness. D-731 will be GB-278, and D-730 will be GB-279.

THE PRESIDENT: And should you not refer perhaps to the second paragraph in 731?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: It shows that apparently, in the early hours of the 25th of March the matter was communicated to the office of the adjutant of the Reich Marshal—the second paragraph beginning with “the escape.”

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.

“The escape of about 30 to 40 prisoners, the exact number having to be ascertained by roll call, was reported by telephone from the Sagan Camp to the inspectorate in the early hours of the 25th of March, Saturday morning, and duly passed on in the same way by this office to the higher authorities which were to be informed in case of mass escapes. These were: 1.) the Office of the Adjutant of the Reich Marshal; 2.) the OKW, for directors of these prisoners of war; 3.) the Inspector General of Prisoners of War; and 4.) Director of Operations, Air Ministry.”

I am much obliged. You must remember that the witness did not admit yesterday afternoon that the news of the escape had been given to the office of his adjutant.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am much obliged to you.

GÖRING: The escape was communicated to us every time relatively quickly. I should now like to give my view of the statement made by you before that—it concerns assertions made by you—but I still maintain that I did not hear about this incident until after it had occurred.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have put my questions on the incident. I pass to another point. I want to ask you two or three questions about the evidence that you gave 2 days ago, dealing with the evidence of your own witness, Herr Dahlerus, who made his first visit to London on the 25th of August 1939, after an interview and a telephone conversation with you on the 24th. I just want you to fix the date because it is sometimes difficult to remember what these dates are. At that time, you were anxious that he should persuade the British Government to arrange a meeting of plenipotentiaries who would deal with the questions of Danzig and the Corridor. Is that right?

GÖRING: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You knew perfectly well, did you not, that as far as the Führer was concerned, Danzig and the Corridor was not the real matter that was operating in his mind at all. Will you let me remind you what he said on the 23rd of May:

“Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all; it is a question of expanding our living space in the East, of securing our food supplies, and of the settlement of the Baltic problem.”

You knew that, didn’t you?

GÖRING: I knew that he had said these things at that time, but I have already pointed out repeatedly that such discussions can only be assessed, if considered in conjunction with the whole political situation. At the moment of these negotiations with England, we were solely concerned with Danzig and the Corridor.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, you say that despite what Hitler said on the 23rd of May, that at that moment Hitler was only concerned with Danzig and the Corridor? Do you say that seriously?

GÖRING: I maintain in all seriousness that, in the situation as it was at that time, this was really the case. Otherwise it would be impossible to understand any of Hitler’s acts. You might just as well take his book Mein Kampf as a basis and explain all his acts by it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am interested in the last week of August at the moment. I want you now just to remember two points on what you said, with regard to Dahlerus, during the morning of the 25th. Do you remember, you had a telephone conversation with him at 11:30 on the 24th? On the 25th, were you sufficiently in Hitler’s confidence to know that he was going to proffer the note verbale to Sir Nevile Henderson, the British Ambassador, on the 25th? Did you know that?

GÖRING: Yes, of course.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: At that time, when you were sending Dahlerus, and the note verbale was being given to the British Ambassador, the arrangement and order was that you were going to attack Poland on the morning of the 26th, wasn’t it?

GÖRING: There seems to be a disturbance on the line.

THE PRESIDENT: I think there is some mechanical difficulty. Perhaps it would be a good thing to adjourn for a few minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You told me, Witness, that the arrangements to attack Poland on the morning of the 26th were changed on the evening of the 25th. Before I come to that, I will ask you one or two questions about that.

GÖRING: No, I did not say that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Wait a minute. I am sorry, but that is what I understood you to say.

GÖRING: No. I said explicitly that already on the 25th the attack for the morning of the 26th was cancelled. It is a technical and military impossibility to cancel a large-scale attack of a whole army the evening before an attack. The shortest time required would be from 24 hours to 48 hours.

I expressly mentioned that on the 25th the situation was clear.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: At the time, you had asked Dahlerus to go to England on the 24th. It was still the plan that the attack would take place on the 26th. Was not your object in sending Dahlerus to have the British Government discussing their next move when the attack took place, in order to make it more difficult for the British Government?

GÖRING: No, I want to emphasize that—and perhaps I should have the documents for the date—that when I sent Dahlerus at that time, and when at that moment Sir Nevile had been handed a note on behalf of the Führer, the attack for the 26th had been cancelled and postponed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let me remind you of what you said yourself on the 29th of August:

“On the day when England gave her official guarantee to Poland, it was 5:30 on 25 August, the Führer called me on the telephone and told me he had stopped the planned invasion of Poland. I asked him then whether it was just temporary or for good. He said, ‘No, I will have to see whether we can eliminate British intervention.’ I asked him, ‘Do you think that it will be definite within 4 or 5 days?’”

Isn’t that right?

GÖRING: That was what I said, but I did not say that this occurred on the 25th, but when the Führer was clear about the guarantee that was given. I emphasize that once more . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was what I was quoting to you. When the official guarantee was given, the treaty was signed at 5:30 on the evening of the 25th of August. I am putting your own words to you. It was after that that the Führer telephoned you and told you the invasion was off. Do you wish to withdraw your statement that it was after the official guarantee was given to Poland?

GÖRING: I emphasized once more—after we knew that the guarantee would be given. It must be clear to you too that if the signing took place at 5:30 p.m. on the 25th, the Führer could know about it only shortly afterwards. Not till then would the Führer have called a conference, and in that case an attack for the 26th could have been called off only during the night of the 25th to 26th. Every military expert must know that that is an absolute impossibility. I meant to say in my statement, “. . . when it was clear to the Führer that a guarantee was given.”

I emphasize once more that I have not seen this record nor sworn to it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I admit that I do not know anything about that. I do not know whether you were still in Hitler’s confidence at the time or not. But, wasn’t it a fact that Signor Attolico came on the 25th and told Hitler that the Italian Army and Air Force were not ready for a campaign? Were you told that?

GÖRING: Yes, of course I was told that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was why the orders for the attack were cancelled on the 26th, wasn’t it?

GÖRING: No, that is absolutely wrong, because when the question of Italian assistance came up, the fact was that its value was doubted in many quarters. During the tension of the preceding days it became evident that the demands made by the Italians which could not be fulfilled by us were formulated in order to keep Italy out of the war. The Führer was convinced that England had only given such a clear-cut guarantee to Poland, because in the meantime the British Government had learned that it was not the intention of Italy to come into the war as a partner of the Axis.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will put to you your own account of what the Führer said. “I will have to see whether we can eliminate British intervention.” Isn’t it correct that you tried, through Mr. Dahlerus, in every way, to try and eliminate British intervention?

GÖRING: I have never denied that. It was my whole endeavor to avoid war with England. If it had been possible to avoid this war by coming to an agreement with Poland, then that would have been accepted. If the war with England could have been avoided in spite of a war with Poland, then that was my task also. This is clear from the fact that, even after the Polish campaign had started on 1 September 1939 I still made every attempt to avoid a war with England and to keep the war from spreading.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In other words, what you were trying to do from the 25th onwards was to get England to try and agree and help the Reich in the return of Danzig and the Polish Corridor, wasn’t that right?

GÖRING: That, of course, is quite clearly expressed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you remember the interview with Mr. Dahlerus. It was the interview in which you colored the portions on the map. I only want you to have it in your mind. If I say 11:30 on the 29th of August it will not mean anything to you. I want you to see it so that I can ask you one or two questions about it.

You remember, at that time, that you were upset at the interview which had taken place when Hitler handed Henderson the German reply, and there had been the remark about the ultimatum. Do you remember that?

GÖRING: Yes, of course I was upset, since that had suddenly completely disturbed my whole position.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And is this correct? Mr. Dahlerus says on Page 72 of his book that you came out with a tirade, strong words against the Poles. Do you remember that he quotes you as saying: “Wir kennen die Polen”? Do you remember that?

GÖRING: Yes, of course. You must consider the situation at the time. I had heard about the excesses and I would not go and tell Dahlerus, a neutral, that I considered Germany wholly guilty and the Poles completely innocent. It is correct that I did say that, but it arose out of a situation.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you still an admirer of Bismarck?

GÖRING: I admire Bismarck absolutely, but I have never said that I am a Bismarck.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I am not suggesting that. I thought you might have in mind his remark about the Poles. Do you remember: “Haut doch die Polen, dass sie am Leben verzagen”? (Let us strike the Poles until they lose the courage to live.) Is that what was in your mind at the time?

GÖRING: No, I had no such thoughts, still less because for years I had genuinely sought friendship with Poland.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have been quite frank about your general intention, and I am not going to take time on it, but I just want to put one or two subsidiary points.

You remember the passage that I read from Mr. Dahlerus’ book about the airplane and the sabotage, that he said that you had said to him, mentioning the Defendant Ribbentrop—you remember that passage? You have given your explanation and I just want to . . .

GÖRING: Yes, yes, I gave that explanation and I made it quite clear.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, your explanation was that Herr Dahlerus was confusing your concern that his airplane should not be shot down in making his journey. That is putting your explanation fairly, isn’t it? You are saying that Herr Dahlerus was confused. What you were saying was your concern that his airplane should not be shot down. Isn’t that right? That is as I understood it.

GÖRING: No, I think I have expressed it very clearly. Would you like me to give it again? I will repeat it.

Dahlerus, who stood in the witness box here, used the words, “I must correct myself,” when he was asked about Ribbentrop. I am quoting Dahlerus. He said, “I connected it with Ribbentrop, since shortly beforehand the name was mentioned in some other connection.”

Thereupon I explained I was really anxious lest something might happen. I explained that very clearly and I need not repeat it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The question I put to you, Witness—I think we are agreed on it—was that your anxiety was about his plane, and the point that I want to make clear to you now is that that incident did not occur on this day when Dahlerus was preparing for his third visit, but occurred when he was in England and rang you up during his second visit. He rang you up on the evening of the 27th of August, and on Page 59 of his book he says:

“Before leaving the Foreign Office, I telephoned Göring to confirm that I was leaving for Berlin by plane at 7:00 p.m. He seemed to think this was rather late. It would be dark and he was worried lest my plane be shot at by the British, or over German territory. He asked me to hold the line, and a minute later came back and gave me a concise description of the route the plane must follow over Germany to avoid being shot at. He also assured me that the anti-aircraft stations along our course would be informed that we were coming.”

What I am suggesting to you is that your explanation is wrong, that you have confused it with this earlier incident of which Mr. Dahlerus speaks, and that Mr. Dahlerus is perfectly accurate when he speaks about the second incident which occurred 2 days later.

GÖRING: That is not at all contradictory. In regard to the first flight the position was that it was already dark, which means that the danger was considerably greater; and I again point out that, in connection with the second journey, preparedness for war in all countries had reached such a degree that flying was hazardous.

I emphasize once more that I had to correct Dahlerus when he was questioned by my counsel, that I did not tell him that Ribbentrop had planned an attack against him. I emphasize for the last time that Von Ribbentrop knew nothing about my negotiations with Dahlerus.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you really say that? Do you remember that on the 29th of August—first of all, on the 28th of August, at 10:30 p.m., when Henderson and Hitler had an interview. That was before the difficulties arose. It was the interview when Hitler was considering direct negotiations with the Poles. He said, “We must summon Field Marshal Göring to discuss it with him.” That is in our Blue Book, and as far as I know it has never been denied. You were summoned to the interview that Hitler and Ribbentrop were having with Sir Nevile Henderson.

GÖRING: No, I must interrupt you. The Führer said, “We will have to fetch him,” but I was not fetched and that is not said in the Blue Book either.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But according to Mr. Dahlerus, he says:

“During our conversation Göring described how he had been summoned to Hitler immediately after Henderson’s departure, how Hitler, Göring, and Ribbentrop had discussed the conference that had taken place with Henderson, and how satisfied all three of them were with the result. In this connection Hitler had turned to Ribbentrop and said mockingly, ‘Do you still believe that Dahlerus is a British agent?’ Somewhat acidly Ribbentrop replied that perhaps it was not the case.”

You say that is not true, either?

GÖRING: Herr Dahlerus is describing the events without having been present. From that description, too, it becomes clear that I arrived after Henderson had already left. The description is a little colorful. Ribbentrop had no idea what I was negotiating with Dahlerus about, and the Führer did not inform him about these negotiations either. He merely knew that I used Dahlerus as a negotiator, and he was of course, opposed to him, because he, as Foreign Minister, was against any other channels being used.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was exactly the point, you know, that I put to you about 7 minutes ago, that Ribbentrop did know you were using Dahlerus, with which you disagreed. You now agree that he knew you were using Dahlerus, so I will leave it.

GÖRING: No, I beg your pardon. I still say—please do not distort my words—that Ribbentrop did not know what I was negotiating with Dahlerus about, and that he had not even heard of it through the Führer.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You said “distort my words.” I especially did not say to you that he knew what you were negotiating about. I said to you that he knew you were using Dahlerus, and that, you agree, is right. I limited it to that, didn’t I? And that is right, isn’t it?

GÖRING: He did not know either that I was carrying on negotiations with England through Dahlerus at that time. He did not know about the flights either.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, I want you just to help me on one or two other matters.

You remember that in January of 1937, and in October of 1937, the German Government gave the strongest assurances as to the inviolability and neutrality of Belgium and Holland. Do you remember that?

GÖRING: I do not remember it in detail, but it has been mentioned here in Court.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And do you remember that on the 25th of August 1938 the Air Staff put in a memorandum on the assumption that France and Great Britain—oh no, that France would declare war during the case of Fall Grün, and that Great Britain would come in? Do you remember that? It is Document Number 375-PS, Exhibit Number USA-84. I want you to have it generally in mind because I am going to put a passage to you.

GÖRING: May I ask whether the signature is Wolter? W-o-l-t-e-r?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I shall let you know. Yes, that is right.

GÖRING: In that case I remember the document exactly. It has been given to me here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is right. I only want to recall your recollection to one sentence:

“Belgium and the Netherlands in German hands represent an extraordinary advantage in the prosecution of the air war against Great Britain as well as against France. Therefore, it is held to be essential to obtain the opinion of the Army as to the conditions under which an occupation of this area could be carried out, and how long it would take.”

Do you remember that? It is pretty obvious air strategy, but you remember it?

GÖRING: That is absolutely correct. That was the principal work of a captain of the General Staff, 5th Department, who, naturally, when making his report, must propound the best arguments.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, after that, on the 28th of April 1939, you remember that Hitler said that he had given binding declarations to a number of states, and this applied to Holland and Belgium? I think that was the time when he made a speech in the Reichstag and mentioned a number of small states as well as that; but he said it included Holland and Belgium.

GÖRING: Yes. It has, of course been mentioned repeatedly here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Now, do you remember that on the 23rd of May, in the document that I have already put to you, at the meeting at the Reich Chancellery, Hitler said this: “The Dutch and Belgian air bases must be occupied by armed force. Declarations of neutrality must be ignored.”

Do you remember his saying that?

GÖRING: It says so in the document, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And, on the 22d of August 1939, in the speech to the commanders-in-chief, which is Document Number 798-PS, Exhibit Number USA-29, he said:

“Another possibility is the violation of Dutch, Belgian, and Swiss neutrality. I have no doubt that all these states, as well as Scandinavia, will defend their neutrality by all available means. England and France will not violate the neutrality of these countries.”

Do you remember his saying that?

GÖRING: You can see for yourself from those words how often the Führer changed his ideas, so that even the plan he had in May was not at all final.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They are perfectly consistent in my estimation. He is saying that they must be occupied; that declarations of neutrality must be ignored, and he is emphasizing that by saying that England and France will not violate the neutrality, so it is perfectly easy for Germany to do it.

GÖRING: No, what he means to say is that we on our part would not find it necessary to do so either. I merely want to point out that political situations always turn out to be different, and that at these interrogations and this Trial we must regard the political background of the world as a whole.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was on the 22d. You have agreed as to what was said. Immediately after that, on the 26th, 4 days later, Hitler gave another assurance. Do you remember that, just before the war he gave another assurance?

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And on the 6th of October, 1939, he gave a further assurance, and on the 7th of October, the day after that last assurance, the order, which is Document Number 2329-PS, Exhibit GB-105, was issued.

“Army Group B has to make all preparations according to special orders for immediate invasion of Dutch and Belgian territory, if the political situation so demands.”

And on the 9th of October, there is a directive from Hitler:

“Preparations should be made for offensive action on the northern flank of the Western Front crossing the area of Luxembourg, Belgium, and Holland. This attack must be carried out as soon and as forcibly as possible.”

Isn’t it quite clear from that, that all along you knew, as Hitler stated on the 22d of August, that England and France would not violate the neutrality of the low countries, and you were prepared to violate them whenever it suited your strategical and tactical interests? Isn’t that quite clear?

GÖRING: Not entirely. Only if the political situation made it necessary. And in the meantime the British air penetration of the neutrality of Holland and Belgium had taken place, up to October.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say not entirely. That is as near agreement with me as you are probably prepared to go.

Now I want to ask you quite shortly again about Yugoslavia. You remember that you have told us in your evidence in chief that Germany before the war, before the beginning of the war, had the very best relations with the Yugoslav people, and that you yourself had contributed to it. I am putting it quite shortly.

GÖRING: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that was emphasized, if you will remember, on the first of June 1939 by a speech of Hitler at a dinner with Prince Paul.

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, 80 days after that, on the 12th of August 1939, the Defendant Ribbentrop, Hitler, and Ciano had a meeting, and just let me recall to you what Hitler said at that meeting to Count Ciano.

“Generally speaking . . .”

GÖRING: I beg your pardon, what is the number of the document?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, it was my fault—Document Number TC-77, Exhibit Number GB-48. It is the memorandum of a conversation between Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Ciano at Obersalzberg on the 12th of August.

GÖRING: I merely wanted to know if this was from Ciano’s diary? That is important for me.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh no, not from Ciano’s diary, it is a memorandum. This is the official report.

“Generally speaking, the best thing to happen would be for uncertain neutrals to be liquidated one after the other. This process could be carried out more easily if on every occasion one partner of the Axis covered the other while it was dealing with an uncertain neutral. Italy might well regard Yugoslavia as a neutral of this kind.”

That was rather inconsistent with your statement as to the good intentions towards Yugoslavia, and the Führer’s statement to Prince Paul, wasn’t it?

GÖRING: I should like to read that through carefully once more and see in what connection that statement was made. As it is presented now it certainly would not fit in with that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know I do not want to stop you unnecessarily in any way, but that document has been read at least twice during the Trial and any further matter perhaps you will consider. But you will agree, unless I have wrenched it out of its context—and I hope I have not—that is quite inconsistent with friendly intentions, is it not?

GÖRING: As I said, it does not fit in with that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, it was 56 days after that, on the 6th of October, Hitler gave an assurance to Yugoslavia and he said:

“Immediately after the completion of the Anschluss I informed Yugoslavia that from now on the frontier with this country would also be an unalterable one and that we only desired to live in peace and friendship with her.”

And then again in March 1941, on the entry of the Tripartite Pact, the German Government announced that it confirmed its determination to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia at all times.

Now, after that of course, as I have always said when you dealt with this, there was the Simovic Putsch in Yugoslavia. But I think you said quite frankly in your evidence, that Hitler and yourself never took the trouble, or thought of taking the trouble, of inquiring whether the Simovic Government would preserve its neutrality or not. That is right, is it not?

GÖRING: I did not say that. We were convinced that they were using these declarations to mislead. We knew that this Putsch was first of all directed from Moscow, and, as we learned later, that it had been financially supported to a considerable extent by Britain. From that we recognized the hostile intentions as shown by the mobilization of the Yugoslav Army, which made the matter quite clear, and we did not want to be deceived by the Simovic declarations.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I would like to say one word about the mobilization in a moment. But on the 27th of March, that was 2 days after the signing of the pact I have just referred to, there was a conference in Berlin of Hitler with the German High Command, at which you were present, and do you remember the Führer saying:

“The Führer is determined, without waiting for possible loyalty declarations of the new government, to make all preparations to destroy Yugoslavia militarily and as a national unit. No diplomatic inquiries will be made nor ultimatums presented. Assurances of the Yugoslav Government, which cannot be trusted anyhow in the future, will be taken note of. The attack will start as soon as means and troops suitable for it are ready. Politically it is especially important that the blow against Yugoslavia is carried out with unmerciful harshness and that the military destruction is effected in a lightning-like undertaking. The plan is on the assumption that we speed up schedules of all preparations and use such strong forces that the Yugoslav collapse will take place within the shortest possible time.”

It was not a very friendly intention toward Yugoslavia to have no diplomatic negotiations, not give them the chance of assurance or coming to terms with you, and to strike with unmerciful harshness, was it?

GÖRING: I have just said that after the Simovic Putsch the situation was completely clear to us, and declarations of neutrality on the part of Yugoslavia could be regarded as only camouflage and deception in order to gain time. After the Putsch, Yugoslavia definitely formed part of the enemy front, and it was therefore for us also to carry out deceptive moves and attack as quickly as possible, since our forces at that time were relatively weak.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You realized, of course, that you said that General Simovic was inspired by Moscow. I am not going to argue that point with you at all. But I do point out to you that this was 3 months before you were at war with the Soviet Union. You realize that, do you?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct. It was precisely the Simovic Putsch which removed the Führer’s last doubts that Russia’s attitude towards Germany had become hostile. This Putsch was the very reason which caused him to decide to take quickest possible counter measures against this danger. Secondly . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just one moment. Do you know that it appears in the documents quite clearly, that the attack on the Soviet Union was postponed for 6 weeks because of this trouble in the Balkans? That is quite inconsistent with what you are saying now, isn’t it?

GÖRING: No. If you will read again my statement on that point, you will see I said that a number of moves on the part of Russia caused the Führer to order preparations for invasion, but that he still withheld the final decision on invasion, and that after the Simovic Putsch this decision was made. From the strategic situation it follows that the military execution of this political decision was delayed by the Yugoslavian campaign.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to ask you one other point about Yugoslavia.

You remember your evidence that the attack on Belgrade was due to the fact that the war office and a number of other important military organizations were located there. I am trying to summarize it, but that was the effect of your evidence, was it not?

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, do you remember how it was put in Hitler’s order which I have just been reading to you:

“The main task of the Air Force is to start as early as possible with the destruction of the Yugoslavian Air Force ground installations . . .”

Now, I ask you to note the next word “and”:

“. . . and to destroy the capital of Belgrade in attacks by waves. Besides the Air Force has to support the Army.”

I put it to you that that order makes it clear that the attack on Belgrade was just another of your exhibitions of terror attacks in order to attempt to subdue a population that would have difficulty in resisting them.

GÖRING: No, that is not correct. The population of Belgrade did defend itself. Belgrade was far more a center of military installations than the capital of any other country; and I would like to draw your attention to this.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, I am going to pass from that matter to one or two points on which you gave evidence—I think at the instance of counsel for the organizations. You remember you gave evidence in answer to Dr. Babel about the Waffen-SS? Do you remember that—a few days ago?

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would just like you to look at a document which has not got a number, but it is the Führer’s ideas about the Waffen-SS, and to see if you agree. It is Document Number D-665, and it will be Exhibit Number GB-280. It is a document from the High Command of the Army, General Staff of the Army—statements of the Führer regarding the future state military police—and the covering letter of the document says, “After the Führer’s proposals for the Waffen-SS had been passed on, doubts arose as to whether it was intended that they should be given wider distribution.” If you will pass to the documents, perhaps you will follow it while I read it. I do not think it has been introduced before:

“On 6 August 1940 when the order for the organization of the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler”—Adolf Hitler Bodyguard—“was issued, the Führer stated the principles regarding the necessity for the Waffen-SS as summed up below:

“The Greater German Reich in its final form will not include within its frontiers only those national groups which from the very beginning will be well disposed towards the Reich. It is therefore necessary to maintain outside the Reich proper a state military police capable in any situation of representing and imposing the authority of the Reich.

“This task can be carried out only by a state police composed of men of best German blood and wholeheartedly pledged to the ideology on which the Greater German Reich is founded. Only such a formation will resist subversive influences, even in critical times. Such a formation, proud of its purity, will never fraternize with the proletariat and with the underworld which undermines the fundamental idea. In our future Greater German Reich, a police corps will have the necessary authority over the other members of the community only if it is trained along military lines. Our people are so military-minded as a result of glorious achievements in war and training by the National Socialist Party that a ‘sock-knitting’ police, as in 1848, or a bureaucratic police, as in 1918, would no longer have any authority.

“It is therefore necessary that this state police proves its worth and sacrifices its blood at the front, in close formations, in the same way as every unit of the armed forces. Having returned home, after having proved themselves in the field in the ranks of the Army, the units of the Waffen-SS will possess the authority to execute their tasks as state police.

“This employment of the Waffen-SS for internal purposes is just as much in the interests of the Wehrmacht itself. We must never again allow the conscripted German Wehrmacht to be used against its fellow countrymen, weapon in hand, in critical situations at home. Such action is the beginning of the end. A state which has to resort to such methods is no longer in a position to use its armed forces against an enemy from without, and thereby gives itself up.

“There are deplorable examples of this in our history. In future the Wehrmacht is to be used solely against the foreign enemies of the Reich.

“In order to ensure that the men in the units of the Waffen-SS are always of high quality, the recruitment into the units must be limited. The Führer’s idea of this limitation is that the units of the Waffen-SS should generally not exceed 5 to 10 percent of the peacetime strength of the Army.”

Do you agree with that? Is that a correct description of the purpose of the Waffen-SS?

GÖRING: I am absolutely convinced that he did say that, but that does not contradict my statement.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I just want you, while we are on the SS, to look at a note which is Document D-729 and will be Exhibit Number GB-281. It is on the conversation between you and the Duce in the Palazzo Venezia on 23 October 1942. At that time you were still in good odor with the Führer and still retained your power; is that right?

I will read it: It is Page 35, Paragraph 1.

“The Reich Marshal then described Germany’s method in fighting the partisans. To begin with, all livestock and foodstuffs were taken away from the areas concerned, so as to deny the partisans all sources of supply.”

GÖRING: Just a second please. Where is this?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is Page 35, Paragraph 1, but I will find it for you if you have any difficulty. I think it is marked, and it begins “The Reich Marshal . . .” Can you find it?

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will start again if I may.

“The Reich Marshal then described Germany’s method in fighting the partisans. To begin with, all livestock and foodstuffs were taken away from the areas concerned, so as to deny the partisans all sources of supply. Men and women were taken away to labor camps, the children to children’s camps, and the villages burned down. It was by the use of these methods that the railways in the vast wooded areas of Bialowiza had been safeguarded. Whenever attacks occurred, the entire male population of the villages were lined up on one side and the women on the other. The women were told that all the men would be shot, unless they—the women—pointed out which men did not belong to the village. In order to save their men, the women always pointed out the nonresidents. Germany had found that, generally speaking, it was not easy to get soldiers to carry out such measures. Members of the Party discharged this task much more harshly and efficiently. For the same reason armies trained ideologically, such as the German—or the Russian—fought better than others. The SS, the nucleus of the old Party fighters, who have personal ties with the Führer and who form a special elite, confirm this principle.”

Now, is that a correct description?

GÖRING: Yes, certainly.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And this expresses correctly your views on how war against partisans should be carried out?

GÖRING: I have transmitted this.

Just a second, please. May I ask what the number of this document is?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I will give it again: Document Number D-729, and it becomes Exhibit Number GB-281.

Now, I just want you to help me on one other matter on these organizations. You will remember that in answer, I think, to Dr. Servatius, you made some remarks about the Leadership Corps. Do you remember that? I just want you to have them in mind.

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, will you look at the document which will be presented to you, Document Number D-728, Exhibit Number GB-282. This is a document from the Office of the Gau Leadership for Hessen-Nassau. I am sorry; there is a reference to an order of the Party Chancellery dated 10 February 1945, its subject is, “Action by the Party to be taken for keeping the German population in check until the end of the war.” It is signed by Sprenger, Gauleiter and Commissioner for Reich Defense.

GÖRING: The date is 15 March 1945, is that right?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am grateful to you. I knew it was just after 10 March. I have not got it in my copy, but if you say it, I will take it.

GÖRING: 1945.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.

[Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe then read from the document excerpts which were withdrawn and stricken from the record on 16 August 1946.]

DR. STAHMER: I must object to the use of this document, since I cannot recognize that it is genuine. I have not yet seen the original, and the doubts as to its being genuine are due to the fact that expressions are used which are most unusual in the German language.

GÖRING: I was going to raise the same objection. It is not an original as it says at the top, “copy,” and there is no original signature, but only the typewritten words “Sprenger, Gauleiter” at the bottom.

DR. STAHMER: For instance the expression “Gerichtlichkeiten” is used. This is an expression completely unusual and unknown in the German language, and I cannot imagine that an official document originating from a Gauleiter could contain such a word.

GÖRING: I can draw your attention to yet another point showing that this is evidently not an original document. If there had been an increase in meat or fat rations, I would have heard something about it. Not a single word of these two documents is known to me. It does not bear a rubber stamp either, the whole thing is typewritten, including the signatures. Therefore, I cannot accept this document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is a file copy which, to the best of my knowledge, was captured at the office of the Gau Leader. It was sent to us by the British Army of the Rhine. I shall make inquiries about it, but it purports to be a file copy and I have put the original document which we have, which is a file copy, to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, I have the original document in my hands now, together with the certificate of an officer of the British Army stating that the document was delivered to him in the above capacity, in the ordinary course of official business, as the original of a document found in German records of files captured by military forces under the command of the Supreme Commander. Under these circumstances it is in exactly the same position as all the other captured documents. The defense, of course, can bring any evidence which it thinks right, to criticize the authenticity of the document. The document stands on exactly the same footing as the other captured documents, subject to any criticism to support which you may be able to bring evidence.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Witness, I want you to deal with the sentence in paragraph 6.

Now, this paragraph is certainly directed to all administrative levels down to the Kreisleiter, county leaders of the Nazi Party, and it assumes they knew all about the running of concentration camps. Are you telling the Tribunal that you, who up to 1943 were the second man in the Reich, knew nothing about concentration camps?

GÖRING: First of all, I want to say once more that I do not accept this document, and that its whole wording is unknown to me, and that this paragraph appears unusual to me. I did not know anything about what took place and what methods were used in the concentration camps later, when I was no longer in charge.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let me remind you of the evidence that has been given before this Court, that as far as Auschwitz alone is concerned, 4,000,000 people were exterminated. Do you remember that?

GÖRING: This I have heard as a statement here, but I consider it in no way proved—that figure, I mean.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you do not consider it proved, let me remind you of the affidavit of Hoettl, who was Deputy Group Leader of the Foreign Section, of the Security Section of Amt IV of the RSHA. He says that approximately 4,000,000 Jews have been killed in the concentration camps, while an additional 2,000,000 met death in other ways. Assume that these figures—one is a Russian figure, the other a German—assume they are even 50 percent correct, assume it was 2,000,000 and 1,000,000, are you telling this Tribunal that a Minister with your power in the Reich could remain ignorant that that was going on?

GÖRING: This I maintain, and the reason for this is that these things were kept secret from me. I might add that in my opinion not even the Führer knew the extent of what was going on.

This is also explained by the fact that Himmler kept all these matters very secret. We were never given figures or any other details.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But, Witness, haven’t you access to the foreign press, the press department in your ministry, to foreign broadcasts? You see, there is evidence that altogether, when you take the Jews and other people, something like 10,000,000 people have been done to death in cold blood, apart from those killed in battle. Something like 10,000,000 people. Do you say that you never saw or heard from the foreign press, in broadcasts, that this was going on?

GÖRING: First of all, the figure 10,000,000 is not established in any way. Secondly, throughout the war I did not read the foreign press, because I considered it nothing but propaganda. Thirdly, though I had the right to listen to foreign broadcasts, I never did so, simply because I did not want to listen to propaganda. Neither did I listen to home propaganda.

Only during the last 4 days of the war did I—and this I could prove—listen to a foreign broadcasting station for the first time.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You told Mr. Justice Jackson yesterday that there were various representatives in Eastern territories, and you have seen the films of the concentration camps, haven’t you, since this Trial started? You knew that there were millions of garments, millions of shoes, 20,952 kilograms of gold wedding rings, 35 wagons of furs—all that stuff which these people who were exterminated at Maidanek or Auschwitz left behind them. Did nobody ever tell you, under the development of the Four Year Plan, or anyone else, that they were getting all these amounts of human material? Do you remember we heard from the Polish Jewish gentleman, who gave evidence, that all he got back from his family, of his wife and mother and daughter, I think, were their identity cards? His work was to gather up clothes. He told us that so thorough were the henchmen of your friend Himmler that it took 5 minutes extra to kill the women because they had to have their hair cut off as it was to be used for making mattresses. Was nothing ever told you about this accretion to German material, which came from the effects of these people who were murdered?

GÖRING: No, and how can you imagine this? I was laying down the broad outlines for the German economy, and that certainly did not include the manufacture of mattresses from women’s hair or the utilization of old shoes and clothes. I leave the figure open. But, also I do want to object to your reference to my “friend Himmler.”

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I will say, “your enemy Himmler,” or simply “Himmler” whichever you like. You know whom I mean, don’t you?

GÖRING: Yes, indeed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I just want to remind you of one other point: Exhibit Number USA-228, Document Number 407(V)-PS, “. . . I have the honor to report to you that it was possible to add 3,638,056 new foreign workers to the German war economy between April 1st of last year and March 31st of this year. . . . In addition to the foreign civilian workers 1,622,929 prisoners of war are employed in the German economy.” Now, just listen to this, “out of the 5,000,000 foreign workers who have arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came voluntarily.” That is from the minutes of the Central Planning Board on the 1st of March. Do you say that you, in your position in the State and as the great architect of German economy, did not know that you were getting for your economy 4,800,000 foreign workers who were forced to come? Do you tell the Tribunal that?

GÖRING: I never told the Tribunal that. I said that I knew quite well that these workers were brought in and not always voluntarily, but whether the figure of 200,000 is correct, that I do not know, and I do not believe it either. The number of volunteers was greater, but this does not alter the fact that workers were forced to come to the Reich. That I have never denied, and have even admitted it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You admit—and I want to put it quite fairly—that a large number of workers were forced to come to the Reich and work there?

GÖRING: Yes, certainly.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, would you like to adjourn now?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, sir.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you remember what you said about the relations between you and the Führer? May I repeat your words:

“The chief influence on the Führer, if I may mention influence on the Führer at all, was up to the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942, and that influence was I. Then my influence gradually decreased until 1943, and from 1943 on it decreased speedily. All in all, apart from myself I do not believe anyone else had anywhere near the influence on the Führer that I had.”

That is your view on that matter?

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think you told the Tribunal that right up to the end your loyalty to the Führer was unshaken, is that right?

GÖRING: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you still seek to justify and glorify Hitler after he had ordered the murder of these 50 young flying officers at Stalag Luft Number III?

GÖRING: I am here neither to justify the Führer Adolf Hitler nor to glorify him. I am here only to emphasize that I remained faithful to him, for I believe in keeping one’s oath not in good times only, but also in bad times when it is much more difficult.

As to your reference to the 50 airmen, I never opposed the Führer so clearly and strongly as in this matter, and I gave him my views about it. After that no conversation between the Führer and myself took place for months.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Führer, at any rate, must have had full knowledge of what was happening with regard to concentration camps, the treatment of the Jews, and the treatment of the workers, must he not?

GÖRING: I already mentioned it as my opinion that the Führer did not know about details in concentration camps, about atrocities as described here. As far as I know him, I do not believe he was informed. But insofar as he . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not asking about details; I am asking about the murder of four or five million people. Are you suggesting that nobody in power in Germany, except Himmler and perhaps Kaltenbrunner, knew about that?

GÖRING: I am still of the opinion that the Führer did not know about these figures.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you remember how Mr. Dahlerus described the relations between you and Hitler on Page 53 of his book:

“From the very beginning of our conversation, I resented his manner towards Göring, his most intimate friend and comrade from the years of struggle. His desire to dominate was explicable, but to require such obsequious humility as Göring now exhibited, from his closest collaborator, seemed to me abhorrent and unprepossessing.”

Is that how you had to behave with Hitler?

GÖRING: I did not have to behave in that way, and I did not behave in that way. Those are journalistic statements by Dahlerus, made after the war. If Germany had won the war, this description would certainly have been very different.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr. Dahlerus was your witness, though.

GÖRING: Mr. Dahlerus was not asked to give a journalistic account. He was solely questioned about the matters with which he, as courier between myself and the British Government, had to deal.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, on Tuesday of last week, the defendant called General Bodenschatz, who gave general evidence as to his character and reputation. He, therefore, in my respectful submission, makes me entitled to put one document to him which is an account by the Defendant Raeder of his general character and reputation. In accordance with the English practice, I make my submission and ask the Court’s permission to put it in.

DR. STAHMER: I object to the reading of this document. It would be considerably easier to question Admiral Raeder, as witness, on his statements, since he is here with us. Then we shall be able to determine in cross-examination whether and to what extent he still maintains this alleged statement.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have to put it in cross-examination to give the defendant the chance of answering it. The Defendant Raeder can give his explanations when he comes into the witness box.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to look at the document before it is put in.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is the English translation. I will show Dr. Stahmer the German.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I should like to point out, that the document bears no date and we do not know when and where it was drawn up.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is signed by the Defendant Raeder.

DR. STAHMER: When and where was it drawn up? The signature of Raeder is unknown to me.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The date is in Raeder’s handwriting as is the signature; the 27th of July, I think it is 1945. Each page of the document is signed by the Defendant Raeder.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you said the defendant has put his character in issue through Bodenschatz?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will remember he was asked by Doctor Stahmer: “Will you now tell me about the defendant’s social relations?” And then he proceeded to give an account of his character and his kindness and other qualities at that time; and I notice that Doctor Stahmer has just included as an exhibit still further evidence as to character in the form of a statement by one Hermann Winter.

THE PRESIDENT: Would it not have been appropriate, if the document was to have been put in evidence, to have put it to Bodenschatz, who was giving the evidence?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But, My Lord, the rule is that if the defendant puts his character in issue, he is entitled to be cross-examined on his character and his general reputation, and of course it is permissible to call a witness to speak as to his general reputation.

DR. STAHMER: May I make the following remark? I did not call Bodenschatz, neither did I question him as witness for Göring’s character. I questioned him about certain facts and happenings from which Bodenschatz subsequently drew certain conclusions. In my opinion, all these questions should have been put to Bodenschatz when he was here. These statements could then have been used to prove that it was Bodenschatz who was not telling the truth, not that Göring had told an untruth. To prove this the document should have been used during Bodensehatz’s interrogation. Then we would have been able to question Bodenschatz about it too.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He may prefer that Bodenschatz be brought back and it be put to him, but I think I am entitled to put it to the defendant who called for the evidence as to his character and reputation.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that at the present stage, this document cannot be used in cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Honor pleases, I understand that Your Lordship leaves open the question for further argument, whether it can be used for the Defendant Raeder in the witness box.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am much obliged.

[Turning to the witness.] Now, Witness, you said before the Tribunal adjourned, that Hitler, in your opinion, did not know about—broadly—or was ignorant about, the question of concentration camps and the Jews. I would like you to look at Document Number D-736. That is an account of a discussion between the Führer and the Hungarian Regent Horthy on the 17th of April 1943, and if you would look at Page 4, you will see the passage just after “Nuremberg and Fürth.”

GÖRING: Just a moment. I should like to read through it very quickly to determine its authenticity.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.

GÖRING: Page 4.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Page 4—Exhibit Number GB-283. You see, after the mention of Nuremberg and Fürth, Hitler goes on:

“The Jews did not even possess organizational value. In spite of the fears which he, the Führer, had heard repeatedly in Germany, everything continued to go its normal way without the Jews. Where the Jews were left to themselves, as for instance in Poland, the most terrible misery and decay prevailed. They are just pure parasites. In Poland, this state of affairs had been fundamentally cleared up. If the Jews there did not want to work, they were shot. If they could not work, they had to perish. They had to be treated like tuberculosis bacilli, with which a healthy body may become infected. This was not cruel—if one remembers that even innocent creatures of nature, such as hares and deer, have to be killed so that no harm is caused by them. Why should the beasts who wanted to bring us Bolshevism be more preserved? Nations which do not rid themselves of Jews perish. One of the most famous examples is the downfall of that people who were once so proud, the Persians, who now lead a pitiful existence as Armenians.”

And would you look at Exhibit USSR-170, Document Number USSR-170, which is a conference which you had on the 6th of August 1942.

THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass from this document, is there not a passage higher up that is important? It is about 10 lines down, I think, in the middle of the line . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Honor is correct.

“To Admiral Horthy’s counterquestion as to what he should do with the Jews, now that they had been deprived of almost all possibility of earning their livelihood—he could not kill them off—the Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that the Jews should be exterminated, or taken to concentration camps. There was no other possibility.”

GÖRING: I do not know this document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, this is a conference which you had with a number of people, and on Page 143, if you will turn to it, you get on to the question of butter. If you will look where it says: “Reich Marshal Göring: How much butter do you deliver? 30,000 tons?”

Do you see that?

GÖRING: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And then Lohse, who is in the conference, says, “Yes,” and you say, “Do you also deliver to Wehrmacht units?” and then Lohse says, “I can answer that too. There are only a few Jews left alive. Tens of thousands have been disposed of, but I can tell you that the civilian population gets, on your orders, 15 percent less than the Germans.” I call your attention to the statement that “there are only a few Jews left alive, tens of thousands have been disposed of.” Do you still say, in the face of these two documents, that neither Hitler nor yourself knew that the Jews were being exterminated?

GÖRING: I beg that the remarks be rightly read. They are quite incorrectly reproduced. May I read the original text? “Lohse:”—thus not my remark, but the remark of Lohse—“I can also answer that. The Jews are left only in small numbers. Thousands have gone.” It does not say here that they were destroyed. From this remark you cannot conclude that they were killed. It could also mean that they had gone away—they were removed. There is nothing here . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: About the preceding remark, I suggest that you make quite clear what you meant by “there are only a few Jews left alive, whereas tens of thousands have been disposed of.”

GÖRING: They were “still living there.” That is how you should understand that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You heard what I read to you about Hitler, what he said to Horthy and what Ribbentrop said, that the Jews must be exterminated or taken to concentration camps. Hitler said the Jews must either work or be shot. That was in April 1943. Do you still say that neither Hitler nor you knew of this policy to exterminate the Jews?

GÖRING: For the correctness of the document . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you please answer my question. Do you still say neither Hitler nor you knew of the policy to exterminate the Jews?

GÖRING: As far as Hitler is concerned, I have said I do not think so. As far as I am concerned, I have said that I did not know, even approximately, to what extent these things were taking place.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You did not know to what degree, but you knew there was a policy that aimed at the extermination of the Jews?

GÖRING: No, a policy of emigration, not liquidation of the Jews. I knew only that there had been isolated cases of such perpetrations.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Thank you.

GEN. RUDENKO: If I understand you, Defendant Göring, you said that all the basic decisions concerning foreign, political, and military matters were taken by Hitler alone? Do I understand you rightly?

GÖRING: Yes, certainly. After all, he was the Führer.

GEN. RUDENKO: Am I to understand that Hitler took these decisions without listening to the opinions of the experts who studied the questions, and the intelligence reports on those matters?

GÖRING: It depended upon the circumstances. In certain cases he would ask for data to be submitted to him, without the experts knowing the exact reason. In other cases, he would explain to his advisers what he intended to do, and get from them the data and their opinion. Final decisions he took himself as Supreme Commander.

GEN. RUDENKO: In that case, do I understand you correctly when you say that when making important decisions, Hitler used the analysis and material given to him by his close collaborators, who advised him according to their speciality. Is that correct?

GÖRING: Given to him partly by his collaborators, partly as in the case of communication and intelligence, by other members of the departments concerned?

GEN. RUDENKO: Will you tell me then, who was the closest collaborator of Hitler as far as the Air Force was concerned?

GÖRING: I was, of course.

GEN. RUDENKO: And on the questions of economics?

GÖRING: In economic matters, it was also I.

GEN. RUDENKO: And on political matters?

GÖRING: It depended on what question came up for discussion, and on whether the Führer had consulted anybody or asked his opinion.

GEN. RUDENKO: Can you tell me, who were these collaborators and associates?

GÖRING: The close collaborators of the Führer as I said before were first I, myself. Another close associate—perhaps it is the wrong word—with whom he perhaps spoke more than with others was Dr. Goebbels. Then, of course, you must consider the different periods. It varied during the 20 years; towards the end, it was Bormann first and foremost. During the years 1933 and 1934, until shortly before the end, it was Himmler also, when certain questions were dealt with. And if the Führer was dealing with certain other specific questions, then he would, of course, as is the custom in every government, consult the person who knew most about the question and obtain the information from him.

GEN. RUDENKO: Can you also name which of his collaborators were associated with him in the field of foreign politics?

GÖRING: As far as foreign policy was concerned, Hitler only consulted his colleagues more on the, so to speak, purely technical side. The most important and far-reaching political decisions were taken by himself, and he then announced them to his collaborators and colleagues as ready-made conceptions. Only very few people were allowed to discuss them, myself for instance; and the technical execution of his decisions in the field of foreign policy, when it came to framing the diplomatic notes, was done by the Foreign Office and its minister.

GEN. RUDENKO: The Defendant Ribbentrop?

GÖRING: Yes, naturally, he was the foreign minister concerned, but he did not make foreign policy.

GEN. RUDENKO: And on questions of strategy, who advised Hitler?

GÖRING: There were several people. On purely departmental matters of strategic importance it was the three commanders-in-chief and their chiefs of general staff, and to some extent, the Supreme General Staff which was immediately attached to the Führer.

GEN. RUDENKO: Which of the defendants can be placed in the category of such consultants?

GÖRING: If he was asked by the Führer, then the adviser on strategic matters was the Chief of the Operations Staff, General Jodl; and as far as military administrative questions were concerned, the commanders-in-chief, that is myself, Admiral Raeder, and later Admiral Dönitz for the Navy. The other representatives of the Army did not take part.

GEN. RUDENKO: The next question. If we approach the subject, not theoretically but functionally, could we conclude that any recommendations which Hitler’s leading associates might make, would have had any considerable influence on Hitler’s final decisions?

GÖRING: If I disregard the purely formal point of view and presumably you are referring to the military sphere, then the position was . . .

GEN. RUDENKO: No, I mean all spheres. All aspects of questions such as economic questions, home policy, foreign policy, military, and strategic questions. I mean, if we approach the subject, not theoretically but functionally, did their recommendations have any considerable influence on Hitler’s final decisions? That is what I mean.

GÖRING: To a certain extent, yes. Their rejection depended on whether or not they appeared right to the Führer.

GEN. RUDENKO: You said to a certain extent, did you not?

GÖRING: Yes, of course, if a reasonable proposal was made, and he considered it to be reasonable, then he certainly made use of it.

GEN. RUDENKO: I should like to stress that all these consultants must have been closely associated with Hitler. Therefore, they had a certain influence on Hitler’s final decision. They did not stand quite aloof, did they?

GÖRING: They did not stand aloof. Their influence was only effective to the extent that their convictions concurred with those of the Führer.

GEN. RUDENKO: That is clear. Let us now pass to the next set of questions.

When exactly did you start the working out of the plan of action for the use of the German Luftwaffe against the Soviet Union in connection with Case Barbarossa?

GÖRING: The deployment of the Luftwaffe for Case Barbarossa was worked out by my general staff, after the first directive of the Führer’s, that is, after the November directive.

GEN. RUDENKO: In 1940?

GÖRING: In 1940. But I would add that I had already considered making preparations not only in anticipation of a possible threat from Russia, but from all those countries which were not already involved in the war, but which might eventually be drawn in.

GEN. RUDENKO: All right. It was in November 1940, when Germany was preparing to attack Russia? Plans were already being prepared for this attack with your participation?

GÖRING: The other day I explained exactly, that at the time a plan for dealing with the political situation and the potential threat from Russia had been worked out.

GEN. RUDENKO: I ask you to reply to this question briefly, “yes” or “no.” I think it is possible to reply to the question briefly.

Once more I say, in November 1940, more than half a year before the attack on the Soviet Union, plans were already prepared, with your participation, for the attack on the Soviet Union. Can you reply to this briefly?

GÖRING: Yes, but not in the sense in which you are presenting it.

GEN. RUDENKO: It seems to me that I have put the question quite clearly, and there is no ambiguity here at all. How much time did it take to prepare Case Barbarossa?

GÖRING: In which sector, air, land, or sea?

GEN. RUDENKO: If you are acquainted with all phases of the plan, that is concerning the Air Force, the Army and the Navy, then I would like you to answer for all phases of Case Barbarossa.

GÖRING: Generally speaking, I can only answer for the air, where it took a comparatively short time.

GEN. RUDENKO: If you please, just how long did it take to prepare Case Barbarossa?

GÖRING: After so many years I cannot give you the exact time without referring to the documents, but I answered your question when I told you that as far as the Air Force was concerned, it took a comparatively short time; as for the Army, it probably took longer.

GEN. RUDENKO: Thus, you admit that the attack on the Soviet Union was planned several months in advance of the attack itself, and that you, as chief of German Air Force and Reich Marshal, participated directly in the preparation of the attack.

GÖRING: May I divide your numerous questions. Firstly, that was not several months . . .

GEN. RUDENKO: There were not too many questions asked at once. It was only one question. You have admitted that in November 1940 Case Barbarossa was prepared and developed for the Air Force. I ask you in your capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the German Luftwaffe.

GÖRING: That is right.

GEN. RUDENKO: You have answered already the first part of my question. Now the following part: You admit that as chief of the German Air Force and Reich Marshal you participated in preparations for the attack on the Soviet Union?

GÖRING: I once more repeat that I prepared for the possibility of an attack, mainly because of Hitler’s assumption that Soviet Russia was adopting a dangerous attitude. In the beginning the certainty of an attack was not discussed, and that is stated clearly in the directive of November 1940.

Secondly, I want to emphasize that my position as Reich Marshal is of no importance here. That is a title and a rank.

GEN. RUDENKO: But you do not deny—rather, you agree—that the plan was already prepared in November 1940?

GÖRING: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: It appears to me that the question has already been covered in such detail before the Tribunal that we need not talk too much about Case Barbarossa, which is quite clear. I shall go on to the next question:

Do you admit that the objectives of the war against the Soviet Union consisted of invading and seizing Soviet territory up to the Ural Mountains and joining it to the German Reich, including the Baltic territories, the Crimea, the Caucasus; also the subjugation by Germany of the Ukraine, of Bielorussia, and of other regions of the Soviet Union? Do you admit that such were the objectives of that plan?

GÖRING: That I certainly do not admit.

GEN. RUDENKO: You do not admit that! Do you not remember that during the conference at Hitler’s headquarters on the 16th of June 1941, at which you were present, as well as Bormann, Keitel, Rosenberg, and others, Hitler stated the objectives of the attack against the Soviet Union exactly as I have stated them? This was shown by the document submitted to the Tribunal. Have you forgotten that document? Have you forgotten about that?

GÖRING: I can remember the document exactly, and I have a fair recollection of the discussion at the conference. I said the first time that this document, as recorded by Bormann, appears to me extremely exaggerated as far as the demands are concerned. At any rate, at the beginning of the war, such demands were not discussed; nor had they been discussed previously.

GEN. RUDENKO: But you do admit that there are minutes of such a conference?

GÖRING: I admit it because I have seen them. It was a document prepared by Bormann.

GEN. RUDENKO: You also admit that according to the minutes of this meeting, you participated in that conference.

GÖRING: I was present at that conference, and for that reason I question the record.

GEN. RUDENKO: Do you remember that in those minutes the tasks were formulated which were in connection with developing conditions? I shall remind you of various parts of the minutes. It is not necessary to read them in full.

GÖRING: May I ask to be shown a copy of that record.

GEN. RUDENKO: You would like a copy of the minutes of the meeting?

GÖRING: I ask to have it.

GEN. RUDENKO: If you please. Would you like to read the document?

GÖRING: No, only where you are going to quote it.

GEN. RUDENKO: Page 2, second paragraph, Point 2, about the Crimea: “We emphasize”—can you find the place? Do you have it?

GÖRING: Just a moment, I have not found it yet. Yes, I have it.

GEN. RUDENKO: “We emphasize”—states this Point 2—“that we are bringing freedom to the Crimea. The Crimea must be freed of all foreigners and populated by the Germans. Also, Austrian Galicia will become a province of the German Reich.”

Have you found the place?

GÖRING: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: “A province of the Reich,” it says.

GÖRING: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: I want to draw your attention to the end of the minutes. It says here: “The Führer stresses the fact that the whole of the Baltic States must become Reich territory.”

Have you found the place, “The Führer stresses the fact”?

GÖRING: You mean the very last bit?

GEN. RUDENKO: That is right.

GÖRING: “Finally, it is ordered . . .”?

GEN. RUDENKO: A little higher up.

GÖRING: “The Führer stresses . . .”?

GEN. RUDENKO: That is right.

“The Führer stresses the fact that the Baltic countries as well must become Reich territory.” Then it goes on—“Reich territory must also include the Crimea, with its adjoining regions. These adjoining regions must be as big as possible.”

The Führer then says something about the Ukrainians . . .

Go on further; skip one paragraph.

“The Führer, furthermore, stresses that the Volga region also must become Reich territory, as well as the Baku Province, which must become a military colony of the Reich. Eastern Karelia is claimed by the Finns.

“The peninsula Kola, however, because of the large supplies of nickel, should become German territory. Great caution must be exercised in the incorporation of Finland as a federal state. The Finns want the surrounding region of Leningrad. The Führer will level Leningrad to the ground and give it to the Finns afterwards.”

Have you not found the place where it mentions Leningrad and Finland?

GÖRING: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: These are the minutes of the conference at which you were present on the 16th of July 1941, 3 weeks after Germany attacked the Soviet Union. You do not deny that such minutes exist, do you?

It is Document Number L-221.

GÖRING: Just a moment, you are mistaken in the date. You said 3 days; that is not correct.

GEN. RUDENKO: Three weeks, not 3 days.

GÖRING: Oh, 3 weeks; I see.

GEN. RUDENKO: Three weeks after Germany attacked the Soviet Union on the 22d of June, and the conference took place at Hitler’s headquarters on the 16th of July at 1500 hours, I think.

Is it correct that such a conference took place?

GÖRING: That is quite right. I have said so all along, but the record of this is not right.

GEN. RUDENKO: And who took the minutes of the meeting?

GÖRING: Bormann.

GEN. RUDENKO: What was the point of Bormann’s taking the minutes incorrectly?

GÖRING: In this record Bormann has exaggerated. The Volga territory was not discussed. As far as the Crimea is concerned, it is correct, that the Führer . . .

GEN. RUDENKO: Well, let us be a little more precise. Germany wanted the Crimea to become a Reich territory, correct?

GÖRING: The Führer wanted the Crimea, yes, but that was an aim fixed before the war. The same applies to the three Baltic States, which had previously been taken by Russia. They, too, were to go back to Germany.

GEN. RUDENKO: Pardon me. You say that the question of the Crimea arose even before the war, that is, the question of acquiring the Crimea for the Reich. How long before the war was that?

GÖRING: No, before the war the Führer had not discussed territorial aims with us, or, rather which territories he had in mind. At that time, if you read the record, I myself considered the question premature, and I confined myself to more practical matters during that conference.

GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to be still more precise. You state that with regard to the Crimea, there was some question about making the Crimea Reich territory.

GÖRING: Yes, that was discussed during that conference.

GEN. RUDENKO: All right, with regard to the Baltic provinces, there was talk about those, too?

GÖRING: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: All right. With regard to the Caucasus, there was talk about annexing the Caucasus also?

GÖRING: It was never a question of its becoming German. We merely spoke about very strong German economic influence in that sphere.

GEN. RUDENKO: So the Caucasus was to become a concession of the Reich?

GÖRING: Just to what degree obviously could not be discussed until after a victorious war. You can see from the record what a mad thing it is to discuss a few days after a war has broken out the things recorded here by Bormann, when nobody knows what the outcome of that war will be and what the possibilities are.

GEN. RUDENKO: Therefore by exaggeration you mean that the Volga territory for instance was not discussed.

GÖRING: The exaggeration lies in the fact that at that time things were discussed which could not be usefully discussed at all. At the most one might have talked about territory which one occupied, and its administration.

GEN. RUDENKO: We are now trying to establish the facts, namely, that those questions had been discussed, and these questions came up at the conference. You do not deny that, do you?

GÖRING: There had been some discussion, yes, but not as recorded in these minutes.

GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to draw just one conclusion. The facts bear witness that even before this conference, aims to annex foreign territories had been fixed in accordance with the plan prepared months ago. That is correct, is it not?

GÖRING: Yes that is correct, but I would like to emphasize that in these minutes I steered away from these endless discussions, and here the text, reads:

“The Reich Marshal countered this, that is, the lengthy discussion of all these things, by stressing the main points which were of vital importance to us, such as, the securing of food supplies to the extent necessary for economy, securing of roads, et cetera.”

I just wanted to reduce the whole thing to a practical basis.

GEN. RUDENKO: Just so. You have contradicted yourself, inasmuch as in your opinion, the most important thing was the food supply. All the other things could follow later. It says so in the minutes. Your contradiction does not lie in your objection to the plan itself but in the sequence of its execution. First of all you wanted food and later territory. Is that correct?

GÖRING: No, it is exactly as I have read it out, and there is no sequence of aims. There is no secret.

GEN. RUDENKO: Please read it once more and tell me just where you disagreed.

GÖRING: “After the lengthy discussion about persons and matters concerning annexation, et cetera, opposing this, the Reich Marshal stressed the main points which might be the decisive factors for us: Securing of food supplies to the extent necessary for economy, securing of roads, et cetera—communications.”

At the time I mentioned railways, et cetera, that is, I wanted to bring this extravagant talk—such as might take place in the first flush of victory—back to the purely practical things which must be done.

GEN. RUDENKO: It is understandable that the securing of food supplies plays an important part. However, the objection you just gave does not mean that you objected to the annexation of the Crimea or the annexation of other regions, is that not correct?

GÖRING: If you spoke German, then, from the sentence which says, “opposing that, the Reich Marshal emphasized . . .” you would understand everything that is implied. In other words, I did not say here, “I protest against the annexation of the Crimea,” or, “I protest against the annexation of the Baltic States.” I had no reason to do so. Had we been victorious, then after the signing of peace we would in any case have decided how far annexation would serve our purpose. At the moment we had not finished the war, we had not won the war yet, and consequently I personally confined myself to practical problems.

GEN. RUDENKO: I understand you. In that case, you considered the annexation of these regions a step to come later. As you said yourself, after the war was won you would have seized these provinces and annexed them. In principle you have not protested.

GÖRING: Not in principle. As an old hunter, I acted according to the principle of not dividing the bear’s skin before the bear was shot.

GEN. RUDENKO: I understand. And the bear’s skin should be divided only when the territories were seized completely, is that correct?

GÖRING: Just what to do with the skin could be decided definitely only after the bear was shot.

GEN. RUDENKO: Luckily, this did not happen.

GÖRING: Luckily for you.

GEN. RUDENKO: And so, summing this up on the basis of the replies which you gave to my question, it has become quite clear, and I think you will agree, that the war aims were aggressive.

GÖRING: The one and only decisive war aim was to eliminate the danger which Russia represented to Germany.

GEN. RUDENKO: And to seize the Russian territories.

GÖRING: I have tried repeatedly to make this point clear, namely, that before the war started this was not discussed. The answer is that the Führer saw in the attitude of Russia, and in the lining up of troops on our frontier, a mortal threat to Germany, and he wanted to eliminate that threat. He felt that to be his duty. What might have been done in peace, after a victorious war, is quite another question, which at that time was not discussed in any way. But to reply to your question, by that I do not mean to say that after a victorious war in the East we would have had no thoughts of annexation.

GEN. RUDENKO: I do not wish to occupy the time of the Court in returning to the question of the so-called preventive war, but nevertheless, since you touched on the subject, I should like to ask you the following:

You remember the testimony of Field Marshal Milch, who stated that neither Göring nor he wanted war with Russia. Do you remember that testimony of your witness, Field Marshal Milch?

GÖRING: Yes, perfectly.

GEN. RUDENKO: You do remember. In that case why did you not want war with Russia, when you saw the so-called Russian threat?

GÖRING: Firstly, I have said already that it was the Führer who saw the danger to be so great and so imminent. Secondly, in connection with the question put by my counsel, I stated clearly and exactly the reasons why I believed that the danger had not yet become so imminent, and that we should take other preparatory measures first. That was my firm conviction.

GEN. RUDENKO: But you do not deny the testimony of your witness Milch?

GÖRING: Milch held a somewhat different opinion from mine. He considered it a serious danger to Germany because it would mean a war on two fronts. He was not so much of the opinion that Russia did not represent a danger, but he held that in spite of that danger one should take the risk and not use attack as a preventive measure against that danger. I too held the same opinion, but of course at a different time.

GEN. RUDENKO: On the basis of your replies to questions during several sessions, it appears there was no country on earth which you did not regard as a threat.

GÖRING: Most of the other countries did not represent a danger to Germany, but I personally, from 1933 on, always saw in Russia the greatest threat.

GEN. RUDENKO: Well, of course, by “the other countries” you mean your allies, is that right?

GÖRING: No, I am thinking of most of the other countries. If you ask me again I would say that the danger to Germany lay, in my opinion, in Russia’s drive towards the West. Naturally, I also saw a certain danger in the two western countries, England and France, and in this connection, in the event of Germany being involved in a war, I regarded the United States to be a threat as well. As far as the other countries were concerned, I did not consider them to be a direct threat to Germany. In the case of the small countries, they would only constitute a direct threat, if they were used by the large countries, as bases in a war against Germany.

GEN. RUDENKO: Naturally the small countries did not represent the same threat because Germany already occupied them. That has often enough been established by the Tribunal.

GÖRING: No, a small country as such does not represent a threat, but if another large country uses the small one against me, then the small country too can become a danger.

GEN. RUDENKO: I do not want to discuss the thing further as it does not relate to the question. The basic question here is Germany’s intentions with regard to the territory of the Soviet Union, and to that you have already answered quite affirmatively and decisively. So I will not ask you any more questions on this subject. I shall go on to the next question.

Do you admit that as the Delegate for the Four Year Plan you were in full charge of the working out of the plans for the economic exploitation of all the occupied territories, as well as the realization of these plans?

GÖRING: I have already admitted that I assumed responsibility for the economic policy in the occupied territories, and the directions which I had given for the exploitation of those territories.

GEN. RUDENKO: Can you tell me how many million tons of grain and other products were exported from the Soviet Union to Germany during the war?

GÖRING: I cannot give you the figures. How could I know that from memory? But I am sure it is by no means as large as it was stated here.

GEN. RUDENKO: On the basis of your own documents I have the figures, but we will pass on to that question later.

I would like to return to the same conference which has already been mentioned. You remember the document submitted by the Soviet Prosecution, concerning the conference of the 6th of August 1942, Exhibit Number USSR-170, Document Number USSR-170? On 6 August 1942, there was a conference of commissioners of the occupied regions and of the representatives of the military command. This conference took place under your direction. You spoke at this conference—and I would like to remind you of some of the things you said.

GÖRING: May I have a look at these minutes?

GEN. RUDENKO: You want to see the minutes of the meeting? Certainly. It is quite a long document. I do not intend to read the whole thing, but only the relevant passages. I will ask you to look only at Page 111 of this stenographic record—the place is marked with pencil—especially the citations which I am going to quote here. On Page 111, it states:

“Gentlemen: The Führer has given me general powers on a scale such as he has never given hitherto under the Four Year Plan. He has also empowered me . . .”

GÖRING: Just one moment. Are you not omitting “under the Four Year Plan”?

GEN. RUDENKO: Evidently the translation has not reached you. I mentioned the Four Year Plan.

“He has given me additional powers under the Four Year Plan reaching into every branch of our economic structure, whether within the State, the Party, or the Armed Forces.”

Is it correct you were given such exclusive rights and prerogatives as mentioned in the citation?

GÖRING: When the Four Year Plan was formulated I received extraordinary general powers. For the first time unlimited powers were given in the economic sphere, I received authority to issue directives and instructions to the highest Reich departments, to the higher offices of the Armed Forces and the Party. During the war these powers were extended to the economic structure of the occupied countries.

GEN. RUDENKO: In that case I have stated and interpreted, correctly, what you stated at the conference.

GÖRING: Absolutely, in spite of its being wrongly translated into German.

GEN. RUDENKO: With regard to your special prerogatives and rights, I am going to cite the instructions which you gave, as well as the orders you issued to some of the members who took part in a conference held on the 16th of August, and which were binding upon them.

GÖRING: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: In that case, when you used such expressions as “squeeze out,” “get everything possible out of the occupied territories,” such sentences in the directives issued became orders for your subordinates, is that not correct?

GÖRING: Naturally, they were then put into their proper form. These were the words used in direct speech, and the language was not so polite.

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, I understand.

GÖRING: You are referring to the passage—may I repeat it:

“You certainly are not sent there to work for the welfare of the population . . .”

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes.

GÖRING: Do you mean that passage?

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, Page 112. It states here, I shall read it:

“You are sent there not to work for the welfare of the population, but for the purpose of extracting everything possible out of these territories. That is what I expect from you.”

GÖRING: You have left out a sentence, “. . . so that the German nation may live . . .”

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, that is right.

GÖRING: One minute—“. . . extracting everything, so that the German nation may live. That is what I expect from you.”

Before that it states, however, and this is the sentence I would like to read:

“In each of the occupied territories I see the people stuffed with food, while our own people starve.”

The sentence follows then.

GEN. RUDENKO: You do not deny that these are your own words:

“You are sent there not to work for the welfare of the population, but to extract everything possible . . .”

GÖRING: You have to read that in connection with the preceding part. I do not deny that I said that.

GEN. RUDENKO: Do you deny your own words as stated here?

GÖRING: No, I am telling you that I did say that. What I do object to is the way you pick out certain things, whereas they should be taken with their context.

GEN. RUDENKO: These phrases in the document are very expressive. They require no comment.

I draw your attention to the following extract on Page 113, which is also underlined. Here are some of your orders:

“One thing I will do. I will get what I demand of you, and if you cannot do it, I will set up agencies which will get it from you, whether you like it or not.”

Do you see that extract? Is it correct that this is what you said at the conference?

GÖRING: That quotation has not been translated by the interpreter as it is written down here in the original. The interpreter who is translating your words into German is using many strong expressions which are not contained in this document. Squeeze out . . .

GEN. RUDENKO: Please read your original.

GÖRING: It says here “to get from and obtain.” Between “to get from and obtain,” and “to squeeze out,” there is a vast difference in German.

GEN. RUDENKO: To “get out” and to “squeeze out” is about the same thing. And what about the phrase, “I will set up agencies, which will squeeze it out of you.” What have you got?

GÖRING: “Get from” and not “squeeze out of.”

GEN. RUDENKO: “Get from”? Did you have any cause not to trust the Reich commissioners? You refer to them as “special agencies.”

GÖRING: Not only were the Reich commissioners of the Eastern territories present, but also the commissioners of all territories. It was a question of the contribution in foodstuffs which the separate countries had to make, to enable us to deal with the whole food question in all those areas in Europe occupied by us. Before the conference I had been told that it was to be expected, as is always the case in such a situation, that everyone would hold back and get the other fellow to deliver first. In other words, I did not want these fellows to let me down. I knew they would offer me only half and I demanded 100 percent. We could then meet somewhere half way.

GEN. RUDENKO: I ask you—these demands which you made to those present at the conference, did they not mean a ruthless plundering of the occupied territories?

GÖRING: No, the main question at this conference was more food.

GEN. RUDENKO: But I am talking about plunder. Plunder can mean plundering of food from the occupied territories?

GÖRING: I have just said I was responsible for the feeding of practically the whole territory. Some of it was territory which had to be provided with food, and some had a surplus, and it had to be equalized.

At this meeting the contribution to be made by each Reich commissioner was for the most part fixed at 90 percent, and I in no way deny that in making my demands at the meeting I was worked up and used strong words. Later on the exact figures for the deliveries were laid down, and this was the net result of the meeting.

GEN. RUDENKO: I want to draw your attention to Page 118 Here it states as follows, I quote your words, Page 118, please; have you found the place?

GÖRING: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: Here it says:

“It seemed to me to be a relatively simple matter in former days. It used to be called plundering. It was up to the party in question to carry off what had been conquered. But today things have become more humane. In spite of that, I intend to plunder and to do it thoroughly.”

Have you found the sentence?

GÖRING: Yes, I have found it, and that was exactly what I said at that conference. I emphasize that again.

GEN. RUDENKO: I just wanted to ascertain that you really said that.

GÖRING: I did say that, and now I should like to give you the reason. In making that statement I meant that in former times war fed on war. Today you call it something different, but in practice it remains the same.

GEN. RUDENKO: All right. I draw your attention to Page 119. There, addressing those present at the meeting you state:

“Whenever you come across anything that may be needed by the German people, you must be after it like a bloodhound. It must be taken out of store and brought to Germany.”

Have you found that place?

GÖRING: Yes, I have found it.

GEN. RUDENKO: Did you say that?

GÖRING: I certainly assume that I did say it; yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: You did say that. This sentence is the natural logical conclusion of your directions “to plunder and do it thoroughly.”

GÖRING: No, it is not. Just after that I said that I had issued a decree authorizing the soldiers to buy up what they wanted, as much as they wanted, and as much as they could carry. Just buy up everything.

GEN. RUDENKO: You mention soldiers. I wanted to remind you of this too, and as you have quoted it, I will refer to that sentence again. You said, “Soldiers may purchase as much as they want, what they want, and what they can carry away.”

GÖRING: As much as they can carry away, yes, and that was necessary because the custom authorities had issued a restrictive order whereby a soldier could take only a small parcel. It seemed wrong to me, that a soldier, who had fought should benefit the least from victory.

GEN. RUDENKO: So that you do not deny that the extract which has just been read is what you really said in your speech of 6 August 1942.

GÖRING: I do not deny that at all.

GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. Let us go to the next question. Do you admit that as Delegate for the Four Year Plan you directed the deportation to forced labor of millions of citizens from the occupied territories, and that the Defendant Sauckel was your immediate subordinate in this activity? Do you admit that?

GÖRING: On paper he was my subordinate, but he was actually directly subordinate to the Führer. I have already emphasized that to the extent that I was informed, I will take my part of the responsibility; and of course I knew about these statements.

GEN. RUDENKO: I want to draw your attention to your other remarks at the same conference. You will find that on Pages 141 and 142.

GÖRING: That has already been read to the Tribunal.

GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to ask you now if you have found the place?

GÖRING: I have found it.

GEN. RUDENKO: You have found it. You said at this conference:

“I do not want to praise Gauleiter Sauckel, he does not need it. But what he has accomplished in such a short time and with such speed for the recruitment of manpower from all over Europe and setting them to work in our industries, is a unique achievement.”

Further, on Page 142, you say—you were speaking of Koch:

“Koch, they are not only Ukrainians. Your ridiculous 500,000 people! How many has he brought in? Nearly two million! Where did he get the others?”

Did you find the place?

GÖRING: Yes; it does not read quite like that here.

GEN. RUDENKO: It was not explicit. Make it more precise.

GÖRING: Koch is trying to assert that he alone supplied all these people for Sauckel. Whereupon, I replied that for the whole Sauckel program 2,000,000 workers had been supplied and that he, Koch, could lay claim to have supplied only 500,000, at most. In other words, Koch was claiming that he himself had supplied the total number.

GEN. RUDENKO: Did you think that 500,000 from the Ukraine was a small number?

GÖRING: No, that is not the point. I have just explained. Of these 2,000,000 which represent the total supplied by Sauckel in the past, 500,000 came from the whole of the Ukraine, so that Koch did not produce the whole number as he was trying to assert. That is the meaning of the quotation.

GEN. RUDENKO: But you do not deny the underlying meaning that you were speaking here of millions of people who were carried off forcibly to Germany for slave labor.

GÖRING: I do not deny that I was speaking of 2,000,000 workers who had been called up, but whether they were all brought to Germany I cannot say at the moment. At any rate, they were used for the German economy.

GEN. RUDENKO: You do not deny that this was forced labor, slavery?

GÖRING: Slavery, that I deny. Forced labor did of course partly come into it, and the reason for that I have already stated.

GEN. RUDENKO: But they were forcibly taken out of their countries and sent to Germany?

GÖRING: To a certain extent deported forcibly, and I have already explained why.

GEN. RUDENKO: You heard, Defendant Göring, that a series of German documents have been read which make it clear that these people from the occupied territories were sent forcibly to Germany; that they were rounded up, taken in the street, and from the cinemas, loaded into trains and sent to Germany under military guard. If they refused to go to Germany, or tried to evade mobilization, the peaceful inhabitants were shot and submitted to tortures of various nature. You have heard of these documents which describe these methods.

GÖRING: Yes, but may I ask you to look at those documents again. These show that recruitment was not ordered, but that registration even for forced labor was regulated by decrees and other orders. If I had been given an absolute guarantee, particularly in the East, that all these people would be peaceful and peace-loving people, that they would never take part in partisan activities or carry out sabotage, then I probably would have put a larger number to work on the spot. But for security reasons, both in the East and West—particularly in the West—where young age groups were reaching the age of military service—we were compelled to draft these men into labor and bring them to Germany.

GEN. RUDENKO: They were taken to Germany only in the interest of security and safety?

GÖRING: There were two reasons. I have already explained them in detail. Firstly, for security reasons. Secondly, because it was necessary to find labor.

GEN. RUDENKO: And for that reason—let us take the second, the necessity of finding labor—people were forcibly taken from their country and sent to slavery in Germany. Is that correct?

GÖRING: Not to slavery; they were sent to Germany to work, but I must repeat that not all of those who were taken away from the East and are missing there today, were brought in to work. For instance, in the case of Poland already 1,680,000 Poles and Ukrainians had been taken by the Soviet Union from the territory which the Russians occupied at that time, and transported to the East—the Far East.

GEN. RUDENKO: I do not think you had better touch on the question of the Soviet territories. Just answer the question which I am asking you, which concerns the deportation to Germany of the peaceful population from the occupied territories. I am asking you once more: You said in answer to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s question that of the 5,000,000 persons who were sent to Germany, approximately 200,000 were volunteers, while the rest were taken to Germany forcibly. Is that not so?

GÖRING: First of all, I must correct that. I did not say that to Sir David at all, but he asked me.

GEN. RUDENKO: And you admitted it?

GÖRING: Just a moment. That is to say, he mentioned the figure 5,000,000 of which he said not more than 200,000 were volunteers. He questioned me on the strength of the minutes of the Central Planning Board, allegedly a statement by Sauckel. I did not agree and answered that the figure of volunteers was much higher, and that there must be a mistake in the figures.

GEN. RUDENKO: All right. You affirm that the number of volunteers was considerably larger, but you do not deny the fact that millions were sent to Germany against their will. You do not deny that.

GÖRING: Without wanting to tie myself down to a figure, the fact that workers were forcibly put to work is something I have never denied, and I answered accordingly.

GEN. RUDENKO: Let us go to another question: Tell me, what procedure was there for sending on the orders and directives of the OKW to various other government agencies and organs.

GÖRING: I did not understand the meaning of that question as it came through in translation.

GEN. RUDENKO: I would like you to describe the procedure which existed for sending the directives of the OKW to the various units and departments of the Air Force and other organs. How were they distributed?

GÖRING: If I have understood the question correctly, the procedure was as follows: If an order came from the OKW, addressed to the Air Force, it went through the following channels: If it was a direct order from the Führer and signed by the Führer, the order had to be sent directly to me, the Commander-in-Chief. If it was an order—not actually signed by the Führer, but beginning with the words, “By order of the Führer,” or “On the instructions of the Führer”—such an order, according to its importance, would go to the Chief of the General Staff of my Air Force, who, according to the purport and whether it was important, would report it to me verbally. If, however, it dealt with current and departmental matters the order would go immediately and directly to the lower departments concerned without passing through the High Command. It would have been impossible to work otherwise, owing to the very large number of such orders.

GEN. RUDENKO: I understand. In connection with this I would like to ask the following: In 1941 the OKW drew up a series of instructions and orders with regard to the conduct of the troops in the East and how they were to treat the Soviet population. These dealt specifically with military jurisdiction in the Barbarossa region—Document C-50, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal. According to these instructions, the German officers had the right to shoot any person suspected of a hostile attitude towards the Germans, without bringing that person to court. This directive also stated that the German soldiers could not be punished for crimes which they committed against the local population. Directives of this nature must have been submitted to you?

GÖRING: I would have to see that from the distribution chart. May I see the document please?

GEN. RUDENKO: You would like to see the exhibit?

GÖRING: I want to see whether that document went straight to me, or only to my departments.

GEN. RUDENKO: Please look at the date, 13 May 1941.

GÖRING: Actually it did not go straight to me. It says on the distribution chart, “Ob. d. L., Air Force Operations Staff, Senior General Staff officer.” Actually as far as my troops were concerned, I issued very severe disciplinary orders. That is the reason why I have asked for the senior Judge of the Air Force to be called as a witness, and have now sent him an interrogatory which deals with these very questions.

GEN. RUDENKO: You do know about this order, however?

GÖRING: I have seen it here, and consequently asked for the witnesses, since this order did not go directly to the Commander-in-Chief, but to the department which I have just mentioned. Nevertheless, if this department acted on this order, then I do of course formally share the responsibility. But we are here concerned with an order from the Führer and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, which could not be questioned by the troops.

GEN. RUDENKO: But you do agree that you must have known about this document because of its importance?

GÖRING: No, if so, it would have come directly to me, the Commander-in-Chief, and not be sent to the Air Force Operations Staff, and the General Staff officers’ department. It depended then on whether this department considered the importance of the document to be such as to require my personal orders and directives. But this was not the case here, since the document did not affect us as much as it did the Army.

GEN. RUDENKO: But the document was sent to your department and circulated there.

GÖRING: I have just said it was sent to two offices.

GEN. RUDENKO: But this document should have been reported to you.

GÖRING: No, it did not have to be reported to me. I explained a little earlier that if every order and every instruction which came through in the shape of an order, but which did not require my intervention, would have had to be reported to me, I should have been drowned in a sea of papers; and that is the reason why only the most important matters were brought to me and reported to me.

I cannot swear upon my oath that this document was not reported to me verbally. It is possible. And I formally take responsibility also for my departments.

GEN. RUDENKO: I would like you to be more precise about it. You say that the most important things were usually reported to you; correct?

GÖRING: That is correct.

GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to draw your attention to the document before you, to the third and fourth paragraphs of the order. The third paragraph says:

“Actions of hostile civilians against the German troops or various troop units, as well as against service personnel, must be suppressed on the spot by the most severe measures, even the extermination of the attackers.”

Paragraph 4: “Thus, no time should be lost . . .”

GÖRING: Just a moment.

GEN. RUDENKO: The fourth paragraph . . .

GÖRING: You have sent me three documents, and I am trying to find out which one; I am trying to sort them out.

GEN. RUDENKO: All right, sort them out.

GÖRING: I shall repeat Paragraph 3 because it has been transmitted quite erroneously in the German.

“Also in the case of all other attacks by hostile civilians against the Armed Forces, their members and service personnel, extreme measures to suppress them must be taken by the troops on the spot, even to the extent of annihilating the attackers.”

GEN. RUDENKO: And Paragraph 4?

GÖRING: Then we come to Number 4, and it is, if I understand you correctly, the paragraph where it says: “Where measures of this kind have been omitted or were not practicable at the moment, the suspected elements will be taken at once to an officer who will decide whether they are to be shot.” That is probably what you meant, is it not?

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes. That is what I had in mind. Could it be assumed that this document, from your point of view, was important enough to have been reported to you?

GÖRING: Actually it was important, but it was not absolutely necessary for it to be reported, because the order of the Führer had made it so clear that a subordinate commander, and even a commander-in-chief of one of the services could not alter a clear and strict order of that kind.

GEN. RUDENKO: I draw your attention once more to the date in the right-hand corner. It states there, Führer headquarters, 13 May 1941.

GÖRING: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: Therefore, it means that this was a month before the German attack on the Soviet Union? Already, then, directives were formulated about military jurisdiction within the regions covered by Case Barbarossa, and you did not know about this document?

GÖRING: When a plan for mobilization is laid, provision must be made for certain eventualities. From his experience, the Führer believed that a serious threat would immediately arise in the East, and in this document measures are laid down for dealing with any action by the resistance, and fighting behind the lines. It was therefore a precautionary order in case of such happenings. Such measures have to be taken always and at all times.

GEN. RUDENKO: And the officers were given the right to shoot civilians without bringing them to trial?

GÖRING: An officer could hold a court martial on the spot, but, according to this paragraph, he could also, if he thought fit and had evidence that the opponent was making attacks from the rear, have him shot on the spot. That has always been done.

GEN. RUDENKO: You think that the officer can hold a court martial on the spot?

GÖRING: That is laid down in the articles of war. Every officer commanding an independent unit can hold a court martial at any time.

GEN. RUDENKO: But you do agree that there is no question of any court here? It states that he alone can decide what to do with the civilian.

GÖRING: He could act alone or through a court martial, which was on the spot. All he needed to do was to call just two more people, and he could reach a decision, in 2 or 5 minutes if evidence of the attack was given.

GEN. RUDENKO: In 5 minutes or 2 minutes, you say, and then he could shoot the person?

GÖRING: If I catch a man in the act of shooting at my troops from a house in the rear, then the matter can be settled very swiftly by a court martial. But where there is no evidence at all, you cannot do that. Here, however, we are dealing with an immediate attack and with the means of putting an end to it.

GEN. RUDENKO: Defendant Göring, let us leave this question. I would only like to point out once more that this directive was issued by the High Command of the Armed Forces on 13 May 1941, and that this order gives an officer the right to shoot a man without a trial. I suppose you will not deny this. Let us go on.

GÖRING: Yes, but I deny that emphatically. There is nothing here which says that an officer has the right to shoot a man right away. Let us get this right. It says here—and I repeat it—“Attacks by hostile civilians against the Armed Forces,” and then it says, “Where measures of this kind are not practicable at the moment, the suspected elements . . .”—and here is meant “suspected elements” only—are to be brought before the highest officer of the formation there present and he will decide the matter. In other words, it does not say that every officer can decide the fate of any civilian.

GEN. RUDENKO: But the resolution is to shoot. It is quite clear. The second document which I would like to submit now and question you about is that dated 16 September 1941. It has been submitted to the Court as Exhibit Number R-98.

GÖRING: Just a moment. What was the date you mentioned?

GEN. RUDENKO: 16 September 1941 is the date of the document. Point B of the document. I will not quote it. I am merely calling it to your mind. It states that as a general rule the death of one German soldier must be paid for by the lives of 50 to 100 Communists. That means that this rule was to serve as a deterrent. I am not going to question you about the main purport of the document. That is quite clear and needs no clarification. What I am interested in is whether this document was likewise unknown to you.

GÖRING: It was not directed to me. Here again it merely went to some office. The Air Force had very little to do with such matters.

GEN. RUDENKO: And these offices did not report to you about such documents?

GÖRING: In a general way I knew about these reprisals, but not to this extent. I learned only later—I mean during the war, not here—that the order originally mentioned 5 to 10 and that the Führer personally made it 50 to a 100. The question is whether you have any evidence that the Air Force really made use of the order anywhere, and they did not. That is all I can tell you.

GEN. RUDENKO: Do not put questions to me. I am asking you. Did your administrative office ever report to you about this document?

GÖRING: No, but later on I heard about this document. At a later date.

GEN. RUDENKO: What do you mean by a “later date”? Please be more precise.

GÖRING: I cannot tell you at the moment. It was sometime during the war that I heard that a figure which originally stood at from 5 to 10 had been altered by the Führer personally to 50 to 100. That is what I heard.

GEN. RUDENKO: For one German?

GÖRING: I have just explained to you. That is what I heard. The number was originally 5 to 10 and the Führer personally added on a zero. It was through that fact being once discussed that I learned about the whole matter.

GEN. RUDENKO: You mean the Führer added the zeros?

THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, do you think it is really necessary to go through these documents in such detail? The documents, after all, speak for themselves, and they have already been presented to the Tribunal.

GEN. RUDENKO: I am finishing with this document, Mr. President.

Do you know anything about the directives of the OKW with regard to the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war?

GÖRING: I shall have to see them.

GEN. RUDENKO: If you please, Mr. President, the document has already been submitted to the Tribunal, as 338-PS.

Please look at Point A, Paragraph 3, which states that there is a broad directive concerning the use of arms against Soviet prisoners of war. The use of weapons must be considered permissible and in any incidents involved the guards are not bound to report on the matter.

This document also speaks for itself. I do not want . . .

GÖRING: Just a moment, I must read it first; there is some ambiguity in here.

GEN. RUDENKO: I should like to refresh your memory with still another subject, that is, a short comment. It is taken from an order concerning the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war. Here it is said that prisoners of war who are trying to escape should be shot without warning. The same subject is also mentioned in the memorandum concerning the treatment of the Russian prisoners of war.

GÖRING: The trouble here was the language difficulty; hence the guards were instructed to use their arms immediately against persons attempting escape. That is more or less the meaning of it, and that errors might occur in this connection can be understood.

GEN. RUDENKO: I am not talking about the purport of the document which speaks for itself. I want to know whether you knew about this document.

GÖRING: This is a document dealing with the treatment of prisoners of war, and it was passed directly to my department which was concerned with prisoners of war. I did not know of this document, neither did I know of the one which contains the opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Department on the matter.

GEN. RUDENKO: You did not know about this document? Very well. Now one other, Number 884-PS, already submitted. It deals with the extermination of political leaders and other political personalities. This is a document . . .

GÖRING: In explanation of this, I should like to point out that the Air Force did not have any camps for Soviet prisoners of war. The Air Force had only six camps in which the air force personnel of other powers were confined; but it had no camps under it with Soviet prisoners of war.

GEN. RUDENKO: I have asked you these questions and shown you these documents because as the second man in Germany, you could not possibly have been unaware of these things.

GÖRING: I apologize if I contradict you. The higher the office I held, the less would I be concerned with orders dealing with prisoners of war. From their very nature, these were departmental orders and not orders of the highest political or military significance. If I had held a much lower rank, then I might have had more knowledge of these orders. I am now looking at the document which you submitted to me—Department of Home Defense. It says on the left, “Reference: Treatment of Captured Political and Military Russian Functionaries.” That is the document I am looking at.

GEN. RUDENKO: Please look at the date of the document—12 May 1941, Führer’s Headquarters.

GÖRING: Yes.

GEN. RUDENKO: Look at Paragraph 3 of the document.

“Political leaders among the troops are not to be considered prisoners of war and must be exterminated at the latest in the transit camps. They must never be transported to the rear.”

Did you know about this directive?

GÖRING: May I point out that this is in no way a directive, but that it bears the heading, “Memorandum,” and is signed Warlimont. Also the distribution chart does not show any other department than the Home Defense Department, which I have mentioned. In other words, this is a memorandum.

GEN. RUDENKO: You mean to say then that you did not know about this document?

GÖRING: I say once more, this is a memorandum from the Operations Staff of the OKW; and it is not an order or a directive, but a memorandum.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not an answer to the question. You are telling us what it was, not whether you knew of it.

GÖRING: No; I did not. It had been put before me as an order, and I wanted to point out that it is not an order.

GEN. RUDENKO: Let us go on. The directives regarding the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war must have been executed also by the units of the Luftwaffe?

GÖRING: If ordered by the Führer, yes; or if ordered by me, also.

GEN. RUDENKO: Do you remember your own directives with regard to the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war?

GÖRING: No.

GEN. RUDENKO: You do not remember them?

GÖRING: The Air Force had no camps with Soviet prisoners of war.

GEN. RUDENKO: Tell me, the majority of these criminal orders and directives of the OKW, were they not issued even before the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union and as part of the preparations for that war? Does this not show that the German Government and the OKW already had a prepared plan for exterminating the Soviet population?

GÖRING: No. It does not prove it at all. It only shows that we considered a struggle with the Soviet Union would be an extremely bitter one, and that it would be conducted according to other rules as there were no conventions.

GEN. RUDENKO: These rules of warfare are well known to us. Please tell me, do you know about Himmler’s directives given in 1941 about the extermination of 30 million Slavs? You heard about it from the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski here in court. Do you remember that?

GÖRING: Yes. First of all it was not an order but a speech. Secondly, it was an assertion by Zelewski. And thirdly, in all speeches that Himmler made to subordinate leaders, he insisted on the strictest secrecy. In other words, this is a statement from a witness about what he had heard, and not an order. Consequently, I have no knowledge of this nonsense.

GEN. RUDENKO: You did not know about it. Very well. Tell me, in the German totalitarian state was there not a governing center, which meant Hitler and his immediate entourage, in which you acted as deputy? These directives must have concerned Keitel and Himmler also. Could Himmler of his own volition have issued directives for the extermination of 30 million Slavs without being empowered by Hitler or by you?

GÖRING: Himmler gave no order for the extermination of 30 million Slavs. The witness said that he made a speech in which he said that 30 million Slavs must be exterminated. Had Himmler issued such an order de facto, if he kept to regulations, he would have had to ask the Führer—not me, but the Führer—and the latter would probably have told him at once that it was impossible.

GEN. RUDENKO: I did not say it was an order; I said it was a directive from Himmler. You therefore admit, or you state rather, that Himmler could have issued instructions without discussing them with Hitler?

GÖRING: I emphasize that such instructions could not have been given by Himmler, and I know of no instructions; also no directive has been mentioned here.

GEN. RUDENKO: I shall repeat the question once more: Is it not true that the directives and the orders of the OKW with regard to the treatment of the civilian population and prisoners of war in the occupied Soviet territories were part of the general directives for the extermination of the Slavs? That is what I want to know.

GÖRING: Not at all. At no time has there been a directive from the Führer, or anybody I know of, concerning the extermination of the Slavs.

GEN. RUDENKO: You must have known about the mass extermination of the Soviet citizens from the occupied territories of the Soviet Union with the help of the SD and the Security Police. Is it not true that the Einsatz Kommandos and their activities were the result of the plan prepared in advance for the extermination of Jews and other groups of Soviet citizens?

GÖRING: No. Einsatz Kommandos were an internal organ which was kept very secret.

GEN. RUDENKO: I shall have several other questions. Perhaps it is better to adjourn now.

THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think it will take, General Rudenko?

GEN. RUDENKO: I think not more than another hour.

THE PRESIDENT: All these documents which you have been putting to the witness, as I have pointed out to you, are documents which have already been put in evidence and documents which seem to me to speak for themselves. I hope, therefore, that you will make your cross-examination as short as you can. The Tribunal will now adjourn.

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

EIGHTY-EIGHTH DAY Friday, 22 March 1946

Morning Session

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, yesterday I received the translation of Document D-728. It is the document which was objected to yesterday as being incorrect.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. SERVATIUS: I request to have this retranslated, since this translation is considerably different from the original wording and, in particular, fails to make clear where the mistakes are which led to the objection against the document. On the first page of that document there are about 20 to 30 objections to be made. The translator, since he could not realize the importance of the document, translated it quickly without emphasizing the decisive points. A careful translation ought to be made, which would enable us to get an idea of the original document. I am fully aware of what the difficulties are.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, the translation shall be checked by a different translator, or, if you like, by two different translators.

DR. SERVATIUS: May I ask to have a new translation made for comparison, since the version which we have here is also evidence of the fact that the original already contains considerable mistakes.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, it shall be checked and retranslated.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then, I request further that the opinion of an expert on the German language be obtained. This opinion will ascertain that the author of this document does not have full control of the German language and that it must have been drawn up by someone who was a foreigner. I do not want to give detailed reasons, but I would like to make this motion in writing.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you must certainly make a written application about that.

DR. SERVATIUS: I shall submit it in writing.

GEN. RUDENKO: Defendant Göring, in your statement you said that the attack on Poland was perpetrated after the bloody happenings in the town of Bromberg.

GÖRING: I said that the date for the attack was set due to the bloody events which included, in addition to many other incidents, also the Bloody Sunday at Bromberg.

GEN. RUDENKO: Do you know that these events happened on 3 September 1939?

GÖRING: I might have made a mistake regarding the date of Bromberg; I would have to see the documents about that. I merely quoted that as one example among a lot of others.

GEN. RUDENKO: It is understandable. The attack was perpetrated on 1 September, and the events in the town of Bromberg, which you just mentioned to the Tribunal, happened on 3 September 1939. I submit to the Tribunal the document evidence issued by the High Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, which is duly certified in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter. From this testimony it is clear that the events about which the Defendant Göring is testifying here happened on 3 September 1939, that is to say, on the third day after the attack by Germany on Poland.

THE PRESIDENT: You can put the document to the witness, if you want.

GEN. RUDENKO: I have no German text. I have it in English and in Russian. I just received this document. It is dated 19 March, and I will submit it to the Tribunal as conclusive evidence to prove this fact.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think this is the appropriate time to put in documents in that way.

Very well, you can put in the document now if you like.

GEN. RUDENKO: Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: It must be translated into German, of course.

GEN. RUDENKO: I have no German translation of this document.

THE PRESIDENT: It has to be translated into German in order that defendant’s counsel may see it.

GEN. RUDENKO: We will do that without fail.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I ask to have the document read now? It is only a short memorandum; so we can hear immediately what it contains.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Will you read it into the record, General Rudenko?

GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, Sir. It is very short:

“Certificate Based on the Investigation Performed by the Polish Legal Authority.

“The High Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland certifies that the so-called Bloody Sunday in the town of Bromberg took place on 3 September 1939, that is to say, 3 days after the time when Poland was subjected to the German attack.

“On 3 September 1939, at 1015 in the morning, German Fifth Columnists attacked Polish troop units retreating from Bromberg. During the fighting 238 Polish soldiers and 223 German Fifth Columnists were killed. As a consequence of the events after the entrance of the German troops into the town of Bromberg, they began mass executions, arrests, and deportations of Polish citizens to concentration camps, which were performed by the German authorities, the SS, and the Gestapo. There were 10,500 murdered, and 13,000 exterminated in the camps.

“This certificate is an official document of the Polish Government and is submitted to the International Military Tribunal in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter of 8 August 1945.

“Stefan Kurovsky, member of the High Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland.”

I should like to prove by this document that the events regarding which the Defendant Göring gave testimony happened after the attack by Germany on Poland.

GÖRING: I am not sure whether we are both referring to the same event.

GEN. RUDENKO: I am speaking about the events in the town of Bromberg. You spoke about them.

GÖRING: Perhaps two different events took place in Bromberg.

GEN. RUDENKO: It is quite possible.

I pass on to the following question: It is known to you that there was an order by the OKW regarding the branding of Soviet prisoners of war, and what do you think about that?

GÖRING: That order is not known to me, and no representative of the Air Force was present at this preliminary discussion as I have ascertained here from the records.

GEN. RUDENKO: I am interested as to whether you knew about this or not. The orders are quite clear.

GÖRING: No.

GEN. RUDENKO: Do you know that the German High Command ordered that Soviet war prisoners and Soviet citizens had to be used for clearing mine fields and transporting bombs that had not exploded, et cetera? Do you know about that?

GÖRING: I know that Russian prisoners of war who were engineers had to clear the mines which they had laid. To what extent the civilian population was employed for that purpose I do not know, but it was possible.

GEN. RUDENKO: It is quite clear.

Do you know about an order regarding the destruction of the towns of Leningrad, Moscow, and other towns of the Soviet Union?

GÖRING: In my presence the destruction of Leningrad was discussed only in the document which was mentioned yesterday, in the sense that the Finns, in case of the capture of Leningrad, would have no use for such a big city. Of the destruction of Moscow I know nothing at all.

GEN. RUDENKO: Do you remember the minutes of the meeting? This document was presented to you yesterday—the minutes of the meeting of 16 July 1941. You were present at this meeting. They state that the Führer declared . . .

GÖRING: I have just mentioned and confirmed that.

GEN. RUDENKO: Did you speak about this same document? But, besides this statement, there were also official orders.

GÖRING: Would you be good enough to put them before me, then I would be able to ascertain whether they are correct and whether they were known to me.

GEN. RUDENKO: I have no intention of submitting these documents to you. They have already been submitted to the Tribunal. I am interested only as to whether you were aware of these orders.

GÖRING: I received no order to destroy Leningrad or Moscow in the sense which you have indicated.

GEN. RUDENKO: All right. You were told only about the important happenings. But orders for the destruction of cities, and murder of millions of men, et cetera, went through so-called service channels.

GÖRING: If a town was to have been destroyed by bombing, then that order would have been given by me directly.

GEN. RUDENKO: On 8 March, here in the Tribunal, your witness Bodenschatz stated that you told him in March 1945 that many Jews were killed and that for that you will have to pay dearly. Do you remember this testimony of your witness?

GÖRING: This testimony, in the form in which it was translated now, I do not recollect at all. The witness Bodenschatz never said it that way. I ask that the record of the session be brought in.

GEN. RUDENKO: How did Bodenschatz say that? Do you remember?

GÖRING: That if we lost the war we would have to pay dearly.

GEN. RUDENKO: Why? For the murders which you had perpetrated?

GÖRING: No, quite generally, and after all, we have experienced just that.

GEN. RUDENKO: Quite generally. I have a few concluding questions to put to you. First of all, regarding the so-called theory of the master race. I should like to put to you only one question in this connection and I should like you to reply directly to it. Were you in accord with this principle of the master race and education of the German people in the spirit of it, or were you not in accord with it?

GÖRING: No, and I have also stated that I have never used that expression either in writing or orally. I definitely acknowledge the differences between races.

GEN. RUDENKO: But do I understand you correctly that you are not in accord with this theory?

GÖRING: I have never expressed my agreement with the theory that one race should be considered as a master race, superior to the others, but I have emphasized the difference between races.

GEN. RUDENKO: You can answer this question; it seems, you do not consider it right?

GÖRING: I personally do not consider it right.

GEN. RUDENKO: The next question: You have stated here to the Tribunal that you did not agree with Hitler regarding the question of the annexation of Czechoslovakia, the Jewish question, the question of war with the Soviet Union, the value of the theory of the master race, and the question of the shooting of the British airmen who were prisoners of war. How would you explain that, having such serious differences, you still thought it possible to collaborate with Hitler and to carry out his policy?

GÖRING: That was not the way I worded my answers. Here, too, we must consider separately various periods of time. As to the attack against Russia, there were no basic differences but differences as to the date.

GEN. RUDENKO: You have told that already. Excuse me; I do not want you to be lengthy on this theme. Will you reply directly?

GÖRING: All right. I may have a different opinion from that of my Supreme Commander, and I may also express my opinion clearly. If the Supreme Commander insists on his opinion and I have sworn allegiance to him, then the discussion comes to an end, just as it is the case elsewhere. I do not think I need to elaborate on that.

GEN. RUDENKO: You are not just a simple soldier, as you stated here; but you have presented yourself also as a statesman?

GÖRING: There you are right. I am not only a simple soldier, and just because I am not a simple soldier but occupied such a prominent position, I had to set an example for the ordinary soldier by my own attitude as to how the oath of allegiance should be adhered to strictly.

GEN. RUDENKO: In other words, you thought it possible, even with the presence of these differences, to collaborate with Hitler?

GÖRING: I have emphasized it and I maintain that it is true; My oath does not hold good only in good times but also in bad times, although the Führer never threatened me and never told me that he was afraid for my health.

GEN. RUDENKO: If you thought it possible to co-operate with Hitler, do you recognize that, as the second man in Germany, you are responsible for the organizing on a national, scale of murders of millions of innocent people, independently of whether you knew about those facts or not? Tell me briefly, “yes” or “no.”

GÖRING: No, because I did not know anything about them and did not cause them.

GEN. RUDENKO: I should like to underline again, “whether you were informed of these facts or not.”

GÖRING: If I actually do not know them, then I cannot be held responsible for them.

GEN. RUDENKO: It was your duty to know about these facts.

GÖRING: I shall go into that.

GEN. RUDENKO: I am questioning you. Reply to this question: Was it your duty to know about these facts?

GÖRING: In what way my duty? Either I know the fact or I do not know it. You can ask me only whether I was negligent in failing to obtain knowledge.

GEN. RUDENKO: You ought to know yourself better. Millions of Germans knew about the crimes which were being perpetrated, and you did not know about them?

GÖRING: Neither did millions of Germans know about them. That is a statement which has in no way been proved.

GEN. RUDENKO: The last two questions: You stated to the Tribunal that Hitler’s Government brought great prosperity to Germany. Are you still sure that that is so?

GÖRING: Definitely until the beginning of the war. The collapse was due only to the war’s being lost.

GEN. RUDENKO: As a consequence of which, you brought Germany, as a result of your politics, to military and political destruction. I have no more questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the Chief Prosecutor for France wish to cross-examine?

M. AUGUSTE CHAMPETIER DE RIBES (Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): I ask the Tribunal for permission to make one very short statement to fulfill the desire expressed by the Tribunal and to abbreviate as much as possible the discussions at this Trial. The French Prosecution has come to an agreement with Mr. Justice Jackson and with Sir David that the questions put to the Defendant Göring as a witness should be only those which are considered pertinent.

The questions have been asked and we have heard the answers of the defendant, as far as it was possible to obtain from him anything except propaganda speeches.

I think the Defense will not be able to complain that its freedom has been curtailed. It has been able to use its freedom abundantly in the past 12 sessions without having been able in any way to weaken the Prosecution’s overwhelming accusations, without having been noticeably able to convince anyone that the second man in the German Reich was in no way responsible for launching the war or that he knew nothing of the atrocities committed by the men whom he was so proud to command.

THE PRESIDENT: You will no doubt have the opportunity later to comment, but the question that I ask you now is whether you wish to ask the witness definite questions.

M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: Mr. President, I have finished; I have said all that I wanted to say, that is to say, after all these long discussions, the French Prosecution feels that nothing has been changed in the crushing accusation which we brought forth. Consequently, I have no further questions to ask the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer?

DR. STAHMER: The British Prosecution has stated that you issued direct orders to the Hermann Göring Division during its employment in Italy referring to the fight against the partisans. Is that statement correct?

GÖRING: No. The Hermann Göring Division was a ground division and was part of the operational task force of an army and army group. Consequently, it could never have received orders for its tactical employment from me, from Berlin or from my headquarters, which were not on the scene. Therefore I could not have given it any orders as to whether and how it was to be employed in the partisan war. Only such orders are in question as referred exclusively to matters of personnel and equipment or which concerned the internal administration of justice with regard to officers; nor did the division submit to me daily reports but only . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not catch that. I am sorry, My Lord, I should have spoken earlier. I gather that these questions are directed to the Hermann Göring Division. The defendant never dealt with that point when he was being examined in chief; and, therefore, I never dealt with it in cross-examination, because the point had not been raised. It is therefore my submission that it is quite inadmissible for the matter to be raised in re-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: You must remember, Sir David, that the practice in foreign countries is not the same as the practice in the United States and in England; and although it is perfectly true that Dr. Stahmer, according to the rules of England at any rate, would not be able to raise this point in re-examination, we are directed by the Charter not to deal technically with any question of evidence. It may be you would have to ask him some questions thereafter in cross-examination, although I hope that will not be necessary, in view of the evidence of the witness Kesselring.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I considered that point, but I wanted only to make it clear that the Prosecution has not dealt with this point at all, because it had not been raised previously.

THE PRESIDENT: No; either in the examination or in the cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Or in the cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I had already noticed the point that the question had not been raised in the evidence of Hermann Göring.

DR. STAHMER: May I, in explanation, assert that I received the document only yesterday and consequently could not take any attitude earlier toward this question, which has been dealt with already by the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: But, if my recollection is correct, the witness, Field Marshal Kesselring, raised this very point himself, and therefore the point was obvious and could have been raised in examination in chief, in which case it would have been dealt with by the Defendant Göring. It does not depend upon any particular document; it depends upon the evidence of the Field Marshal Kesselring, who said that he was bypassed—I think the word as it was translated was that he was bypassed between the Hermann Göring Division and the Defendant Göring, although the Hermann Göring Division was under his command. So it has nothing to do with any document.

DR. STAHMER: May the witness continue, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

GÖRING: The division was under my command only as far as personnel, commissioning of officers, and equipment was concerned but not as to its employment. I did not receive reports daily, but at intervals, regarding events, losses, replacements. That, on the whole, was all the connection I had with that division. I could not give any orders for its employment, since it was under the command of parts of the Army.

DR. STAHMER: Did you receive a report regarding the events at Civitella?

GÖRING: No, I did not receive that report. I have learned of it for the first time here from the affidavit of an Army general who was in command of that division and who was also responsible for these matters, and who apparently is trying now to shift that responsibility to the division and, because of the name of the division, on to me.

DR. STAHMER: Your relation to Hitler and your influence upon him has again been touched upon during cross-examination. Will you please summarize the facts briefly by particular periods, which are necessary to form an opinion on that relation?

GÖRING: Already during the cross-examination I have pointed out that a very long period is involved here. In 1923, when I was an SA leader, my relation was normal. Then there is a long interval—1931 . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal. It seems to me in the interests of time highly objectionable to allow the witness now to summarize. He was given the advantage of answering any questions he wanted as he went along. It seems to me that when he has covered a subject at least once—and as a matter of fact he covered this one four or five times in an address at nearly every question that would permit—that that at least should bring us to the end of that subject. It was exhausted.

The matter of time here is a grave matter. By our calculation—a careful calculation—of the witnesses which have been allowed, this Trial will now project into August. It does not seem that we should allow him to play this game both ways, to make his speeches during the cross-examination and then to sum them up again afterwards.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal has allowed you to ask questions which, strictly speaking, are not admissible in re-examination and I want to make it clear to you what questions are admissible in re-examination—only these which arise out of the cross-examination. As to this particular question, the Defendant Göring was allowed to make what were really speeches in his examination in chief without any interruption whatever; and he went over the whole history of the Nazi regime from its inception until the end of the war and the Tribunal does not consider that he ought to be at liberty to go over the same ground again in re-examination.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I had merely asked that question because up to now it had not been dealt with comprehensively and I think it necessary, in order to form an opinion of the defendant and his attitude during that time, to have a comprehensive and coherent account of this matter which in my opinion is so important for the decision to be made in this Trial. If, however, the Tribunal objects to this question, I must submit to that decision and withdraw the question.

[Turning to the defendant.] I have another question. During your examination, you stated, regarding certain accusations, that you want to assume responsibility for them. How is that to be understood?

GÖRING: As to responsibility, one must discern between formal and actual responsibility. Formally, I bear responsibility for that which was done by those departments and offices which were under my command. Although I could not possibly have seen or known beforehand everything that was issued or discussed by them, I must nevertheless assume formal responsibility, particularly where we are concerned with the carrying out of general directives given by me. Actual responsibility I see in those cases in which I personally issued orders or directives, including in particular all acts and facts which I signed personally or issued authentically, but I mean these facts only and not so much general words and statements which were made during those 25 years here and there in small circles. In particular, I want to say the following very clearly about responsibility: The Führer, Adolf Hitler, is dead. I was regarded as his successor in leading the German Reich. Consequently I must declare, with reference to my responsibility, that it was my aim . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would wish that you should not make speeches. The Tribunal is perfectly well able to understand the difference between formal responsibility and actual responsibility for orders given by you.

GÖRING: I acknowledge my responsibility for having done everything to carry out the preparations for the seizure of power, and to have made the power firm in order to make Germany free and great. I did everything to avoid this war. But after it had started, it was my duty to do everything to win it.

THE PRESIDENT: We have already heard you say that more than once and we do not wish to hear it again.

GÖRING: On the question of labor: During the war, the inhabitants of the occupied territories were brought in to work in Germany and their countries were exploited economically.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, you are supposed to be asking questions of the witness. Now, what question is that in answer to?

DR. STAHMER: I had asked him about his responsibility . . .

THE PRESIDENT: You can ask him questions, but you cannot ask him general questions which invite speeches. If you have any particular questions to ask him which arise out of the cross-examination, now is the time to ask them.

DR. STAHMER: I put this question: To what extent does he consider himself responsible for the points mentioned here in the cross-examination regarding the deportation of workers . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I object to this question being put.

THE PRESIDENT: He has already told us about that. He answered that question more than once.

DR. STAHMER: In that case, I have no further questions to ask.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the defendant can retire.

[The defendant left the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer.

DR. STAHMER: May I first of all give a short review of the present stage of the Trial so that the Tribunal can see what the list of witnesses still granted to me is like now. I was going to forego Dr. Lohse.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lohse, did you say?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, I abstain from calling Dr. Lohse, because the defendant has in my opinion already made sufficient statements on that subject. Furthermore, I had been granted Ambassador Dr. Paul Schmidt as a witness. That witness, of whom I want to ask a few questions only, I should like to hear later, subsequent to his examination by the Defendant Ribbentrop, because he will have to answer a wide range of questions during that examination, and it appears to me appropriate if I ask him subsequent to that—which is also in accord with the wish of Dr. Horn—if the Tribunal will agree to that procedure, the witness Koller . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

DR. STAHMER: The witness Koller, as it has now been ascertained, is in Belgium, and not in Germany. His hearing was provided in case he was in Germany. Consequently, I shall have to submit an interrogatory to that witness. That has been done, but the interrogatory has not yet been returned.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: Furthermore, I have received permission to submit interrogatories to the witnesses Ondarza, Freiherr Von Hammerstein, Kammhuber, Student, and Bunjes. The interrogatories have been submitted but have not been returned yet. The situation is that the addresses of Ondarza and Kammhuber have since been ascertained; as to the other three witnesses, inquiries are still being made, so that also here I cannot yet submit anything. Then there are interrogatories of Uiberreither, Lord Halifax, and Forbes; from Halifax and Forbes the interrogatories have been received, and I am going to read them; from Uiberreither there is a written statement as well. Then it concerns . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by “a written statement as well”? You said there are the interrogatories from Lord Halifax and Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes.

DR. STAHMER: Interrogatories have been received from Lord Halifax and Forbes. There is a written affidavit from Uiberreither and I assume that that may take the place of an interrogatory.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand.

DR. STAHMER: Furthermore, there is the Katyn case, Mr. President. Five witnesses are involved. I am still making inquiries regarding their addresses. I am therefore not in a position to have these witnesses called before the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer. Was that all that you wished to say at this stage?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, upon the question of these witnesses; in addition I must present what I have in the way of documents and then I shall have completed my case for the time being. I have put down in writing what I have to say about the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal approves of the course which you suggest.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I, in the interest of time, make a suggestion, Your Honor, that these documents which Dr. Stahmer proposes to offer, I understand, have been translated into all four languages, so that the reason for reading them in open court does not sustain. I cannot speak for my colleagues since I have not consulted them, but so far as the United States is concerned, we will not raise a question of relevancy; we spend no time arguing points of relevancy. I suggest that the reading of a whole document book seems a waste of time of the Trial Court since the documents are available in all four languages.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, before we consider that course which has been suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson, we should like to hear whether any of the other Chief Prosecutors have anything to add to it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I respectfully submit that it is an excellent suggestion and I want to make it clear to the Defense Counsel that I feel that it will, on the one side, avoid arguments of relevancy on comparatively small points and, on the other side, the Defense Counsel will be able to use any of the excerpts in their final speeches with more effect and probably with more help to the Tribunal than merely by reading them at this stage. I respectfully support it and consider that it will improve the general condition.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. We will hear you in a moment, Dr. Stahmer, but I do not want you to go away; I want you to be able to hear. I want to hear General Rudenko too.

GEN. RUDENKO: I am fully in agreement with the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson and that of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and I also consider that the Tribunal accept these documents which have been translated in four languages. This does not exclude the premise, namely that the Defense has no right to submit documents that have nothing to do with the present case. In particular I have a definite objection against submitting as exhibits the extracts from documents of the so-called White Book which are being submitted by Dr. Stahmer in the document book. These extracts have nothing to do with the present case and they should not be submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Chief Prosecutor wish to add anything to what has been said?

M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: The French Prosecution has laid before the Tribunal a note requesting rejection of Document Number Göring-26. It concerns indeed an extract from a note from the German Government to the French Government regarding the treatment of German prisoners of war in France. This extract refers to a secret order from the headquarters of the general commanding the 9th French Army. This extract says that the general commanding the 9th French Army published an order; this order was not given to us. We are dealing only with an assertion of the German Government, which is the government of the defendant. The extract which is offered to us has therefore no relevancy and we ask the Tribunal to reject it.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, at the moment, is not considering the question of relevancy of particular documents. They are considering only the general question of method as to whether all these documents have to be read out to the Tribunal or whether they can be laid before the Tribunal for the Tribunal’s consideration. If they have got to be read out in full it will take a very considerable time, and therefore Mr. Justice Jackson has suggested that instead of all these documents being read out in full, which will take a very long time, as they have been translated, the reason for that no longer exists as it did exist in the case of the documents put in by the Prosecution which had not been translated. But that does not mean that the question of relevancy of individual documents or particular passages in the documents is decided by the document books being presented for the consideration of the Tribunal. Such questions as that may, in important cases, have to be considered after argument, but as a general rule and for the purpose of avoiding delay, the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson appears to have a very great deal to recommend it.

M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: The matter which is before us today is to find out whether all of the documents which have been submitted are relevant, and that is why I asked that the Tribunal reject one of the documents as irrelevant. If it is understood, that this question may be brought up later when the document is produced then I see no objection to postponing my explanation. I wish to state concerning Document Number Göring-26 only that the quotation read by Dr. Stahmer is mutilated and I shall ask the Tribunal to hear this document read in full.

THE PRESIDENT: We would like to consider this matter, but before doing so we would like to know whether you have any objection to the suggestion that has been made. You understand what Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion is?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President, I understand. It touches upon a fundamental question of the defense, and I should like to discuss this question briefly with the other Defense Counsel. I should like to suggest that the Court take a short recess now so that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter. I would then make my statement afterwards. I should like to point out now that at the time we were willing to forego the reading of the Indictment, and its being read was not due to our objections. The gentlemen probably were of the opinion that it had to be read as a matter of principle. I shall clarify the question and report immediately.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about the reading of the Indictment? Are you making a complaint because the Indictment had been read?

DR. STAHMER: No, no, no.

THE PRESIDENT; The matter stands upon a different footing. The Charter, which is the document which governs the actions of the Tribunal, provided that the Indictment must be read. It does not follow that what is now being suggested is not provided for in the Charter. The only reason why we ruled that every document which the Prosecution wished to rely upon be read in open court was because the Prosecution, at that time, had not found it possible to translate into four different languages every document which it wished to put in evidence and for the convenience and in fairness to the defendants and their counsel. We ordered, as you remember at an earlier stage, that every sentence in a document upon which the Prosecution relied and which we could consider as evidence should be read into the microphone so that it could come to you in German and would appear in the record, in the transcript. That principle no longer applies to the documents which are now put in because they have been translated into four different languages by the Prosecution’s Translation Division. Therefore, in the interest of time, which must be almost equally important to the Defense as well as to everyone else concerned, it seems to the Tribunal that the suggestion which Mr. Justice Jackson has made is a very sound one and you will, of course, be able to comment in any way you think right during the course of your final speeches upon the documents on which you rely, subject to any question of relevancy which may be of real importance. There may be certain documents which may be objected to by the Prosecution, but, as Mr. Justice Jackson said, he will not now raise any question of relevancy, and he is ready to have all these documents referred to in your document book considered by the Tribunal. Remember also, when we approved your documents, we expressly reserved any question of relevancy of particular passages in these documents which you might want to use.

Perhaps it will be appropriate for us to adjourn now and you can discuss the question with your colleagues.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal: I was, of course, not in a position to have a vote taken among my colleagues of the Defense on the proposal of Mr. Justice Jackson, for the reason alone that not all Defense Counsel are present here. But I have been able to convince myself that the majority of the Defense Counsel agree with the reasons for what I am going to say, and I have no doubt that all Defense Counsel support the application which I am about to make to the effect that the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson should be rejected. But to be correct and loyal I feel obliged to emphasize that naturally every one of the gentlemen is entitled to present his point of view on this question for himself and within the scope of his own subject matter.

And now to the matter itself. The suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson, especially if it is followed in principle with regard to all the documents which are to be submitted by the Defense, would aim at the introduction of a tremendous volume of documents as subject matter in the Trial without their being made known by oral presentation in open session to the public and thus to the whole world, which is passionately and wholeheartedly interested in this Trial.

I abstain from quoting, with judicial dialectics, provisions, for instance from the Charter set up for this Trial, which could be used to conduct a polemic against Mr. Justice Jackson’s proposal. I will start with the principle about the unconditional and absolute importance of which there will certainly be no difference of opinion between the Tribunal and us or between the Prosecution and us: namely, the principle that this whole Trial must be subject to the absolute postulate of justice and fairness. These are exactly the motives which prompted the authors of the Charter to give Part IV of the Charter a very pronounced heading. It says: “Fair Trial for Defendants.”

But I cannot consider it just and I cannot consider it fair if the Prosecution had the right, for months, not only once but sometimes repeatedly and often, to bring their evidence to the knowledge of the public and of the world by reading it into the microphone; and in this regard it should be noted that when these documents were presented often only parts of documents were read which, in the opinion of the Prosecution, were incriminating to the defendants, while those parts were omitted which, in our opinion, were exonerating for the defendants. It must therefore be considered an injustice that a defendant should not also have the opportunity to bring to the knowledge of the world through his defense, those matters which, in his opinion and the opinion of his counsel, speak in his favor, when the Prosecution had previously had the right and the opportunity to apply that procedure to the incriminating documents.

May I draw attention to this fact—and I have pointed it out repeatedly—that certain incriminating points have not only been brought to the knowledge of the world public by reading the documentary evidence, but were repeated in the form of representation to the defendants when they were examined as witnesses, and thereby they have been drilled into the ears of the listening world again and again. I am asking you urgently and implore Your Honors in the interest of just proceedings, which I am sure are desired by you as well as by the authors of the Charter, to give the same opportunity to the defendants.

In support of his suggestion Mr. Justice Jackson has furthermore even emphasized formally the point of view that the Trial would be shortened. The Defense does in no way deny the necessity of limiting this Trial to the time necessary. But perhaps I may in this connection draw your attention to a statement made by the president of the court at the Belsen trial in reply to press criticism about the allegedly too lengthy duration of the trial; the gist of which was that no duration however long was to be regretted as long as it helped to reveal the truth in the end. I ask you to put this principle before the necessity of saving time in this Trial as well.

And finally, may I—without assuming authority to criticize the measures decided upon and carried out by the Prosecution in accordance with their duties—may I point out that the duration of the Trial thus far, should anyone consider it too long—I do not think it is too long—was at any rate not brought about by the Defense. I think I can say with a clear conscience that so far we have not done anything, said anything, or caused anything which could be used in justly reproaching us for delaying the Trial unnecessarily.

If, furthermore, as your Lordship has pointed out, the reason no longer exists which caused the Tribunal duly to order that those parts of documents which were to become the subject matter of the Trial should be presented orally, then I should like to point out that the vast majority of the documents which were produced at the time and accordingly also presented verbally in part were already at that time available in fourfold translation.

Furthermore, I should like to point out that this documentary evidence, if it is to be comprehensible to the Tribunal and if it is to serve the purpose of establishing the truth, without doubt in many cases calls for explanatory comments by the Defense Counsel. The possibility of such comment would be removed if we are instructed to submit these documents to the Tribunal in toto.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, without wanting to prejudice anybody, my colleagues have by no means any intention of quoting the entire contents of the document books. As far as I understand it, they have in most cases rather the intention of presenting excerpts which they are going to designate, and the relevancy of which may then be discussed if occasion arises. Even such selection of those parts of the documents which are considered to be really relevant would not be possible if the Tribunal followed Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion. Likewise, as I said before, it would not be possible to point out, in documents already read by the Prosecution, those parts which have not been read but which are exonerating for the defendant.

If it has been said—and your Lordship has pointed it out—that the Defense Counsel have an opportunity to quote these parts of the documents during their address, then I believe I agree with the Judges that the address should, if possible, be a coherent and terse summary, evaluating the entire substance of the Trial. If we are now instructed to refer to parts of documents during the address and quote explicitly once more those to which we attach importance as evidence, but which we would not mention at all or only incidentally or summarily in connection with a comprehensive evaluation, then the danger arises that the coherence or, let us say, the bold outline of our address would suffer by a recital of the subject matter in detail. And the further danger arises that the time which Mr. Justice Jackson wishes to save through his suggestion will be lost again because the final address will take so much longer, which need not be if it is strictly a summary, an over-all evaluation, in accordance with its purpose.

I consider it even possible that later on, if possibly in the confines of our address a difference of opinion as to the relevancy of an individual document might arise, there might be considerable delay and disturbance in the proceedings, whereas, if one can submit the document in its essential parts at this time, together with statements to explain and connect them, one would have an immediate opportunity to state just why one considers the part presented as relevant, so that the Tribunal would have an opportunity to make a decision as to relevancy now.

In my opinion there are many points which speak against Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion. I summarize: As far as I am concerned, the most important point of view is that of fairness and justice. The Defense Counsel, as I have ascertained beyond any doubt by conversations during the recess, must and would consider it a severe and intolerable limitation of the Defense, if, contrary to the procedure exercised so far by the Prosecution, it were deprived of the possibility of presenting, in its turn, at least the relevant parts of its own documentary evidence to the Tribunal verbally and with comments. I am of the opinion, that it is a simple postulate of fairness in the forensic engagement between Prosecution and Defense that now the Defense, too, should be given the same opportunity. And this is not meant to be criticism either but merely a statement of fact, of which the Prosecution have availed themselves to a considerable and sometimes cumulative extent.

May I request, therefore, and I think my request is supported by the entire Defense that the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson be rejected.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You began your address by saying that you would not refer to the Charter. On what Article of the Charter do you rely for your argument that all documents which are presented must now be read?

DR. DIX: I said that I would not refer to individual provisions of the Charter as a basis for my application. As a basis for my application I have merely mentioned the heading of Part IV of the Charter which says, “Fair Trial for Defendants,” and I have explained and need not repeat that I would not consider it a fair trial if Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion were followed. However, I have deliberately—although my attention was drawn to specific provisions of the Charter which, directly or indirectly, might be used as a legal construction to support my application—I have refrained deliberately from doing so, since these individual rules in my opinion are not convincing.

The principle of justice and fairness however is sufficiently strong in my opinion, and so are the other arguments of practicability and feasibility which I took the liberty to present to the Tribunal. I think there must be a misunderstanding.

THE PRESIDENT: But you will not have omitted to notice that Article 24 deals expressly with the course of the Trial. Do you rely upon any part of Article 24?

DR. DIX: No, no. I have deliberately not referred to any part of Article 24, since that article gives considerable powers of discretion to the Tribunal, regarding the general rules of procedure which, in my opinion, have nothing to do with the question under discussion at present. This is merely a question of justice and fairness, and, if I may add this, it is a fundamental rule of oral trial. We now have an oral trial, we now have a trial in open session. It is in existence here. I am not sure whether or not the open session is prescribed by the Charter, but it exists. Since it is in existence, we must proceed in accordance with these principles and therefore, in my opinion, the defendant has also the right to present to the public of the world what is in his favor after the Prosecution have presented to the public of the world what is not in his favor.

THE PRESIDENT: I want to ask you another question: Are you suggesting that the Defense should be able to quote, to read documents, more than once?

DR. DIX: I am not suggesting that in any way. As far as I am concerned, my documents of course will be read only in part and certainly not twice. I have merely said that the Prosecution have done so, that is, have read documents twice; sometimes even three times, I am told. But it is not my task to criticize that conduct of the Prosecution; that is the Prosecution’s business. I am not here to make criticism; that is up to the Tribunal and the Prosecution. I have merely stated the fact.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would like to put a further question to Dr. Dix before they hear you, and also . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would like to make a simple statement of fact . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Please do.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: . . . which I think will clarify this situation some in justice to the United States of America.

As to the fairness, I call the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that we have printed, mimeographed, 250 copies of Dr. Stahmer’s entire document book, and it is in the press room waiting for delivery to the press when it is received by this Tribunal, so that we have done everything that we could, everything that we did for ourselves, to make public his documents.

In the second place, we have gone so far as to print even things that the Court ruled out, rather than to have controversy with them.

In the third place, it is not the function of the Tribunal, under the Charter, to spread propaganda. A large part of this is stuff that is 20 years old and is in every good library and will not be used by newspapers and constitutes a waste of our money. We have tried to do everything in order to make this Trial completely fair to these people, and now that I have discovered that we are printing documents that the Court have already ruled out, I must say that I shall stop it. I think we have been imposed upon, and this document book will show it. There are documents after documents that the Tribunal have already ruled irrelevant, and we have gone to the expense of printing them in order to be more than fair.

DR. DIX: May I answer to that very briefly? As far as the point of view of propaganda is concerned, I regret that my suggestion has not been followed, according to which the public and the world would hear only those parts of our document books which have been recognized as relevant by the Tribunal, and then presented by us. If the contents of the document book do produce certain propaganda effects, which is unknown to me and which would be entirely against our intentions, then it is merely due to the fact that the contents of these document books have been submitted to the press not through legal and normal channels or let us say not by due procedure, that is, from the sessions’ records; instead these document books of the Defense were placed at the disposal of the press without our knowledge, and therefore also such things were communicated to the press and the world public which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, circumstances permitting, may be irrelevant or perhaps biased. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that they are; I am merely talking in the abstract. But if you want to avoid just what Mr. Justice Jackson wishes to avoid, namely, that political propaganda is made by means of this Trial, then you must follow my suggestion; I want only that to be presented and brought to the knowledge of the world which has here been considered relevant by the Tribunal and admitted for presentation.

Due to the excitement in Court it is very difficult to understand every word correctly through the earphones, but if Mr. Justice Jackson meant that we are trying to obtain a propaganda effect here, that is not the case. If he further mentions the point of fairness insofar as the Prosecution had done everything to inform the world public by placing at its disposal all the document books, then I have no criticism to offer in that respect. Far be it from me to call that unfair. But here we are in Court, having proper proceedings. We are not making press propaganda; rather the press is to gather information and report to the world about this Trial from this courtroom. The Defense are only grateful if their efforts to carry through proper proceedings with full information to the press are supported by the Tribunal.

But this is not the crucial point. I have not accused anybody of being unfair. I have merely emphasized that it is a requirement of fairness to let the Defense do the same things which have continually and repeatedly been done by the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Dix, will you tell me this: What suggestion do you have for shortening the Trial? You must recollect in the criticism that you have been making of the Prosecution’s case with reference to their documents, that their case has been based almost entirely upon documents. They have called—I do not know how many witnesses, but very few witnesses. You and the other defendants’ counsel are proposing to call a very great number of witnesses, and what I would ask you is: How do you propose that the Trial should be shortened so that it may not last until the end of July or August?

DR. DIX: If I make a suggestion, then I can of course do so only for myself and for the case I have to defend. May I suggest, Your Lordship, that we begin with producing the documentary evidence, and I would ask you to realize that, if I am not mistaken, none of the Defense Counsel intends to read his entire document book here before the Tribunal. Whomever I have asked, at any rate the majority, certainly did not intend to do that. Those with whom I have spoken want to quote excerpts only, and in the choice of these excerpts and in the discussion of whether their presentation would be relevant, a measure could be applied which would, of course, take into consideration the necessity of the matter as well as the question of time. I do not think that the presentation of the documents will take a very long time. My colleague, Dr. Stahmer, for instance, has told me that although he has an enormous and important case to defend, he believes that he will probably complete his case in about 2 hours or maybe in even less than 2 hours. I am not a prophet, but I think the Tribunal is considering the matter as more hazardous than it is in fact. Please give us a chance. You may certainly assume that all of us are anxious not to delay the proceedings. Also we are quite willing to take advice if the Court says, “We do not consider this or that important,” or, “This or that we consider already demonstrated,” or “We presume this or that,” et cetera. That way we will make fast progress. May I, therefore, suggest not to lay down now any obligatory abstract rule for the procedure to be followed but to go to work with us now in a practical manner and to accept our assurances that we want to assist in shortening the Trial and, to begin with, start from the standpoint that we may present what we consider relevant. If it should turn out that too much time is being taken up—which, as I have said, I do not believe—then we could still discuss that matter once more and after all, the Tribunal is at liberty to make its decisions. All I ask is that it not be done now because I am afraid that the Tribunal, on the strength of the experience with the documentary evidence of the Prosecution, is overestimating the time required for the presentation of our documentary evidence, in which connection I again repeat that this is neither reproach nor criticism. I know that the Prosecution have based their case mostly on documents, and therefore naturally had to take more time.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Dix. The Tribunal would like to hear—of course, they cannot hear all the defendants’ counsel on this matter, but they would like to hear one other representative of Counsel.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I draw the attention of the Tribunal back to the legal aspect of the matter?

The Tribunal quite rightly raised the question: What does the Charter say regarding evidence? The difficulty is caused by the fact that specific rules on this matter are not contained in the Charter. Regarding the procedure, we have Article 24. This Article 24 refers to the session—the session, which, according to the legal language used in all kinds of criminal procedure, can mean nothing but the oral hearing and the verbal debate. What is lacking in Article 24 is a paragraph which concerns specifically the taking of documentary evidence. But may I draw your attention to subparagraph (e). There the rebuttal of evidence given by witnesses is discussed, the rebuttal, which of course, is concerned not only with the presentation of witnesses but also with the submission of documents.

It is specifically provided there that the evidence should be taken. At any rate, based on the German text and German usage of language, it would not be permissible at all if this evidence taken in the presentation were not produced now during Court sessions but if that evidence, on the basis of the presented extensive written material, were dealt with in the separate rooms of the Judges.

It is a particularly important principle of a colleague-like Tribunal, of a Tribunal which consists of several Judges, that the impression which is to be conveyed to the Tribunal should be coherent and direct. That can be achieved only if the material is presented and discussed in oral proceedings.

May I ask you to consider also that we have already acquired some experience in that respect during this Trial. I am sure that everyone who has presented a document has been very grateful to the President of the Tribunal when he interfered during the quotation of the document by limiting here or extending there, and, by doing so, let the Prosecution or the Defense Counsel, who were quoting the document, know the opinion of the Tribunal as to what is relevant. Our experience has been that this guidance by the Tribunal had favorable results later on.

As for the legal aspect, may I draw your attention to Article 21, which contains a special provision, a special provision regarding those facts which are of common knowledge and do not require any discussion. This special provision of Article 21 clearly reveals the difference between these facts and those which may be and need to be discussed. Everything that may be and needs to be discussed must be presented in court in some way so that the Tribunal has the possibility to intervene here also and to make explanatory and guiding comments. That is what I have to say as to the legal aspect of the matter.

Apart from that, I believe that I understood Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion somewhat differently. First of all, I think Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion has been somewhat enlarged during the debate. I think his suggestion was that we, as Defense Counsel, should impose certain restrictions upon ourselves not to present the submitted documentary material indiscriminately, but to confine ourselves to choosing those parts which are really worth mentioning and which call for presentation at the present stage of the Trial.

To undergo such a restriction is certainly in line with the practical duty of the Defense Counsel. Nothing is more fatal to the Defense or the Prosecution than going into detail, that is, elaborating on irrelevant facts.

Particularly under firm and strict guidance of the procedure, every Defense Counsel will soon notice whether he is on the wrong track, whether he is presenting superfluous material and, by presenting superfluous material is achieving an effect which he in no case wishes to obtain.

I therefore believe that, as my colleague, Dr. Dix, just said, the self-control of the Defense Counsel and a well-concerned interest in his case and in his client will automatically impose on him the necessary limitation in his presentation.

[Dr. Seidl approached the lectern.]

THE PRESIDENT: I said on behalf of the Tribunal that we wished to hear two counsel.

DR. SEIDL: I wanted to add only very briefly some remarks to what my two colleagues have already said—very briefly.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but then it may be possible that every one of the 20 or more counsel who are present wish to add something.

DR. SEIDL: I do not know, but I do not think so.

THE PRESIDENT: I said two counsel, and I meant two counsel.

DR. SEIDL: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would like to know whether you have anything to add in reply to what has been said.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think nothing. I thought I was saving time. I begin to doubt it.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, I think the Tribunal would like to know exactly how far your suggestion went. Were you really making any further suggestion than this: That the defendants’ counsel should not think it necessary to read every document in their document book in the course of the presentation of their defense, or were you intending to move the Tribunal to order that they should not be allowed to read any document in their document book at this stage?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I thought their document book should be directed to be filed as an exhibit at this stage of the case, without reading. I would not be particular about it if they have passages they think are of particular importance which they want to call to your attention, but this document book consists of speeches made 15 years ago and published in the press in every complete library in the country, largely, together with a good deal that has been excluded. It would seem to me that they should go in, so they are available to them, and that if there are matters in them which particular countries wish to object to, they might raise the question by motion to strike or raise it now if they desire. As far as the United States is concerned, we have no objection to any of it. I think some of it is highly objectionable on the ground of relevancy, but it would take longer to argue it and it goes to certain large questions of reprisals and things of that character that will have to be settled in larger ways than questions of admission of evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you, on behalf of the Chief Prosecutors, have any objection or think it inadvisable to adopt the suggestion which Dr. Dix made that we should see how far the defendants’ counsel were prepared to limit the amount of the documents which they read at this stage and see how long it takes and see whether it is necessary to make any further ruling in order to accelerate the Trial?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I am quite willing to experiment, but I do suggest that we are now handed a document book containing a number of documents that the Court has passed upon, and, as I recall, Your Honor called Dr. Stahmer’s attention to this at the opening of his case. I do not have so much faith, perhaps, as I ought to have.

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is very likely that documents have got into Dr. Stahmer’s book by mistake, owing to the fact that he, being for the first defendant, there were some difficulties in preparation for instance, and I have already drawn attention to it. I think there is in Dr. Stahmer’s book—I am not quite sure—a speech of Mr. Paul Boncour which has been expressly denied by the Tribunal, and those are the sort of documents to which you are referring, no doubt. And I had to draw attention also in the case of one other counsel, I think, or one other witness to a document being put to him which the Tribunal had expressly denied. But of course, that is very wrong that any document should be put into a document book which the Tribunal has expressly denied, but as I say, I think that is very likely due to some mistake.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am quite ready, and I am sure my colleagues are, to experiment with this and see how it goes.

It is—and I think I should say this for all of us—it is a difficult thing where we come from different systems and do not always understand what the other man is driving at; it is a difficult thing to reconcile these different procedures, and I am quite willing to be patient and forbearing about it and see how it works.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

You must quite understand, Dr. Stahmer, that I am not making any ruling on behalf of the Tribunal at this moment as to whether or not Dr. Dix’s suggestion will be adopted, because the Tribunal will proceed now to consider the matter, and then the ruling will be made.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I make just a personal explanation? The inclusion in my document book of the documents which had been denied is due to the following facts: At the request of the Translation Division the document book had already been handed to that division before the Tribunal had made its negative decision, and that accounts for the inclusion. I was put under considerable pressure at the time to hand the book over so that it might be submitted to the Court in translated form. That is how it happened.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought it was probably that, Dr. Stahmer.

The Tribunal will adjourn now until 2:30.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1430 hours.]

Afternoon Session

THE PRESIDENT: In considering the matters which have been raised this morning, the Tribunal has had in mind the necessity for a fair trial and at the same time for an expeditious trial, and the Tribunal has decided that for the present it will proceed under rules heretofore announced; that is to say:

First, documents translated into the four languages may be introduced without being read but in introducing them counsel may summarize them, or otherwise call their relevance to the attention of the Court, and may read such brief passages as are strictly relevant and are deemed important.

Second; when a document is offered, the Tribunal will hear any objections that may be offered to it and in this connection, I would refer to the rule which the Tribunal made on the 8th of March 1946, which reads as follows:

“To avoid unnecessary translations, Defense Counsel shall indicate to the Prosecution the exact passages in all documents which they propose to use in order that the Prosecution may have an opportunity to object to irrelevant passages. In the event of disagreement between the Prosecution and the Defense as to the relevancy of any particular passage, the Tribunal will decide what passages are sufficiently relevant to be translated. Only the cited passages need to be translated, unless the Prosecution requires the translation of the entire document.”

The Tribunal has allowed the Defendant Göring, who has given evidence first of the defendants and who has proclaimed himself to be responsible as the second leader of Nazi Germany, to give his evidence without any interruption whatever, and he has covered the whole history of the Nazi regime from its inception to the defeat of Germany.

The Tribunal does not propose to allow any of the other defendants to go over the same ground in their evidence except insofar as it is necessary for their own defense.

Defense Counsel are advised that the Tribunal will not ordinarily regard as competent evidence, extracts from books or articles expressing the opinions of particular authors on matters of ethics, history, or particular events.

Now, as to tomorrow’s business, the Tribunal will sit in open session for the purpose of hearing applications for witnesses and documents, supplementary applications; and after sitting in that open session, the Tribunal will adjourn into a closed session.

Now, Dr. Stahmer, are you going to refer us to book Number 1? Which is your book? Or are you referring us to your trial brief?

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I shall refer to the trial brief, Page 5. As far as I am informed, the translations show the same numbers as the original German text: Page 5, Paragraph II. Since this book is translated into the three languages, and the document book, I am informed, is also translated, I can limit myself to referring to them briefly to present only what I consider essential.

At the beginning of my presentation from this book I pointed out that Germany had renounced the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact, and that this renunciation as such was justified. After this renunciation had taken place, Germany could proceed to rearm and also to reintroduce general conscription.

Moreover, rearmament and the reintroduction of military conscription were ordered by Hitler only after he had previously and repeatedly submitted, without success, offers of disarmament to the powers concerned. Therefore the conclusion cannot be drawn from that fact alone that at that time the intention existed to prepare or to plan German wars of aggression. In this connection I draw your attention to the fact that also in foreign countries rearmament took place to a considerable degree from 1936 on, and as evidence for this fact I have submitted the speeches and essays which are contained in Churchill’s book Step by Step. The individual excerpts have been designated by me. I am referring to the following in particular. On Page 5 of this book it says . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, you must offer these things in evidence as a matter of formality.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, of course. I have the book here with me. I shall submit it immediately; I also have the individual excerpts here which are included in the document book. It is Document Book 2, Page 44, the first excerpt in Volume 2, Page 44.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to number your exhibit in some way?

DR. STAHMER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You have numbered it 40 I see, is that right?

DR. STAHMER: Yes. That is the number in this book. I have numbered these books right through.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but whatever number you propose to use you must say what the number is when you offer it in evidence, so that it will go into the transcript.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President.

The quotation is from Document Book Number 2 and it is Number 40 on Page 9:

“On 18 June the Anglo-German Naval Treaty was signed, which released Germany from the Versailles naval restrictions. That meant in effect condonation of the breach of the military clauses.”

On Page 35:

“The Air Force is in the process of being almost trebled. This is a colossal expansion which is making the most prodigious demands on our production potentialities. But quite apart from these immediate needs, there is the far greater task of so organizing England’s home industries that they will be ready to direct the whole of their enormous and elastic capacity into the channels of war production as soon as a serious necessity for that should arise.”

From the article “In the Waters of the Mediterranean” dated 13 November 1936, I quote, on Page 86, where it says literally:

“But it is no longer thus. England has begun to rearm on a large scale. Her wealth and her credit, the solidarity of her organization, her vast resources and connections, all contribute to this revival. The British fleet is still by far the mightiest in Europe. Enormous yearly expenditure on it is under consideration for the future.”

Furthermore, I wish to produce evidence of the fact that the Defendant Göring particularly, at various times, beginning after the seizure of power, consistently emphasized his serious desire to maintain peace and to avoid a war. He has also repeatedly stated clearly that the measures taken by Germany were not to serve purposes of aggression. As evidence of this I refer to several speeches made by the Defendant Göring, and to begin with I cite a speech of 4 December 1934, which he made at the Krupp works in Essen, and which is contained in the book Hermann Göring’s Speeches and Compositions, Pages 174 to 176, and is reprinted in Document Book Number 1, Page 18.

From this excerpt I wish to quote only the following:

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think the shorthand writer has yet heard what the exhibit number is.

DR. STAHMER: I beg your pardon. It is Exhibit Number 6. I quote—and it is the last sentence of the first paragraph:

“Today we want to secure this peace, and we want the world to understand this always: That a respected Germany only is a guarantor of world peace. Only a free German nation will keep this peace and will know how to preserve this peace.

“Therefore we demand for ourselves the same rights as others possess.”

And on the following page, I quote the last paragraph:

“We do not want war, but we want our honor. We will not discuss this honor with anybody in the world; that remains, for it is the foundation for the reconstruction of the entire nation. Only he who has a sharp sword at his side is unmolested and has peace.”

Sir Nevile Henderson emphasizes Göring’s love of peace in various passages of his book Failure of a Mission. The passages are quoted again in Document Book Number 1, Page 63, and I offer it as Document Number 23, Exhibit Number Göring-2. I quote from Page 78 of the book.

“I”—that is, Henderson—“was inclined to believe in the sincerity of his”—that is, Göring’s—“personal desire for peace and good relation with England.”

On Page 83 of the book, it says:

“I would like to express here my belief that the Field Marshal, if it had depended on him, would not have gambled on war, as Hitler did in 1939. As will be related in due course, he took a decisive stand for peace in September 1938.”

On Page 273, which is the next page, there is the following sentence which I quote:

“I saw the Polish Ambassador at 2 a.m. on 31 August 1939, gave him an objective, and studiously moderate account of my conversation with Ribbentrop, mentioned the cession of Danzig and the plebiscite in the Corridor as the two main points in the German proposals, stated that so far as I could gather they were not on the whole too unreasonable, and suggested to him that we recommend to his Government that they should propose at once a meeting between the Field Marshals Smigly-Rydz and Göring.”

On Page 276 of the book, you will find the following sentences which I quote from the last paragraph:

“Nevertheless, the Field Marshal seemed in earnest when after having been called to the telephone, he returned to tell us that M. Lipski was on his way to see Ribbentrop. He seemed relieved and to hope that, provided contact could only be established, war might, after all, be avoided.”

In February of 1937, the Defendant Göring, on the occasion of an international meeting of war veterans in Berlin, made the following speech, which is contained in the book Hermann Göring, the Man and His Work, on Page 265, and which is contained in Document Book 2, Page 42, which is Exhibit Number 39, and from which I quote the following sentences:

“There are no better defenders of peace than the old war veterans. I am convinced that they, above all others, have a right to ask for peace and to shape it. I recognize that those men who, weapon in hand, went through 4 hard years of the hell of the World War, have the primary right to shape the life of the nations, and I know that the war veterans more than anybody else will take care to preserve the blessings of peace for their countries.”

I skip two sentences and then quote further:

“But we know that it is a terrible thing, this final contest between nations. It is my fervent and heartfelt wish that this Congress may contribute towards the basis for a true peace with honor and equality of rights for all sides. You, my comrades, will have to pave the way for that.”

The same desire is evident in the answers given by Lord Halifax to the questions put him. I now read the following passages from this interrogatory and I offer the original as Document Number Göring-22. It is contained in Document Book I, Page 59.

I think I can omit the first two questions. The third question is:

“Did Göring say to you during this discussion, ‘Every German Government would consider the following matters as an integral part of its policy: (a) The incorporation of Austria and the Sudetenland into Germany; (b) The return of Danzig to Germany with a reasonable solution of the Corridor question’?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question 4: Did you answer thereupon: ‘But, I hope without war’?

“Answer: I said that His Majesty’s Government wanted all questions affecting Germany and her neighbors settled by peaceful methods. I did not otherwise discuss those questions.

“Question 5: Did Göring answer thereupon:

“‘That depends very much upon England. England would be able to contribute much to the peaceful solution of this question. Göring does not want war either for these reasons, but these questions have to be settled under all circumstances.’

“Answer: Yes.”

The next questions concern the conversation with Dahlerus . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Does that purport to be a verbatim account of what the Defendant Göring said? Did he refer to himself in the third person, “Göring does not want a war,” meaning, “I do not want a war”?

DR. STAHMER: He did not want a war either. England would be able to contribute much to the peaceful solution of this question. He does not want war either for these reasons. He, that is, Göring does not want war either, but these questions have to be settled under all circumstances.

This is, of course, indirect speech. In direct speech it would be, “I, Göring, do not want war, but the questions have to be settled under all circumstances.”

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us