Afternoon Session
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal. I should like to ask the Tribunal to note the presence and appearance, on behalf of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of Mr. A. I. Vishinsky of the Foreign Office, and General K. P. Gorshenin, Chief Prosecutor of the Soviet Republic who has been able to join us in the Prosecution only now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal notes what Mr. Justice Jackson has said, and observes that Mr. Vishinsky has taken his seat with the Soviet Delegation of Chief Prosecutors.
DR. SIEMERS: In the meanwhile during the lunch hour I have seen the minutes. I should like to observe that I don’t think it is very agreeable that the Prosecution should not depart from their point that the Defense should only receive the documents during the proceedings, or just before the proceedings, or at times, even after the proceedings. I should be grateful if the Prosecution could see to it in the future that we are informed in good time.
Yesterday a list of the documents which were to be presented today was made in our room, number 54. I find that the documents presented today are not included in yesterday’s list. You will understand that the task of the Defense is thereby rendered comparatively difficult. On principle, I cannot in my statement of today, give my agreement to the reading of minutes of interrogations. In order to facilitate matters, I should like to follow the Court’s suggestion, and declare that I am agreeable to the minutes presented here being read. I request, however—and I believe I have already been assured by the Prosecution to that effect—that only the part be read which refers to Document C-156, as I had no time to discuss the remaining points with the defendants.
As to the remaining points, five other documents are cited. Moreover I request that the part which refers to the book by Kapitän zur See Schüssler, should be read in full, and I believe that the prosecutor agrees with this.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood from the counsel for Raeder that you were substantially in agreement as to what parts of this interrogation you should read. Is that right, Mr. Alderman?
MR. ALDERMAN: If I understood the counsel correctly, he asked that I read the entire part of the interrogation which deals with Document C-156, but I understood that he did not agree for me to read other parts that referred to other documents. I handed counsel the original of my copy of the interrogation before the lunch hour, and when he returned it to me after the lunch hour, I substituted in his hands a carbon copy. I didn’t quite understand his statement about documents being introduced which hadn’t been furnished to the defendant. We did file the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this document in the document book?
MR. ALDERMAN: My understanding is that the document book contains all the documents except these interrogations. They did not contain the interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Then he is right in saying that.
MR. ALDERMAN: He is right as to the interrogation, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you in agreement with him then, that you can read what you want to read now, and that it is not necessary for you to read the parts to which he objects.
MR. ALDERMAN: I think so. I understand he objects to my reading anything other than the part concerned with C-156. I would anticipate that he might be willing for me to read the other parts tomorrow.
This deals with the book which I offered in evidence this morning, Document C-156, Exhibit USA-41. The Defendant Raeder identified that book, and explained that the Navy tried to fulfill the letter of the Versailles Treaty and at the same time make progress in naval development. I refer to the interrogation of the Defendant Raeder at the part we had under discussion:
“Q. I have here a Document C-156, which is a photostatic copy of a work prepared by the High Command of the Navy and covers the struggle of the Navy against the Versailles Treaty from 1919 to 1935. I ask you initially whether you are familiar with the work.
“A. I know this book. I read it once when it was edited.
“Q. Was that an official publication of the German Navy?
“A. This Captain Schüssler (indicating the author) was a commander in the Admiralty. Published by the OKM, it was an idea of this officer to put all these things together.
“Q. Do you recall the circumstances under which the authorization to prepare such a work was given to him?
“A. I think he told me that he would write such a book as he tells here in the foreword.
“Q. And in the preparation of this work he had access to the official Navy files and based his work on the items contained therein?
“A. Yes, I think so. He would have spoken with other persons, and he would have had the files which were necessary.
“Q. Do you know whether, before the work was published, a draft of it was circulated among the officers in the Admiralty for comment?
“A. No, I don’t think so. Not before it was published. I saw it only when it was published.
“Q. Was it circulated freely after its publication?
“A. It was a secret object. I think all upper commands in the Navy had knowledge of it.
“Q. It was not circulated outside of Navy circles?
“A. No.
“Q. What then is your opinion concerning the comments contained in the work, regarding the circumventing of the provisions of Versailles?
“A. I don’t remember very exactly what is in here. I can only remember that the Navy had always the object to fulfill the word of the Versailles Treaty, but in order to have some advantages. But the flying men were exercised 1 year before they went into the Navy. Quite young men. So that the word of the Treaty of Versailles was filled. They did not belong to the Navy, as long as they were exercised in flying, and the submarines were developed, but not in Germany and not in the Navy, but in Holland. There was a civil bureau, and in Spain there was an industrialist; in Finland, too, and they were built only much later, when we began to act with the English Government about the Treaty of 35 to 100, because we could see that then the Treaty of Versailles would be destroyed by such a treaty with England, and so, in order to keep the word of Versailles, we tried to fulfill the word of Versailles, but we tried to have advantages.
“Q. Would a fair statement be that the Navy High Command was interested in avoiding the limiting provisions of the Treaty of Versailles regarding personnel and the limits of armaments, but would attempt to fulfill the letter of the Treaty, although actually avoiding it?
“A. That was our endeavor.”
MR. ALDERMAN: Now the rest of this is the portion that counsel for the defendant asked me to read:
“Q. Why was such a policy adopted?
“A. We were much menaced in the first years after the first war by the danger that the Poles would attack East Prussia, and so we tried to strengthen a little our very, very weak forces in this way; and so all our efforts were directed to the aim of having a little more strength against the Poles should they attack us. It was nonsense to think of attacking Poland in this stage by the Navy. A second aim was to have some defense against the entering of French forces into the Ostsee (East Sea), because we knew that the French had the intention to sustain the Poles. Their ships came into the Ostsee, Gdynia, and so the Navy was a defense against an attack of Poland and against the entrance of French ships into the East Sea; quite defensive aims.
“Q. When did this fear of an attack from Poland first show itself in official circles in Germany, would you say?
“A. In all the first years. They took Vilna; in the same minute we thought they would come to East Prussia. I don’t know exactly the year, because those judgments were the judgments of the German Government Ministers, the Army and Navy Ministers—Gröner and Noske.
“Q. Then those views, in your opinion, were generally held and existed perhaps as early as 1919-1920, after the end of the first World War?
“A. Oh, but the whole situation was very, very uncertain, and about those years in the beginning I cannot give you a very exact picture, because I was then 2 years in the Navy Archives to write a book about the War and the fighting capacity of cruisers. For 2 years I was not with those things.”
MR. ALDERMAN: Likewise the same kind of planning and purposes are reflected in the table of contents of a history of the German Navy, 1919 to 1939, found in captured official files of the German Navy. Although a copy of the book has not been found by us, the project was to have been written by Oberst Scherff, Hitler’s personal military historian. We have found the table of contents; it refers by numbers to groups of documents and notes of documents, which evidently were intended as the working materials for the basis of chapters, to be written in accordance with the table of contents. The titles in this table of contents clearly establish the Navy planning and preparation to get the Versailles Treaty out of the way and to rebuild the naval strength necessary for aggressive war.
We have here the original captured document which is, as I say, the German typewritten table of contents of this projected work, with a German cover, typewritten, entitled Geschichte der Deutschen Marine, 1919-1939 (History of the German Navy, 1919-1939). We identify it as our series C-17 and I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-42. This table of contents includes such general headings—perhaps I had better read some of the actual headings:
“Part A, 1919—The Year of Transition. Chapter VII: First efforts to circumvent the Versailles Treaty and to limit its effects.
“(a) Demilitarization of the Administration, incorporation of naval offices in Civil Ministries et cetera. (For example: Incorporation of greater sections of the German maritime observation station and the sea-mark system in Helgoland and Kiel, of the Ems-Jade Canal et cetera into the Reich Transport Ministry up to 1934: Noske’s proposal of 11. 8. 1919 to incorporate the Naval Construction Department in the Technical High School, Berlin; formation of the Naval Arsenal Kiel.)”—With a reference to a group of documents numbered 75.—”
“(b) The saving from destruction of coastal fortifications and guns.
“(1) North Sea (strengthening of fortifications with new batteries and modern guns between the signing and the taking effect of the Versailles Treaty; dealings with the Control Commission—information, drawings, visits of inspection, result of efforts.)”—referring to the group of documents numbered 85.—
“(2) Baltic (taking over by the Navy of fortresses Pillau and Swinemünde; salvage for the Army of 185 movable guns and mortars there.)”—I may interpolate that when the British offer in evidence the Treaty of Versailles, you will see the detailed limitations which this document indicates an effort to avoid.—
“(3) The beginnings of coastal air defense.
“Part B, 1920-1924—The Organizational New Order. Chapter V: The Navy. Fulfillment and avoidance of the Versailles Treaty. Foreign countries.
“(a) The Interallied Control Commissions.
“(b) Defense measures against the fulfillment of the Versailles Treaty and independent arming behind the back of the Reich Government and the legislative bodies.
“(1) Dispersal of artillery gear and munitions, of hand and automatic weapons.
“(2) Limitation of demolition work in Helgoland.
“(3) Attempt to strengthen personnel of the Navy, from 1923.
“(4) The activities of Captain Lohmann (founding of numerous associations at home and abroad, participations, formation of ‘sports’ unions and clubs, interesting the film industry in naval recruitment).
“(5) Preparation for re-establishing the German U-boat arm since 1920 (projects and deliveries for Japan, Holland, Turkey, Argentina, and Finland; torpedo testing).
“(6) Participation in the preparation for building of the Luftwaffe (preservation of airdromes, aircraft construction, teaching of courses, instruction of midshipmen in anti-air-raid defense, training of pilots).
“(7) Attempt to strengthen the mining branch.
“Part C (1925-1932—Replacement of tonnage). Chapter IV: The Navy, the Versailles Treaty, foreign countries.
“(a) The activities of the Interallied Control Commission (up to 31. 1. 27; discontinuance of the activity of the Naval Peace Commission).
“(b) Independent armament measures behind the back of the Reich Government and legislative bodies up to the Lohmann case.
“(1) The activities of Captain Lohmann (continuation) their significance as a foundation for the rapid reconstruction work from 1935.
“(2) Preparation for the restrengthening of the German U-boat arm from 1925 (continuation), the merit of Lohmann in connection with the preparation for rapid construction in 1925, relationship to Spain, Argentina, Turkey; the first post-war U-boat construction of the German Navy in Spain since 1927 . . . 250-ton specimen in Finland, preparation for rapid assembly; electric torpedo; training of U-boat personnel abroad in Spain and Finland. Formation of U-boat school in 1932 disguised as an anti-U-boat school.
“(3) Participation in the preparation for the reconstruction of the Luftwaffe (continuation). Preparation for a Naval Air Arm, Finance Aircraft Company Severa, later Luftdienst”—or Air Service—“GMBH; Naval Flying School Warnemünde; air station list, training of sea cadet candidates, military tactical questions ‘Air Defense Journeys,’ technical development, experimental station planning, trials, flying boat development Do X et cetera, catapult aircraft, arming, engines, ground organization, aircraft torpedoes, the Deutschland flight 1925, and the seaplane race 1926.
“(4) Economic rearmament (‘The Tebeg’—Technical Advice and Supply Company as a disguised naval office abroad for investigating the position of raw materials for industrial capacity and other war economic questions).
“(5) Various measures (the NV Aerogeodetic Company—secret investigations).
“(c) Planned armament work with the tacit approval of the Reich Government, but behind the backs of the legislative bodies (1928 to the taking over of power).
“(1) The effect of the Lohmann case on the secret preparations; winding up of works which could not be advocated; resumption and carrying on of other work.
“(2) Finance question (‘Black Funds’ and the ‘Special Budget’).
“(3) The Labor Committee and its objectives.
“(d) The question of Marine attachés (the continuation under disguise; open reappointment 1932-1933).
“(e) The question of disarmament of the fleet abroad and in Germany (the Geneva Disarmament Conference 1927; the London Naval Treaty of 1930; the Anglo-French-Italian Agreement 1931; the League of Nations Disarmament Conference 1932).
“Part D (1933-1939—The German Navy during the military freedom period).”
—which goes beyond the period with which I am at the moment dealing. A glance at the chapter headings following that will indicate the scope of this proposed work. Whether the history was ever actually written by Scherff, I do not know.
I would like to call attention just to the first two or three headings, under this “Part D—The German Navy during the military freedom period”:
“I. National Socialism and the question of the fleet and of prestige at sea.
“II. Incorporation of the Navy in the National Socialist State.”—The main heading III in the middle of the page—“The Rearmament of the Navy under the direction of the Reich Government in a disguised way.”
The policy development of the Navy is also reflected from the financial side. The planned organization of the Navy budget for armament measures was based on a co-ordination of military developments and political objectives. Military political development was accelerated after the withdrawal from the League of Nations.
I have here, if the Court please, a captured document, in German, headed “Der Chef der Marineleitung, Berlin, 12 May 1934,” and marked in large blue printing “Geheime Kommandosache” (Secret Commando Matter), which is identified as our C-153. It has the facsimile signature of Raeder at the end. I assume it is the facsimile; it may have been written with a stylus on a stencil; I can’t tell. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-43. It is headed with the title: “Armament Plan (R. P.) for the 3rd Armament Phase.” This document of 12 May 1934 speaks of war tasks, war and operational plans, armament targets, et cetera, and shows that it was distributed to many of the High Command of the Navy. It shows that a primary objective was readiness for a war without any alert period.
I quote from the third numbered paragraph:
“The planned organization of armament measures is necessary for the realization of this target; this again requires a co-ordinated and planned expenditure in peace time. This organization of financial measures over a number of years, according to the military viewpoint, is found in the armament program and provides: (a) for the military leader a sound basis for his operational considerations, and (b) for the political leader a clear picture of what may be achieved with the military means available at a given time.”
One other sentence from Paragraph 7 of that document:
“All theoretical and practical R-preparations”—I assume that means armament preparations—“are to be drawn up with a primary view to readiness for a war without any alert period.”—And “without any alert period” is underscored in the original.
The conspiratorial nature of these Nazi plans and preparations long before the outbreak of hostilities is illustrated in many other ways. Thus, in 1934, Hitler instructed Raeder to keep secret the U-boat construction program; also the actual displacement and speed of certain ships. Work on U-boats had been going on, as already indicated, in Holland and Spain.
The Nazi theory was rather clever on that. The Versailles Treaty forbade rearming by the Germans in Germany, but they said it didn’t forbid them to rearm in Holland, Spain, and Finland.
Secrecy was equally important then because of the pending naval negotiations with England. We have a captured document, which is a manuscript in German script, of a conversation between the Defendant Raeder and Adolf Hitler in June 1934. It is not signed by the Defendant Raeder. I might ask his counsel if he objects to my stating that the Defendant Raeder, in an interrogation on 8 November 1945, admitted that this was a record of this conversation and that it was in his handwriting, though he did not sign his name at the end.
That document is identified in our series as C-189, and I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-44.
It is headed: “Conversation with the Führer in June 1934 on the occasion of the resignation of the Commanding Officer of the ‘Karlsruhe.’ ”
“1. Report by the C-in-C Navy concerning increased displacement of D. and E. (defensive weapons).
“Führer’s instructions: No mention must be made of a displacement of 25-26,000 tons, but only of improved 10,000-ton ships. Also, the speed over 26 nautical miles may not be stated.
“2. C-in-C Navy expresses the opinion that later on, the Fleet must anyhow be developed to oppose England, that therefore from 1936 onwards, the large ships must be armed with 35-centimeter guns (like the King George class.)
“3. The Führer demands to keep the construction of the U-boats secret, in consideration of the Saar plebiscite.”
In order to continue the vital increase of the Navy, as planned, the Navy needed more funds than it had available; so Hitler proposed to put funds of the Labor Front at the disposal of the Navy.
We have another Raeder memorandum of a conversation between Raeder and Hitler on 2 November 1934. Of this I have a photostatic copy of the German typed memorandum, identified as our C-190. This one, again, is not signed, but it was found in Raeder’s personal file and I think he will not deny that it is his memorandum. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-45.
It is headed: “Conversation with the Führer on 2. 11. 34 at the time of the announcement by the Commanding Officer of the ‘Emden’.
“1. When I mentioned that the total funds to be made available for the Armed Forces for 1935 would presumably represent only a fraction of the required sum, and that therefore it was possible that the Navy might be hindered in its plans, he replied that he did not think the funds would be greatly decreased. He considered it necessary that the Navy be speedily increased by 1938 with the deadlines mentioned. In case of need he will get Dr. Ley to put 120 to 150 million from the Labor Front at the disposal of the Navy, as the money would still benefit the workers. Later, in a conversation with Minister Göring and myself, he went on to say that he considered it vital that the Navy be increased as planned, as no war could be carried on if the Navy was not able to safeguard the ore imports from Scandinavia.
“2. Then, when I mentioned that it would be desirable to have six U-boats assembled at the time of the critical political situation in the first quarter of 1935,”—that’s the following year, foreseeing—“he stated that he would keep this point in mind, and tell me when the situation demanded that the assembling should commence.”
Then, there is an apostrophe and a note at the bottom:
“The order was not sent out. The first boats were launched in the middle of June ’35 according to plan.”
The development of the armament industry by the use of foreign markets was a program encouraged by the Navy, so that this industry would be able to supply the requirements of the Navy in case of need.
We have an original German document, again headed “Geheime Kommandosache” (secret commando matter)—a directive of 31 January 1933 by the Defendant Raeder for the German industry to support the armament of the Navy.
It is identified in our series as C-29. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-46:
“Top Secret.
“General directions for support given by the German Navy to the German armament industry.
“The effects of the present economic depression have led here and there to the conclusion that there are no prospects of an active participation of the German armament industry abroad, even if the Versailles terms are no longer kept. There is no profit in it and it is therefore not worth promoting. Furthermore, the view has been taken that the increasing ‘self-sufficiency’ would in any case make such participation superfluous.
“However obvious these opinions may seem, formed because of the situation as it is today, I am nevertheless forced to make the following contradictory corrective points:
“a) The economic crisis and its present effects must perforce be overcome sooner or later. Though equality of rights in war politics is not fully recognized today, it will, by the assimilation of weapons, be achieved at some period, at least to a certain extent.
“b) The consequent estimation of the duties of the German armament industry lies mainly in the military-political sphere. It is impossible for this industry to satisfy, militarily and economically, the growing demands made of it by limiting the deliveries to our Armed Forces. Its capacity must therefore be increased by the delivery of supplies to foreign countries over and above our own requirements.
“c) Almost every country is working to the same end today, even those which, unlike Germany, are not tied down by restrictions. Britain, France, North America, Japan, and especially Italy, are making supreme efforts to ensure markets for their armament industries. The use of their diplomatic representations, of the propaganda voyages of their most modern ships and vessels, of sending missions and also of the guaranteeing of loans and insurance against deficits, are not merely to gain commercially advantageous orders for their armament industries, but first and foremost, to expand their output from the point of view of military policy.
“d) It is just when the efforts to do away with the restrictions imposed on us have succeeded, that the German Navy has an ever increasing and really vital interest in furthering the German armament industry and preparing the way for it in every direction in the competitive battle against the rest of the world.
“e) If, however, the German armament industry is to be able to compete in foreign countries, it must inspire the confidence of its purchasers. The condition for this is that secrecy for our own ends be not carried too far. The amount of material to be kept secret under all circumstances, in the interest of the defense of the country, is comparatively small. I would like to issue a warning against the assumption that at the present stage of technical development in foreign industrial states, a problem of vital military importance which we perhaps have solved, has not been solved there. Solutions arrived at today, which may become known, if divulged to a third person by naturally always possible indiscretion, have often been already superseded by new better solutions on our part, even at that time or at any rate after the copy has been made. It is of greater importance that we should be technically well to the fore in any really fundamental matters, than that less important points should be kept secret unnecessarily and excessively.
“f) To conclude: I attach particular importance to guaranteeing the continuous support of the industry concerned by the Navy, even after the present restrictions have been relaxed. If the purchasers are not made confident that something better is being offered them, the industry will not be able to stand up to the competitive battle and therefore will not be able to supply the requirements of the German Navy in case of need.”
This Navy program of surreptitious rearmament, in violation of the Treaty obligations, starting even before the Nazis came into power, is illustrated by a 1932 order of the Defendant Raeder, Chief of the Naval Command, addressed to the main Naval Command, regarding the concealed construction of torpedo-tubes for S-boats. He ordered that torpedo-tubes be removed and stored in the Naval Arsenal, but be kept ready for immediate refitting. By using only the permitted number—that is, permitted under the Treaty—at a given time, and storing them after satisfactory testing, the actual number of operationally effective S-boats was constantly increased.
We have this German order, with the facsimile signature of Raeder, with the heading: “Der Chef der Marine Leitung, Berlin, 10 February 1932.” Our series number is C-141. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-47, the order for concealed armament of S-boats. That is C-141. I read from the first paragraph of the text:
“In view of our Treaty obligations and the Disarmament Conference, steps must be taken to prevent the first S-boat half-flotilla, which in a few months will consist of exactly similar, newly built S-boats, from appearing openly as a formation of torpedo-carrying boats”—the German word being “Torpedoträger”—“and it is not intended to count these S-boats against the number of torpedo-carrying boats allowed to us.
“I therefore order:
“1. S2-S5 will be commissioned in the shipyard Lürssen, Vegesack, without armament and will be fitted with easily removable cover-sheetmetal on the spaces necessary for torpedo-tubes. The same will be arranged by T.M.I.”—a translator’s note at the bottom says with reference to T.M.I. (Inspectorate of Torpedoes and Mining)—“In agreement with the Naval Arsenal, for the Boat S-1 which will dismantle its torpedo-tubes on completion of the practice shooting, for fitting on another boat.
“2. The torpedo-tubes of all S-boats will be stored in the Naval Arsenal ready for immediate fitting. During the trial runs the torpedo-tubes will be taken on board one after the other for a short time to be fitted and for practice shooting, so that only one boat at a time carries torpedo armament. For public consumption this boat will be in service for the purpose of temporary trials by the T.V.A.”
—I suppose that is not the Tennessee Valley Authority; the translator’s note calls it the Technical Research Establishment.—
“It should not anchor together with the other unarmed boats of the half-flotilla because of the obvious similarity of the type. The duration of firing, and consequently the length of time the torpedo-tubes are aboard, is to be as short as possible.
“3. Fitting the torpedo-tubes on all S-boats is intended as soon as the situation of the political control allows it.”
Interestingly enough, that memorandum by the Defendant Raeder, written in 1932, was talking about “as soon as the situation of the political control allows it.” The seizure of power was the following year.
Along similar lines the Navy was also carrying on the concealed preparation of auxiliary cruisers, under the disguised designation of ‘Transport Ships 0’. The preparations under this order were to be completed by 1 April 1935. At the very time of construction of these ships as commercial ships, plans were made for their conversion.
We have the original German document, again top secret, identified by our Number C-166, order from the Command Office of the Navy, dated 12 March 1934, and signed in draft by Groos. It has the seal of the Reichswehrministerium, Marineleitung, over the draft signature. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-48. I think the Defendant Raeder will admit, or at least will not deny, that this is an official document.
“Subject: Preparation of auxiliary cruisers.
“It is intended to include in the Establishment Organization 35 (AG Aufstellungsgliederung) a certain number of auxiliary cruisers which are intended for use in operations in foreign waters.
“In order to disguise the intention and all the preparations, the ships will be referred to as ‘Transport Ships 0’. It is requested that in future this designation only be used.”
The short paragraph says: “The preparations are to be arranged, so that they can be completed by 1. 4. 35.”
Among official Navy files, OKM files, which we have, there are notes kept year by year, from 1927 to 1940, on the reconstruction of the German Navy, and in these notes are numerous examples of the Navy’s activities and policies of which I should like to point out some illustrations.
One of these documents discloses that the displacement of the battleships “Scharnhorst-Gneisenau” and “F/G”—whatever that is—was actually greater than the tonnages which had been notified to the British under the Treaty. This document, our C-23, I offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-49. That is a set really of three separate documents joined together. I read from that document:
“The true displacement of the battleships ‘Scharnhorst-Gneisenau’ and the ‘F/G’ exceeds by 20 percent, in both cases, the displacement reported to the British.”
And then there is a table with reference to different ships, and two columns headed “Displacement by Type”: one column “Actual Displacement” and the other column “Notified Displacement.”
On the “Scharnhorst” the actual was 31,300 tons; the notified was 26,000 tons. On the “F”—actual 41,700 tons, the notified 35,000. On the “HI”—actual 56,200 tons, notified 46,850, and so down the list. I need not read them all.
On the second document in that group towards the end, Page 2 on the English version, is the statement:
“In a clear cut program for the construction, the Führer and Reich Chancellor has set the Navy the task of carrying out the aims of his foreign policy.”
The German Navy constantly planned and committed violations of armament limitation and with characteristic German thoroughness had prepared superficial explanations or pretexts to explain away these violations.
Following a conference with the chief of “A” section, an elaborate survey list was prepared and compiled, giving a careful list of the quantity and type of German naval armament and ammunition on hand under manufacture or construction, and in many instances proposed together with a statement of the justification or defense that might be used in those instances where the Versailles Treaty was violated or its allotment has been exceeded.
The list contained 30 items under “Material Measures” and 14 items under “Measures of Organization.” The variety of details covered necessarily involved several sources within the Navy, which must have realized their significance. As I understand it, the “A” section was the military department of the Navy.
We have this very interesting document among the captured documents identified by our Number C-32. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-50. It again is Geheime Kommandosache and it is headed “A Survey Report of German Naval Armament after Conference with Chief of ‘A’ Section”, dated 9 September 1933, and captured among official German Navy files.
This is a long document, if the Tribunal please, but I should like to call attention to a few of the more interesting items.
There are three columns, one headed “Measure”, one headed “Material Measures, Details,” and the most interesting one is headed “Remarks.” The remarks contain the pretext or justification for explaining away the violations of the Treaty. They are numbered, so I can conveniently refer to the numbers:
“Number 1. Exceeding the permitted number of mines.”—Then figures are given. Remarks—“Further mines are in part ordered, in part being delivered.”
“Number 2. Continuous storing of guns from the North Sea area for Baltic artillery batteries.”—In the remarks column—“Justification: Necessity for overhauling. Cheaper repairs.”
“Number 6. Laying gun-platforms in the Kiel area.” Remarks: “The offense over and above that in Serial Number 3 lies in the fact that all fortifications are forbidden in the Kiel area. This justification will make it less severe; pure defense measures.”
“Number 7. Exceeding the caliber permitted for coastal batteries.” The explanation: “Possible justification is that, though the caliber is larger, the number of guns is less.”
“Number 8. Arming of minesweepers. The reply to any remonstrance against this breach: the guns are taken from the Fleet reserve stores, have been temporarily installed only for training purposes. All nations arm their mine sweeping forces (equality of rights).”
—Here is one that is rather amusing—“Number 13. Exceeding the number of machine guns et cetera, permitted.” Remarks: “Can be made light of.”
“Number 18. Construction of U-boat parts.” This remark is quite characteristic: “Difficult to detect. If necessary can be denied.”
“Number 20. Arming of fishing vessels.” Remarks: “For warning shots. Make little of it.”—And so on throughout the list.
I think quite obviously that must have been used as a guide for negotiators who were attending the Disarmament Conference as to the position that they might take.
Now to Paragraph IV (F) 2 (b) of the Indictment: the allegation that “On 14 October 1933 they led Germany to leave the International Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations.”
That is an historical fact of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice. The Nazis took this opportunity to break away from the international negotiations and to take an aggressive position on an issue which would not be serious enough to provoke reprisal from other countries. At the same time Germany attached so much importance to this action, that they considered the possibility of the application of sanctions by other countries. Anticipating the probable nature of such sanctions and the countries which might apply them, plans were made for military preparations for armed resistance on land, at sea, and in the air, in a directive from the Reichsminister for Defense Blomberg, to the Head of the Army High Command Fritsch, the Head of the Navy High Command Raeder, and the Reichsminister of Air Göring.
We have this captured document in our series C-140, which I offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-151. It is a directive dated 25 October 1933, 11 days after the withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations.
“1) The enclosed directive gives the basis for preparations of the Armed Forces in the case of sanctions being applied against Germany.
“2) I request the Chiefs of the Army and Navy High Commands and the Reichsminister for Air to carry out the preparations in accordance with the following points:
“(a) Strictest secrecy. It is of the utmost importance that no facts become known to the outside world from which preparation for resistance against sanctions can be inferred or which is incompatible with Germany’s existing obligations in the sphere of foreign policy regarding the demilitarized zone. If necessary, the preparations must take second place to this necessity.”
I think that makes the point without further reading. One of the immediate consequences of the action was that following the withdrawal from the League of Nations, Germany’s armament program was still further increased.
I introduced this morning document C-153, as Exhibit USA-43, so that is already in. From that, at this point, I wish to read Paragraph 5. That, as you recall, was a document dated 12 May 1934.
“5) Owing to the speed of military political development, since Germany quitted Geneva, and based on the progress of the Army, the new R-plan will only be drawn up for a period of 2 years. The third ‘A’ phase lasts accordingly from 1. 4. 34 to 31. 3. 36.”
Then the next allegation of the Indictment, if the Tribunal please: “On 10 March 1935 the Defendant Göring announced that Germany was building a military air force.”
That is an historical fact of which I ask the Court to take judicial notice, and I am quite certain that the Defendant Göring would not dispute it.
We have a copy of the German publication known as Das Archiv—the number of March 1935; and it is Page 1830 to which I refer, and I would offer that in evidence, identifying it as our number 2292-PS; I offer it as Exhibit USA-52. It is an announcement concerning the German Air Force:
“The Reich Minister for Aviation, General of the Airmen, Göring, in his talk with the special correspondent of the Daily Mail, Ward Price, expressed himself on the subject of the German Air Force.
“General Göring said:
“ ‘In the extension of our national defenses’ ”—Sicherheit—“ ‘it was necessary, as we repeatedly told the world, to take care of defense in the air. As far as that is concerned, I restricted myself to those measures absolutely necessary. The guiding line of my actions was, not the creation of an aggressive force which would threaten other nations, but merely the completion of a military aviation which would be strong enough to repel, at any time, attacks on Germany.’ ”
Then, at the end of that section of the article in Das Archiv:
“In conclusion, the correspondent asks whether the German Air Force will be capable of repelling attacks on Germany.
General Göring replied to that exactly as follows:
“ ‘The German Air Force is just as passionately permeated with the will to defend the Fatherland to the last as it is convinced, on the other hand, that it will never be employed to threaten the peace of other nations.’ ”
As I said; I believe, this morning, when we cite assurances of that kind from Nazi leaders, we take it that we are not foreclosed from showing that they had different intentions from those announced.
The next allegation of the Indictment is the promulgating of the law for compulsory military service, universal military service.
Having gone as far as they could on rearmament and the secret training of personnel, the next step necessary to the program for aggressive war was a large-scale increase in military strength. This could no longer be done under disguise and camouflage, and would have to be known to the world. Accordingly, on 16 March 1935, there was promulgated a law for universal military service, in violation of Article 173 of the Versailles Treaty.
I ask the Court to take judicial notice of that law as it appears in the Reichsgesetzblatt, which is the official compilation of laws, in the Title I of Volume I, yearly volume 1935, or Jahrgang, at Page 369 and I think I need not offer the book or the law in evidence.
The text of the law itself is very brief and I might read that. It is right at the end of the article. I should refer to that as our Document Number 1654-PS, so as to identify it:
“In this spirit the German Reich Cabinet has today passed the following law:
“Law for the Organization of the Armed Forces of March 16, 1935.
“The Reich Cabinet has passed the following law which is herewith promulgated:
“Paragraph 1. Service in the Armed Forces is based upon compulsory military duty.
“Paragraph 2. In peace time, the German Army, including the police troops transferred to it, is organized into 12 corps and 36 divisions.”—There is a typographical error in the English version of that. It says “16 divisions”, but the original German says 36 divisions.—
“Paragraph 3. The Reich Minister of War is charged with the duty of submitting immediately to the Reich Ministry detailed laws on compulsory military duty.”
Signed: “Berlin, 16 March 1935.”
It is signed first by the Führer and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and then many other officials, including the following defendants in this case:
Von Neurath, Frick, Schacht, Göring, Hess, Frank.
Does the Court contemplate a short recess?
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for 10 minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
COL. STOREY: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution expects, on tomorrow, to offer in evidence some captured enemy moving pictures and in order to give Defense Counsel an opportunity to see them before they are offered in evidence—and in response to their request made to the Tribunal some time ago—the showing of these films for Defense Counsel will be held in this court room this evening at 8 o’clock, for the Defense Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Colonel Storey.
MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I have reached now Paragraph IV, F, 2 (e) of the Indictment, which alleges:
“On 21 May 1935 they falsely announced to the world, with intent to deceive and allay fears of aggressive intentions, that they would respect the territorial limitations of the Versailles Treaty and comply with the Locarno Pact.”
As a part of their program to weaken resistance in possible enemy states, the Nazis followed a policy of making false assurances, thereby tending to create confusion and a false sense of security. Thus on the same date on which Germany renounced the armament provisions of the Versailles Treaty, Hitler announced the intent of the German Government to respect the territorial limitations of Versailles and Locarno.
I offered in evidence this morning, as Exhibit USA-38, our Document 2288-PS, the pertinent volume of the issue of the Völkischer Beobachter of 21 May 1935, containing Hitler’s speech in the Reichstag on that date. In that speech he said:
“Therefore, the Government of the German Reich shall absolutely respect all other articles pertaining to the cooperation”—Zusammenleben, really meaning the living together in harmony—“of the various nations, including territorial agreements. Revisions which will be unavoidable as time goes by it will carry out by way of a friendly understanding only.
“The Government of the German Reich has the intention not to sign any treaty which it believes not to be able to fulfill. However, it will live up to every treaty signed voluntarily even if it was composed before this Government took over. Therefore, it will in particular adhere to all the obligations under the Locarno Pact, as long as the other partners of the Pact also adhere to it.”
For convenient reference, the territorial limitations in the Locarno and Versailles Treaties include the following: The Rhine Pact of Locarno, 16 October 1925, Article 1:
“The High Contracting Parties, collectively and severally, guarantee, in the manner provided in the following Articles: the maintenance of the territorial status quo, resulting from the frontiers between Germany and Belgium, and between Germany and France, and the inviolability of the said frontiers, as fixed by, or in pursuance of the Treaty of Peace, signed at Versailles, on June 28, 1919, and also the observance of the stipulations of Articles 42 and 43 of the said Treaty, concerning the demilitarized zone.”
That has reference, of course, to the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland.
Then from the Versailles Treaty, 28 June 1919, Article 42:
“Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications, either on the left bank of the Rhine or on the right bank, to the West of the line drawn 50 kilometers to the East of the Rhine.
“Article 43: In the area defined above, the maintenance and the assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily and military maneuvers of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilization, are in the same way forbidden.”
The next allegation of the Indictment (f):
“On 7 March 1936, they reoccupied and fortified the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Rhine Pact of Locarno of 16 October 1925, and falsely announced to the world that ‘we have no territorial demands to make in Europe.’ ”
The demilitarized zone of the Rhineland obviously was a sore wound with the Nazis ever since its establishment, after World War I. Not only was this a blow to their increasing pride, but it was a bar to any effective strong position which Germany might want to take on any vital issues. In the event of any sanctions against Germany, in the form of military action, the French and other powers would get well into Germany, east of the Rhine, before any German resistance could even be put up. Therefore, any German plans to threaten or breach international obligations or for any kind of aggression, required the preliminary reoccupation and refortification of this open Rhineland territory. Plans and preparations for the reoccupation of the Rhineland started very early.
We have a document, a German captured document, in German script, which we identify as C-139, and which appears to be signed by the handwriting of Blomberg. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-53.
The document deals with what is called “Operation Schulung”, which means schooling, or training. It is dated 2 May 1935 and even refers to prior Staff discussions on the subject dealt with. It is addressed to the Chief of the Army Command, who at that time, I believe, was Fritsch, the Chief of the Navy High Command, Raeder, and the Reich Minister for Air, Göring.
It does not use the name “Rhineland” and does not, in terms, refer to it. It is our view that it was a military plan for the military reoccupation of the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Rhine Pact of Locarno.
I read from the first part of the document which is headed “top secret”:
“For the operation suggested in the last Staff talks of the Armed Forces, I lay down the code name ‘Schulung’ ”—training.—
“The supreme direction of Operation Schulung rests with the Reich Minister of Defense as this is a joint undertaking of the three services.
“Preparations for the operation will begin forthwith according to the following directives:
“1. General.
“(1) The operation must, on issue of the code words ‘Carry out Schulung’, be executed by a surprise blow at lightning speed. Strictest secrecy is necessary in the preparations and only the very smallest number of officers should be informed and employed in the drafting of reports, drawings, et cetera, and these officers only in person.
“(2) There is no time for mobilization of the forces taking part. These will be employed in their peacetime strength and with their peacetime equipment.
“(3) The preparation for the operation will be made without regard to the present inadequate state of our armaments. Every improvement of the state of our armaments will make possible a greater measure of preparedness and thus result in better prospects of success.”
The rest of the order deals with military details and I think it is unnecessary to read it.
There are certain points, in the face of this order, which are inconsistent with any theory that it was merely a training order, or that it might have been defensive in nature. The operation was to be carried out as a surprise blow at lightning speed (Schlagartig als Überfall).
The air forces were to provide support for the attack. There was to be reinforcement by the East Prussian division. Furthermore, this document is dated 2 May 1935, which is about 6 weeks after the promulgation of the Conscription Law on 16 March 1935, and so it could hardly have been planned as a defensive measure against any expected sanctions which might have been applied by reason of the passage of the Conscription Law.
Of course the actual reoccupation of the Rhineland did not take place until 7 March 1936, so that this early plan would necessarily have been totally revised to suit the existing conditions and specific objectives. As I say, although the plan does not mention the Rhineland, it has all of the indications of a Rhineland operation plan. That the details of this particular plan were not ultimately the ones that were carried out in reoccupying the Rhineland does not at all detract from the vital fact that as early as 2 May 1935 the Germans had already planned that operation, not merely as a Staff plan but as a definite operation. It was evidently not on their timetable to carry out the operation so soon if it could be avoided. But they were prepared to do so, if necessary, to resist French sanctions against their Conscription Law.
It is significant to note the date of this document is the same as the date of the signature of the Franco-Russian Pact, which the Nazis later asserted as their excuse for the Rhineland reoccupation.
The military orders on the basis of which the Rhineland reoccupation was actually carried into execution, on 7 March 1936, were issued on 2 March 1936 by the War Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Blomberg, and addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army Fritsch, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Raeder, and Air Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force Göring. We have that order signed by Blomberg, headed, as usual, “top secret,” identified by us as C-159. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-54.
The German copy of that document bears the Defendant Raeder’s initial in green pencil, with a red pencil note: “To be submitted to the C-in-C of the Navy.”
The first part of the order reads:
“Supreme Command of the Navy:
“1. The Führer and Reich Chancellor has made the following decision:
“By reason of the Franco-Russian Mutual Assistance Pact, the obligations accepted by Germany in the Locarno Treaty, as far as they apply to Articles 42 and 43, of the Treaty of Versailles which referred to the demilitarized zone, are to be regarded as obsolete.
“2. Sections of the Army and Air Force will therefore be transferred simultaneously in a surprise move to garrisons of the demilitarized zone. In this connection, I issue the following orders. . . .”
There follow the detailed orders for the military operation.
We also have the orders for naval cooperation. The original German document, which we identify as C-194, was issued on 6 March 1936, in the form of an order on behalf of the Reich Minister for War, Blomberg, signed by Keitel, and addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Raeder, setting out detailed instructions for the Commander-in-Chief of the fleet and the admirals commanding the Baltic and North Sea. I offer the document in evidence as Exhibit USA-55.
The short covering letter is as follows:
“To: C-in-C Navy.
“The Minister has decided the following after the meeting:
“1. The inconspicuous air reconnaissance in the German bay, not over the line Texel-Doggerbank, from midday on Z-Day onward, has been approved. C-in-C Air Force will instruct the Air Command VI from midday 7 March to hold in readiness single reconnaissance aircraft to be at the disposal of the C-in-C fleet.
“2. The Minister will reserve the decision to set up a U-boat reconnaissance line until the evening of 7 March. The immediate transfer of U-boats from Kiel to Wilhelmshafen has been approved.
“3. The proposed advance measures for the most part exceed Degree of Emergency A and therefore are out of the question as the first countermeasures to be taken against military preparations of neighboring states. It is far more essential to examine the advance measures included in Degree of Emergency A, to see whether one or other of the especially conspicuous measures could not be omitted.”
That is signed “Keitel”.
The rest of the documents are detailed naval orders—operational orders—and I think I need not read further.
For the historical emphasis of this occasion, Hitler made a momentous speech on 7 March 1936. I have the volume of the Völkischer Beobachter, Berlin, Sunday, 8 March 1936, our Document 2289-PS, which I offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-56.
This is a long speech which the world remembers and of which I shall only read a short portion:
“Men of the German Reichstag! France has replied to the repeated friendly offers and peaceful assurances made by Germany by infringing the Rhine Pact through a military alliance with the Soviet Union exclusively directed against Germany. In this manner, however, the Locarno Rhine Pact has lost its inner meaning and ceased in practice to exist. Consequently, Germany regards herself, for her part, as no longer bound by this dissolved treaty. The German Government is now constrained to face the new situation created by this alliance, a situation which is rendered more acute by the fact that the Franco-Soviet treaty has been supplemented by a Treaty of Alliance between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union exactly parallel in form. In accordance with the fundamental right of a nation to secure its frontiers and ensure its possibilities of defense, the German Government has today restored the full and unrestricted sovereignty of Germany in the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland.”
The whole matter of the German reoccupation of the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland caused extensive international repercussions and study. As a result of the protests lodged with the League of Nations, the Council of the League made an investigation and announced the following finding, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice, as being carried in the League of Nations Monthly Summary, March 1936, Volume 16, Page 78; and it is also quoted in an article by Quincy Wright, in the American Journal of International Law, Page 487, 1936.
The finding is this:
“That the German Government has committed a breach of Article 43 of the Treaty of Versailles by causing, on March 7, 1936, military forces to enter and establish themselves in the demilitarized zone referred to, in Article 42 and the following articles of that Treaty, and in the Treaty of Locarno.”
At the same time, on 7 March 1936, as the Germans reoccupied the Rhineland in flagrant violation of the Versailles and Locarno Treaties, they again tried to allay the fears of other European powers and lead them into a false sense of security by announcing to the world: “We have no territorial demands to make in Europe.”
That appears in this same speech of Hitler’s, which I have offered in evidence as Exhibit USA-56, which is Document 2289-PS. The language will be found on Page 6, Column 1:
“We have no territorial claims to make in Europe. We know above all that all the tensions resulting either from false territorial settlements or from the disproportion of the numbers of inhabitants to their living spaces cannot, in Europe, be solved by war.”
Most of the acts set forth in the paragraph of the Indictment which I have been discussing, I think do not need judicial proof because they are historical facts. We have been able to bring you a number of interesting documents illuminating that history. The existence of prior plans and preparations is indisputable from the very nature of things. The method and sequence of these plans and their accomplishment are clearly indicative of the progressing and increasingly aggressive character of the Nazi objectives, international obligations and considerations of humanity notwithstanding.
The detailed presentation of the violations of treaties and international law will be presented by our British colleagues, in support of Count Two of the Indictment.
In clear relief, there is shown the determination of the Nazi conspirators to use whatever means were necessary to abrogate and overthrow the Treaty of Versailles and its restrictions upon the military armament and activity of Germany. In this process, they conspired and engaged in secret rearmament and training, the secret production of munitions of war, and they built up an air force. They withdrew from the International Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations on October 14, 1933. They instituted universal military service on March 16, 1935. On May 21, 1935 they falsely announced that they would respect the territorial limitations of Versailles and Locarno. On March 7, 1936 they reoccupied and fortified the Rhineland and at the same time, falsely announced that they had no territorial demands in Europe.
The objectives of the conspirators were vast and mighty, requiring long and extensive preparations. The process involved the evasion, circumvention, and violation of international obligations and treaties. They stopped at nothing.
The accomplishment of all those things, together with getting Versailles out of the way, constituted an opening of the gates toward the specific aggressions which followed.
I pass next, if the Tribunal please, to the presentation of the story of the aggression against Austria. I do not know whether Your Honor desires me to start on that or not. I am perfectly willing to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to use this volume of documents marked “M” tomorrow?
MR. ALDERMAN: There will be a new one marked “N”.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 28 November 1945 at 1000 hours.]