Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 13

by Various

Morning Session

[The Defendant Dönitz resumed the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I understand there are some supplementary applications for witnesses and documents, which would probably not take very long to discuss. Is that so?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have not actually received the final instructions. I can find out in a very short time. I will get Major Barrington up. I am told that is so.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, therefore, proposes to sit in open session tomorrow until a quarter to 12 dealing with the Trial in the ordinary course and then to take the supplementary applications at a quarter to 12 and then to adjourn into closed session.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we shall be ready for them at a quarter to 12 tomorrow.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, the first document that I want you to look at with regard to the Führer Commando Order of 18 October 1942 is on Page 65 of the English document book and on Page 98 of the German document book. It is Document Number C-178, Exhibit USA-544. You will see that that document is dated 11 February 1943. That is some 12 days after you took over as Commander-in-Chief and you will see from the reference that it went to “1.SKL Ii.” That is the international law and prize law division of your operations staff, isn’t it—Admiral Eckardt’s division?

DÖNITZ: No. It is addressed to the first section of the Naval Operations Staff, that is, the operational section. It originates with Eckardt and is sent to the first section, that is, to the section chief.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But I think I am quite right—the reference about which I asked you, 1.SKL Ii, that is Admiral Eckardt’s department. That is the reference for Admiral Eckardt’s international law department?

DÖNITZ: No, no, no. It is the department in which Admiral Eckardt was also an official. Admiral Eckardt was an official in that department.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the third SKL in the next line is the press department as you said, isn’t it?

DÖNITZ: No. The third section of the SKL collected information sent in for the Navy and reported on it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I note it was intelligence and press. Is that right or not?

DÖNITZ: Yes, it was intelligence and press.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I just want you to help the Tribunal on three points in this document. You remember I asked you yesterday about the secrecy standard of the original Führer order of 18 October. If you will look at the second paragraph you will see that it says:

“... was given the protection of top secret merely because it is stated therein (1) that ... sabotage organization ... may have portentous consequences ... and (2) that the shooting of uniformed prisoners acting on military orders must be carried out even after they have surrendered voluntarily and asked for pardon.”

Do you see that?

DÖNITZ: Yes, I have read it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You agree that that was one of the reasons for giving the order top secrecy?

DÖNITZ: This exchange of notes between Eckardt and the section chief was not submitted to me, as is obvious from the initials noted in the book...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Is that the reason for you not answering my question? Do you agree that that is the reason for giving top secrecy to this document?

DÖNITZ: I do not know. I cannot tell you that, because I did not issue this Commando Order. It says in the Commando Order, on the one hand that these people had killed prisoners. That is the way I had read it as Commander, U-boat Fleet; and on the other hand...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I shall give you one more opportunity of answering my question. You were Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy. Do you say that you are not able to answer this question: Is the reason stated in Paragraph 2 of this document a correct reason for attaching top secrecy to the Führer order of 18 October? Now you have this final opportunity of answering that question. Will you answer it or won’t you?

DÖNITZ: Yes, I will do that. I consider it possible, particularly as the legal expert here thinks so. I do not know if it is correct, because I did not issue the order. On the other hand, it says in the order that these things would not be published in the army orders.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was the next point. The next paragraph says that what is to be published in the army orders is the annihilation of sabotage units in battle, not, of course, if they are shot—as I would say, murdered—quietly, by the SD after battle. I want you to note the next paragraph. The next paragraph raises the difficulty as to how many saboteurs were to be considered as a sabotage unit and suggests that up to ten would certainly be a sabotage unit.

Now, if you look at the last paragraph—I will read it to you quite slowly:

“It is to be assumed that Counterintelligence III is acquainted with the Führer orders and will therefore reply accordingly to the objections of the Army General Staff and the Air Force Operations Staff. As far as the Navy is concerned, it remains to be seen whether or not this case should be used to make sure”—note the next words—“after a conference with the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy that all departments concerned have an entirely clear conception regarding the treatment of members of Commando units.”

Are you telling the Tribunal that after that minute from Eckardt’s department, which was to be shown to 1.SKL, your Chief of Staff’s department, that you were never consulted upon it?

DÖNITZ: Yes, I do say that, and I will prove by means of a witness that there are no initials or distribution list here; and this witness will prove quite clearly that I did not receive a report on it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Admiral Wagner was your Chief of Staff?

DÖNITZ: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All right, we will not occupy further time.

DÖNITZ: He was not my Chief of Staff; he was chief of this section. He was Section Chief 1. SKL, to which this order was directed. He knows beyond doubt that no report was made to me. The circumstances are perfectly clear.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I will leave that, if you say that you have not seen it; and I will ask you to look at Document Number 551-PS.

My Lord, I will pass the Tribunal a copy. This is Exhibit USA-551, and it was put in by General Taylor on 7 January.

[Turning to the defendant.] Now, that is a document which is dated 26 June 1944; and it deals with the Führer order; and it says how it will apply after the landing of the Allied Forces in France; and if you will look at the distribution, you will see that Number 4 is to the OKM, 1. SKL. That is the department on which you were good enough to correct me a moment ago. Now, did you—were you shown that document, which says that the Führer order is to apply to Commando units operating outside the immediate combat area in Normandy? Were you shown that document?

DÖNITZ: No, that was not shown to me in any circumstances—and quite rightly, as the Navy did not take part in the affair.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You told me yesterday that you were concerned with the matter and that you had small boats operating in the Normandy operations. That is what you told me yesterday afternoon. You have changed your recollections since yesterday afternoon?

DÖNITZ: No, not at all. But these one-man submarines were floating on water and had nothing to do with Commandos on the land front. That is clear from this document, too—I do not know if it is the original of the 1. SKL because I cannot see the initial. I am convinced, however, that it was not submitted to me, because it had nothing to do with the Navy.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Will you just look at Document Number 537-PS, which is dated 30 July 1944.

My Lord, that is Exhibit USA-553, also put in by General Taylor on 7 January.

DÖNITZ: Where is it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The sergeant major will point to the place. That is the document applying the Commando Order to “military missions,” and you will see again later that the distribution includes OKM, Department SKL. Did you see that order?

DÖNITZ: Yes, I can see it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you see it at the time that it was distributed, at the end of July 1944?

DÖNITZ: It is quite certain that this order was not submitted to me because again it has nothing to do with the Navy. The Navy had nothing to do with fighting partisans.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want you now just to look very quickly, because I do not want to spend too much time on it, at Document Number 512-PS.

My Lord, that is Exhibit USA-546, which was also put in by General Taylor on 7 January.

[Turning to the defendant.] Now, that is a report dealing with the question of whether members of Commandos should not be murdered immediately in order that they could be interrogated, and the question is whether that is covered by the last sentence of the Führer order, and I call your attention to the fact that it refers, with regard to interrogations, in the second sentence:

“Importance of this measure was proven in the cases of Glomfjord, the two-man torpedo at Trondheim, and the glider plane at Stavanger.”

DÖNITZ: I cannot find it at the moment.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is 512-PS.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, perhaps you ought to read the first sentence.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.

DÖNITZ: This document dates from 1942. At that time I was Commander of U-boats from the Atlantic Coast to the Bay of Biscay. I do not know this paper at all.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is your answer, but it is 14 December 1942; and the point is put up which is raised in the first sentence which My Lord has just directed be read:

“Top secret: According to the last sentence of the Führer order of 18 October, individual saboteurs can be spared for the time being in order to keep them for interrogation.”

Then follows the sentence I have read. That was the point that was raised, and what I was going to ask you was, did that point come up to you when you took over the Commandership-in-Chief of the Navy in January 1943? Just look at the last sentence.

“The Red Cross and the BDS protested against the immediate carrying out of the Führer order...”

DÖNITZ: I beg your pardon, but I still cannot find where that is. I have not yet found the last sentence. Where is it?

THE PRESIDENT: Our translation says “after the immediate carrying out....”

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “After,” My Lord: I am sorry. It is my fault. I am greatly obliged to Your Lordship. “Protested after the immediate....” I beg Your Lordship’s pardon—I read it wrong.

DÖNITZ: That dates from December 1942.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is only six weeks before you took over.

DÖNITZ: Yes. I do not know this teleprint. In any case, that is probably not Red Cross, but probably Reiko See, Reich Commissioner for Shipping—or so I assume. BDS is probably the SS leader in Norway.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But the point that I thought might have some interest for you was the two-man torpedoes. I thought that might have been referred to you as a matter of Navy interest. However, if it was not I will come to a document after you took over. Give the defendant Document Number 526-PS, on 10 May 1943.

My Lord, that is USA-502, and was put in by my friend Colonel Storey on 2 January.

[Turning to the defendant.] You see that that is an account—it is from the Defendant Jodl’s department, and it is annotated for the Defendant Jodl’s department—about an enemy cutter which carried out an operation from the Shetlands, a cutter of the Norwegian Navy; and it gives its armament, and it says that it was an organization for sabotaging strong points, battery positions, staff and troop billets, and bridges and that the Führer order was executed by the SD. That was a cutter which was blown up by the Norwegian Navy, I suppose after they were attacked, and ten prisoners were murdered. Was that brought to your attention?

DÖNITZ: This was shown to me during an interrogation, and I was also asked if I had not had a telephone conversation with Field Marshal Keitel. It was afterwards found to be the Wehrmacht area commander who had contacted the OKW. It was a matter for the Army and for the SD, not for the Navy.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you deny that you ever heard about that, will you turn to Page 100 of the document book.

My Lord, it is Page 67 of the British document book.

[Turning to the defendant.] And that is a summary, a summary of the trial of the SD...

DÖNITZ: Where is it? I cannot find it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Page 100, I have told you. If you will look for it, I think you will find it. It is Page 67 of the English, if you prefer to follow it in that language.

Now I will explain to you; I think you have read it before because you have referred to it. That is a summary by the judge advocate at the trial of the SS men of the evidence that was given, and I just want to see that you have it in mind.

If you will look at Paragraph 4, you will see that they set out from Lerwick, in the Shetlands, on this naval operation for the purpose of making torpedo attacks on German shipping off the Norwegian coasts and for the purpose of laying mines. Paragraph 5:

“The defense did not challenge that each member of the crew was wearing uniform at the time of capture; and there was abundant evidence from many persons, several of whom were German, that they were wearing uniforms at all times after their capture.”

Now, you mentioned this yesterday. You see that in Paragraph 6:

“Deponent states that the whole of the crew was captured and taken on board a German naval vessel which was under the command of Admiral Von Schrader, the Admiral of the West Coast. The crew were taken to the Bergenhus; and there they were interrogated by Lieutenant H. P. K. W. Fanger, a lieutenant of the Naval Reserve, on the orders of Korvettenkapitän Egon Drascher, both of the German Naval Counterintelligence; and this interrogation was carried out upon the orders of the Admiral of the West Coast. Lieutenant Fanger reported to the officer in charge of the intelligence branch at Bergen that, in his opinion, all members of the crew were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and that officer in turn reported both orally and in writing to the Sea Commander, Bergen, and in writing to the Admiral of the West Coast.”—And that is Admiral Von Schrader.

Now I want just to read you the one sentence which, in view of that, I do not think you will think is taken out of context of the evidence given by Lieutenant Fanger at this trial. He was asked:

“Have you any idea at all why these people were handed over to the SD?”

In answering that question I want you to tell me who was responsible for their being handed over. This was your officers, your outfit; that was the general in command of the Norwegian coast, Admiral Von Schrader in command of this section, whose people captured the crew. That is your own officers. Is it true what you told the Court yesterday that the crew were captured by the SD? Have you any reason to believe Lieutenant Fanger is not telling the truth?

THE PRESIDENT: What is that you were quoting from then?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is the shorthand notes taken on the trial of the SS.

THE PRESIDENT: Has it been admitted?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord, it has not been, but it was within Article 19.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I do not know the document which has been used. May I have it, please? Shorthand notes which I have not seen are being used; and according to the Tribunal’s ruling on cross-examinations they must be given to me when the witness is heard.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with great respect, but this point arose yesterday when the defendant made certain statements with regard to Admiral Von Schrader. I am questioning these statements, and the only way I can do it is to use documents which I did not otherwise intend to use. I shall, of course, let Dr. Kranzbühler see them in due course.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you a copy of the German? That was to have been given in German, that evidence.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have only the English transcript and I am willing to let Dr. Kranzbühler see it, but it is all I have.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any other copy you can hand him?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I only was sent one copy.

THE PRESIDENT: After you are through with it, will you please hand that copy to Dr. Kranzbühler?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, have you any reason to suppose, Defendant, that your officer, Lieutenant Fanger, is not telling the truth when he says that these men were captured by Admiral Von Schrader?

DÖNITZ: I have no reason to question that statement because the whole affair is completely unknown to me. I have already stated that the incident was not reported to me nor—as I can prove—to the High Command of the Navy; and I told you yesterday that I could only assume, in consequence, that these men—here it is, in Paragraph 6—were captured on an island, not by the Navy but by a detachment of the Police. Consequently Admiral Von Schrader said that they were not Navy prisoners but Police prisoners and must be handed back to the Police; and for this reason he did not make a report.

I assume that that is what happened. I myself cannot furnish the full details of this story or explain how it came about, because it was not reported to me at the time.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is the point I will get to in a moment. It nowhere states in this document that they were captured by the Police, and in fact that they were captured by the forces under Admiral Von Schrader, who attacked this island to which this boat was moored.

DÖNITZ: I do not know about that. The document says that the men reached the island—the reason is not clear. That the men were brought back from the island afterwards in some sort of boat is quite clear; but naturally they might remain Police prisoners if they were captured there by the Police or the coast guards. That is the only explanation I can think of, in view of Admiral Von Schrader’s personality.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just asked you—your own officer, Lieutenant Fanger, says they were captured by Admiral Von Schrader’s troops, and you say if Lieutenant Fanger says that you have no reason to believe he is not telling the truth, is that right?

DÖNITZ: Yes. My estimate of Von Schrader’s personality caused me to assume yesterday that it happened like that. Since I am informed today of a Lieutenant Fanger’s statement, things may have happened differently for I may be wrong.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you look at the end of Paragraph 8, the last sentence:

“There was an interview between Blomberg of the SS and Admiral Von Schrader....”

And then the last sentence:

“Admiral Von Schrader told Blomberg that the crew of this torpedo boat were to be handed over in accordance with the Führer orders to the SD.”—and then they were handed over.

And the official of the SD who carried out this interrogation stated at the trial:

“...that after the interrogation he was of the opinion that the members of the crew were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and that he so informed his superior officer.”

Despite this report and the representations of a superior officer the crew were dealt with under the Führer order and executed, and it describes how they were shot and their bodies secretly disposed of. Do you say you never heard about that?

DÖNITZ: No. I do say that and I have witnesses to prove it. If the SD official thought that these men did not come under that head, he would have been obliged to report that to his superiors and his superiors would have been obliged to take the appropriate steps.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say, you already take the position that the Navy had interrogated them, the Navy Intelligence said they should be treated as prisoners of war, and Admiral Von Schrader said they should be handed over to the SS and that the SS examined them and said they should be treated as prisoners of war, and despite that these men are murdered? And you say you knew nothing about it? Did your Kapitän zur See Wildemann say anything to you concerning this? W-i-l-d-e-m-a-n-n.

DÖNITZ: I do not know him.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let me try to bring him to your recollection. At this time he was an officer on the staff of Admiral Von Schrader and dealt with this matter. Now, Kapitän Wildemann, and I suppose we should assume, unless you know anything to the contrary, that he is a trustworthy officer, says:

“I know that Von Schrader made a written report on this action, and I know of no reason why the handing over of the prisoners to the SD should not have been reported on.”

Do you still say you never got any report from Von Schrader?

DÖNITZ: Yes, I still say that I did not receive any report, and I am equally convinced that the High Command of the Navy did not receive it either. I have a witness to prove that. I do not know where the report went. Admiral Von Schrader was not directly responsible to the High Command of the Navy; and the report may have been sent to the OKW, if this report was made at all. At any rate the High Command of the Navy did not receive a report on this particular matter, hence my assumption that these men were captured on the island in the first place by the Police. Otherwise, I think Admiral Von Schrader would have reported it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Before you make any further statement, I would like you to have in mind something further that Kapitän Wildemann said, which you know probably quite well, “After the capitulation Admiral Von Schrader many times said that the English would hold him responsible for handing over the prisoners to the SD,” and Admiral Von Schrader was under orders to proceed to England as a prisoner when he shot himself. Did you know Admiral Von Schrader shot himself?

DÖNITZ: I heard it here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you know he was worried about being held responsible for this order?

DÖNITZ: No, I had not the slightest idea of that. I only heard of his suicide here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you still telling the Tribunal that Admiral Von Schrader made no report to you? Do you remember a few days after the capture of this M.T.B. Admiral Von Schrader received the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross?

DÖNITZ: Yes, but that has no connection with this matter. He did not make a report on this matter and he did not go to Berlin for his Knight’s Cross either, as far as I remember.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Two other officers, Oberleutnant Nelle and Seeoberfähnrich Böhm were decorated; and in the recommendations and citations the capture of this M.T.B. was given as the reason for this decoration. You say you knew nothing about it?

DÖNITZ: I know nothing about it and I cannot know anything about it, because the competent superior officers would have dealt with these decorations and not myself. The High Command of the Navy did not receive a report on this matter; otherwise it would have been passed on to me. I have that much confidence in my High Command, and my witness will testify that he did not receive it either and that he must have done so if it had gone to the Navy.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My final question, and I leave this subject: Admiral Von Schrader was your junior officer, and according to you, a very gallant officer. Do you want the Tribunal to understand that the responsibility which broke and made Admiral Von Schrader commit suicide was his responsibility, that he never consulted you and you were taking no responsibility for his acts? Is that what you want the Tribunal to understand?

DÖNITZ: Yes. I will swear to that; because if Admiral Von Schrader really committed suicide on account of this incident, then he did make a mistake because he treated naval personnel, engaged in a naval operation, in a wrong manner. If that is correct, he acted against orders. In any case, not even the slightest hint of the affair reached me.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, will you ask the witness what he meant when he said that Von Schrader was not directly under the Navy? He was under Admiral Ciliax, wasn’t he, who was on leave at this time?

DÖNITZ: I said that he was not directly under the High Command of the Navy in Berlin. So if Admiral Von Schrader made any report on the affair, the report did not come to me directly but went to his immediate superior, who was in Norway.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that immediate superior was Admiral Ciliax who was on leave—but omit the leave for the moment; his immediate superior was Admiral Ciliax?

DÖNITZ: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to put it perfectly fairly: Do you mean that for operations in Norway Admiral Ciliax was acting under the commander—correct me if I am wrong—was it General Von Falkenhorst? I cannot remember, perhaps you can help me. Do you remember that this Admiral was acting under the commander-in-chief in Norway so that you will tell the Tribunal...

DÖNITZ: Yes, as far as territory was concerned Admiral Ciliax was not under the High Command of the Navy but under the Wehrmacht Commander for Norway, General Von Falkenhorst; but I can only say that if Schrader’s suicide is connected with this affair, then the Commando Order was not properly carried out when these men, who were naval personnel and had been sent into a naval action, were not treated as prisoners of war. If that is what happened—I do not know—then a mistake was made locally.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But at any rate you say that despite these decorations for this action you as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy knew nothing about it at all. That is what you say?

DÖNITZ: I awarded the Knight’s Cross to Admiral Von Schrader for entirely different reasons. I awarded it. I knew nothing about decorations awarded to the other people you mentioned. It has nothing to do with me because their immediate superiors would attend to that. Nor do I know whether these awards are really connected with the story or if they were given for other reasons. I still cannot imagine—and I do not believe—that a man like Admiral Von Schrader would treat naval personnel in this way. The document does not say that they were killed in a naval action but that they were captured on an island. It seems to me peculiar that the High Command of the Navy should have received no report on it, since orders to that effect had been given, and that the Wehrmacht report should make no reference to it in accordance with the Commando Order. All these factors are against it. I personally am unable to form an opinion as to the affair.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I am not going into details. You may take it from me that the evidence at the trial has been that this cutter was attacked by two naval task forces. If Dr. Kranzbühler finds I am wrong I will be happy to admit it. But we will pass on to another subject. Time is going.

Would you turn to Page 105 of the document book?

DÖNITZ: Then I can only say that it is a clear violation of orders and that the High Command of the Navy was not informed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want you to come to this next point, 105 in the German, 71 in the English document book. Now we needn’t have any trouble about this document because it is signed by you. It is a memorandum about the question of more labor for shipbuilding; and you are probably very familiar with it. But will you look at the first sentence?

DÖNITZ: I beg your pardon, but what page is it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Page 105, Exhibit GB-211 (Document Number C-195), English Page 71.

DÖNITZ: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, if you would look at the first sentence.

“Furthermore, I propose reinforcing the shipyard working party by prisoners from the concentration camps.”

I don’t think we need trouble with coppersmiths, but if you will look at the end of the document, the very last, you will see Item 2 of the summing-up reads:

“12,000 concentration camp prisoners will be employed in the shipyards as additional labor. Security service agrees to this.”

Now, that is your document, so...

DÖNITZ: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So we may take it that you were familiar with the fact of the existence of concentration camps?

DÖNITZ: I have never denied it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And I think you went further, didn’t you, when asked about this on 28 September? At that time you said:

“I generally knew that we had concentration camps. That is clear.

“Question: ‘From whom did you learn that?’

“Answer: ‘The whole German people knew that.’ ”

Don’t you remember saying that?

DÖNITZ: Yes. The German people knew that concentration camps existed; but they did not know anything about the conditions and methods therein.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It must have been rather a surprise for you when the Defendant Von Ribbentrop said he only heard of two: Oranienburg and Dachau? It was rather a surprise to you, was it?

DÖNITZ: No, it was not at all surprising, because I myself only knew of Dachau and Oranienburg.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But you say here you knew there were concentration camps. Where did you think you were going to get your labor from? What camps?

DÖNITZ: From these camps.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you think that all your labor was going to be German or that it was going to be partly foreign labor?

DÖNITZ: I did not think about that at all. I should like to explain now how these demands came to be made.

At the end of the war I was given the task of organizing large-scale transports in the Baltic Sea. Gradually the necessity arose to move the hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken refugees out of the coastal areas of East and West Prussia where they were exposed to starvation, epidemics, and bombardment and to bring them to Germany. For this reason I made enquiries about merchant shipping, which was not actually under my jurisdiction; and in so doing I learned that out of eight ships ordered in Denmark, seven had been destroyed by saboteurs in the final stage of construction. I called a meeting of all the departments connected with those ships and asked them, “How can I help you so that we get shipping space and have damaged ships repaired more quickly?” I received suggestions from various quarters outside the Navy, including a suggestion that repair work, et cetera, might be speeded up by employing prisoners from the concentration camps. By way of justification, it was pointed out, in view of the excellent food conditions, such employment would be very popular. Since I knew nothing about the methods and conditions in the concentration camps, I included these proposals in my collection as a matter of course, especially as there was no question of making conditions worse for them, since they would be given better food when working. And I know that if I had done the opposite I could have been accused here of refusing these people an opportunity of having better food. I had not the slightest reason to do this, as I knew nothing about any concentration camp methods at the time.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure we are grateful for your explanation. But I just want you to tell me, after you had proposed that you should get 12,000 people from concentration camps, did you get them?

DÖNITZ: I do not know. I did not do anything more about that. After the meeting I had a memorandum prepared and submitted to the Führer...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Keep to the answer. The answer is that you do not know whether you got them or not, assuming that you did get them.

DÖNITZ: I did not get them at all. I had nothing to do with shipyards and consequently I do not know how those responsible for the work in the shipyards received their additional workers. I just do not know.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But you held a position of some responsibility; if you get 12,000 people from concentration camps into the shipbuilding industry, they would have to work alongside people who weren’t in concentration camps, would they not?

DÖNITZ: Certainly, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you telling this Tribunal that when you ask for and you may have got 12,000 people out of concentration camps, who work alongside people not in concentration camps, that the conditions inside the concentration camps remain a secret to the other people and to all the rulers of Germany?

DÖNITZ: First of all, I do not know whether they came. Secondly, if they did come, I can very well imagine that they had orders not to talk; and thirdly, I do not even know what camps they came from and whether they were not people who had already been put into other camps on account of the work they accomplished. At any rate, I did not worry about the execution or methods, et cetera, because it was none of my business; I acted on behalf of the competent non-naval departments which required workmen in order to carry out repairs more quickly, so that something could be done about repairs for the merchant navy. That was my duty, considering the arrangements which I had to make for the re-transport of these refugees. I would do exactly the same thing again today. That is the position.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just look a little down the document to the fourth paragraph, after it says, “Translator’s note.” If you will look at the English, the paragraph beginning: “Since elsewhere...” Have you found that? This is as you have told us, after you express your worry about the sabotage in the Danish and Norwegian shipyards. I just want you to look at your proposal to deal with saboteurs.

“Since elsewhere measures for exacting atonement taken against whole working parties among whom sabotage occurred have proved successful and, for example, the shipyard sabotage in France was completely suppressed, possibly similar measures for the Scandinavian countries will come under consideration.”

That is what you were suggesting, Defendant, a collective penalty against the whole working party where any sabotage occurred; isn’t that so?

DÖNITZ: Yes. May I give an explanation in that connection?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is all right. But otherwise, it is so?

DÖNITZ: Agencies outside the Navy connected with shipbuilding stated at that meeting that sabotage had been prevented in France by the introduction of certain measures for exacting atonement. Through an affidavit by an officer who attended the meeting and drafted the minutes or the short memorandum, I have now ascertained that these measures at that time meant the withholding of the additional rations issued by the management of the shipyard. That is what that meant. And, secondly, to come to Norway and Denmark, I told these people:

“It is impossible for us to build ships there with our foreign currency and our materials, only to have them smashed up by sabotage—and assuredly with the co-operation of the shipyard workmen—when they are nearly ready. What can we do against that?”

The answer I received was that the only way was to keep them away from saboteurs and to round them up in camps.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The whole of this explanation that you have given us is in this document which is in front of the Tribunal. Have you anything to add to what is in the document?

DÖNITZ: Right. I have to add that the workmen were to be treated in exactly the same way as our own workmen who were also housed in barracks. The Danish and Norwegian workers would not have suffered the slightest discomfort.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want you to look at one more sentence:

“By the employment of the working parties concerned as concentration camp workers, their output would not only be increased by 100 percent but the cessation of their previously good wages might possibly result in their being considerably deterred from sabotage...”

That fairly represents your view of the way to treat Norwegian and Danish workers, does it not?

DÖNITZ: This was a safety measure to allow us to get control of the sabotage.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just turn back to Page 70 of the English document book, Page 103 in the German document book. This is an extract from the minutes of a meeting between you and Hitler on 1 July 1944, signed by yourself. Have you got it?

DÖNITZ: Not yet.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Page 70 in the English, Page 112 in the German text (Exhibit Number GB-210).

DÖNITZ: I have got it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In connection with the general strike in Copenhagen, the Führer says:

“The only weapon to deal with terror is terror. Court-martial proceedings create martyrs. History shows that the names of such men are on everybody’s lips whereas there is silence with regard to the many thousands who have lost their lives in similar circumstances without court-martial proceedings.”

Silence with regard to those who are condemned without trial! Do you agree with that statement of Hitler’s?

DÖNITZ: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then why did you distribute it to Operations for circulation if you didn’t approve of it?

DÖNITZ: I do not agree with this procedure, but it expresses an idea of the Führer’s. This was not a discussion between the Führer and myself; it represents notes on the military situation generally, made by the officer who accompanied me, and contains widely differing points.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you try and answer my question? It is a perfectly simple one. It is: Why did you distribute that to Operations for circulation? What was there in these few lines that was of interest to your officers? What did you think was valuable for your officers to know in that dreadful piece of savagery that I have just quoted to you?

DÖNITZ: It is very easy to explain that. The officer who made the minutes included it in order to inform our shipyard establishments that there was a general strike in Copenhagen. That one paragraph from the long situation discussions was included so that the shipyard establishments would know that there was a strike in Copenhagen. That was the whole point.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am suggesting to you, Defendant, that you circulated that to your officers to inculcate ruthlessness among them. That is my suggestion. What do you say to that?

DÖNITZ: I say that is entirely wrong. I may tell you also that I did not even hear the Führer make that statement, but it is possible that it was taken down by the accompanying officer, Wagner, for the reason which I have just given you, to warn our people of the general strike in Copenhagen.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Defendant, I am not going to argue with you about your knowledge of documents you have signed. I have questions which deal with documents you haven’t signed, so let’s pass on to the next one.

DÖNITZ: I know the document. I know it because I have signed it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Page 69, that is Page 4 in the English document book or Page 102 in the German document book (Exhibit Number GB-209), the minutes of the conference on 19 February 1945, between you and Hitler.

DÖNITZ: No, that is not correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I beg your pardon. It is an extract from the minutes of the Hitler conference on 19 February 1945; and then there is a note...

DÖNITZ: No. It says here: Participation by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy in situation discussion with the Führer. It was not a special conference on the general military situation.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not mean to say “special.” I said the Hitler conference on the 19th.

DÖNITZ: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now the first sentence of Paragraph 1 says:

“The Führer is considering whether or not Germany should renounce the Geneva Convention.”

The last sentence:

“The Führer orders the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to consider the pros and cons of this step and to state his opinion as soon as possible.”

And if you look down at the next minutes of the conference on 20 February, which is headed, “Participation of C-in-C Navy at a Führer conference on 20 February at 1600 hours,” it reads as follows:

“The C-in-C Navy informed the Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff, Generaloberst Jodl, and the representative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the Führer’s headquarters, Ambassador Hewel, of his views with regard to Germany’s possible renunciation of the Geneva Convention. From a military standpoint there are no grounds for this step as far as the conduct of the war at sea is concerned. On the contrary, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Even from a general standpoint it appears to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy that this measure would bring no advantage.”

Now look to the last sentence:

“It would be better to carry out measures considered necessary without warning and at all costs to save face with the world.”

That means, put in blunt and brutal language, “Don’t denounce the convention, but break it whenever it suits you,” doesn’t it?

DÖNITZ: No, that is not true.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What does it mean? Let’s take it word for word. “It would be better to carry out measures considered necessary....” Aren’t these measures contrary to the rules of the Geneva Convention?

DÖNITZ: I must give an explanation of that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Answer my question first and then make a statement. You have done it before but try to answer my question: “These measures considered necessary”—If they don’t mean measures contrary to the terms of the Geneva Convention, what do they mean? Answer that question first.

DÖNITZ: They are measures against our own troops. I had heard, or I was told that the Führer intended, or had said, that because the front was yielding in the West and he feared that American and British propaganda might induce men to desert, he intended to leave the Geneva Convention, so I said to my staff, “How is it possible in this connection to contemplate abandoning lock, stock, and barrel a system of international law almost a century old?” I may have said something like this, “The necessary measures must be taken.” There was no thought of concrete measures in that connection and no such measures were introduced. My own views on the treatment of prisoners of war can best be heard from the 8,000 British prisoners of war who were in my camps. That is the situation regarding this matter. All the chiefs of the Wehrmacht branches protested against the idea of renouncing the Geneva Convention. They were not in favor of this idea.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Is that your total explanation of “to carry out measures considered necessary”? You have nothing else to add on that point? Well, I shall pass to another one. Do you remember saying to Dr. Kranzbühler yesterday that when you became Commander-in-Chief of the Navy the war was purely a defensive war? Do you remember saying that to your counsel yesterday?

DÖNITZ: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was not your fault, was it? It was not your fault that it remained limited to the countries engaged when you took over? Do you remember your advice to Hitler on the meeting of 14 May 1943?

DÖNITZ: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, let me just suggest to you, do you remember the discussion about the sea transport for Sicily and Sardinia? Do you remember having a discussion on that, and do you remember your warning Hitler that your U-boat losses were 15 to 17 U-boats a month and that the position as to the future of the U-boat war looked rather gloomy? Do you remember that?

DÖNITZ: Yes, I do.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And do you remember Hitler saying, “These losses are too heavy. This cannot go on.” And did you say to Hitler:

“Now our only small outlet for sorties is the Bay of Biscay, and control of this involves great difficulties and already takes up ten days. C-in-C Navy sees best strategic solution in occupation of Spain, including Gibraltar.”

And did Hitler remark:

“In 1940 this would still have been possible with the co-operation of Spain; but now, and against the will of Spain, our resources are no longer adequate.”

Do you remember suggesting that to Hitler on 14 May 1943, and Hitler saying his resources were no longer adequate?

DÖNITZ: I do not think that I had proposed to the Führer that we should occupy Spain. I described the situation very clearly; I said that we were blocked in that small corner of the Bay of Biscay and that the situation would be different if there was much more room. That, however, does not suggest that, in consideration of the defensive situation, we should occupy Spain.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let us get it clearly, I am quoting you now from Admiral Assmann’s headline diary, a verbatim translation.

The original is in London, My Lord. I will get the copy and put it in and certify it. This point again only arose yesterday and I haven’t got it. I will have the original given and I will show Dr. Kranzbühler this entry.

[Turning to the defendant.] These are the words that Admiral Assmann records:

“C-in-C Navy continues: ‘Now our only small outlet for sorties is the Bay of Biscay, and control of this involves great difficulties and already takes up 10 days.’

“C-in-C Navy sees best strategic solution in occupation of Spain, including Gibraltar.”

Did you say that “the best strategic solution lies in the occupation of Spain, including Gibraltar”?

DÖNITZ: That is possible. If that is the wording you have got there, it is possible that that is the way I said it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I was going to pass on from these general...

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you passed altogether from C-158 on Page 69?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I had, but I can easily return to it, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the second sentence in Paragraph 1 appears to have some bearing upon the answers which the defendant has given.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am sorry, but I tried to cut it as short—to the bare bone—and I am sorry if I omit matters.

[Turning to the defendant.] Defendant, would you return to the last document, C-158. That’s the one about the Geneva Convention; it’s Page 69 of the English book; 102 of the German, whichever you’re following. The sergeant major will help you to find it.

Now, if you’ll look at the first paragraph, after the sentence I read, “The Führer is considering whether or not Germany should renounce the Geneva Convention,” it goes on:

“Not only the Russians but also the Western Powers are violating international law by their actions against the defenseless population and the residential districts of the towns. It therefore appears expedient to adopt the same course in order to show the enemy that we are determined to fight with every means for our existence and, also, through this measure to urge our people to resist to the utmost.”

Were not these, that are referred to there as the “same course”—were not these the “measures considered necessary” to which you were referring in the second minute?

DÖNITZ: The witness who drew up these two records will be able to explain exactly where and when this information was given. I myself was only told, just as the Reich Marshal testified, that the Führer was upset because our Western Front was not holding, and men were quite pleased to become American and English prisoners of war. That was how the whole thing began; and that was the information which I originally received.

I cannot give an opinion on these minutes which were drawn up by an officer. The best thing would be for Admiral Wagner to give more exact details of these matters. I cannot say more than that under oath. I was of the opinion that the renunciation of the Geneva Convention was in principle a great mistake and was wrong. I have given practical proof of my views on the treatment of prisoners of war. Everything else is wrong.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to make quite clear the point that the Prosecution put against you as this: That you were prepared not to denounce the Convention, but you were prepared to take action contrary to the Convention and say nothing about it; and that’s what I suggested is the effect of the last sentence, especially when read with these words in the first paragraph.

My Lord, I am going to pass to the war at sea.

DÖNITZ: I beg your pardon, but may I say one thing more? If measures are taken against desertion, they must be made public. They must have a deterrent effect; and so it never entered my head to keep them secret. On the contrary my only thought was, “How is it possible to leave the Geneva Convention at all?” And that is what I was expressing.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The document is clear.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

[A recess was taken.]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, did you know that on the first day of the war the Navy put up to the Foreign Office that the maximum damage to England could only be achieved, with the naval forces you had, if U-boats were permitted the unrestricted use of arms without warning against Allied and neutral shipping in a wide area? From the first day of the war, did you know that the Navy put that up to the German Foreign Office?

DÖNITZ: I do not believe that the Naval Operations Staff at the time sent me a memorandum of that kind, if it was ever set up, which I do not know.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you to try and remember because it’s quite important. You say that the naval command never informed the Flag Officer of U-boats that that was their view of the war?

DÖNITZ: I do not know. I cannot remember that the Naval War Staff ever informed me of such a letter to the Foreign Office. I do not believe they did; I do not know.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, then, perhaps it would assist your memory if you looked at the letter.

My Lord, this is Document Number D-851 and it will become Exhibit Number GB-451.

DÖNITZ: No, I do not know this paper.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I just will take it by stages because, of course, you wouldn’t know the first part; but I’ll read it to you and then we’ll look at the memorandum together.

“Submitted respectfully to the Secretary of State”—that would be Baron von Weizsäcker—“with the enclosed memorandum.

“The Chief of the Operational Department of the Naval High Command, Captain Fricke, informed me by telephone that the Führer was already dealing with this matter. The impression had, however, arisen here that the political connections had again to be gone into and brought to the Führer’s notice anew. Captain Fricke had therefore sent Korvettenkapitän Neubauer to the Foreign Office in order to discuss the matter further.”

That’s signed by Albrecht on 3 September 1939. Then there is the memorandum:

“The question of an unlimited U-boat war against England is discussed in the enclosed data submitted by the Naval High Command.

“The Navy has arrived at the conclusion that the maximum damage to England, which can be achieved with the forces available, can only be attained if the U-boats are permitted an unrestricted use of arms without warning against enemy and neutral shipping in the prohibited area indicated in the enclosed map.

“The Navy does not fail to realize that (a) Germany would thereby publicly disregard the agreement of 1936 regarding the prosecution of economic warfare, and (b) a military operation of this kind could not be justified on the basis of the hitherto generally accepted principles of international law.”

And then it goes on to deal with it.

Are you telling the Tribunal that the Defendant Raeder never consulted or informed you before these data were submitted to the Foreign Office?

DÖNITZ: No, he did not do so, and that is shown by the fact that it is a memorandum from the Chief of the Operations Department to the Secretary of State, that is to say, a negotiation between Berlin and the Foreign Office; and the front-line commander, whose station was on the coast and who, for all practical purposes, was in charge of the U-boats, had nothing to do with it.

I do not know this letter.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, are you saying that you went on with your activities at the beginning of the war without knowing that this was the view of the Naval High Command?

DÖNITZ: I was not informed about this letter. I have said already that my knowledge of it...

THE PRESIDENT: That wasn’t an answer to the question. The question was whether you knew at the time that this was the view of the Naval High Command. Answer the question.

DÖNITZ: No, I did not know that. I knew that the view of the Naval High Command was to follow the measures of the enemy step by step. I knew that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But you see, that is the entire difference, Defendant. That is what you said at great length in giving your evidence the day before yesterday and yesterday, that you were answering, step by step, the measures of the enemy. You gave that evidence. Do you say that you didn’t know that this was the view of the Defendant Raeder, formed on the first day of the war? Do you say you didn’t know it at all, you had no inkling that that was Raeder’s view?

DÖNITZ: No; I did not know that because I did not know of this letter; and I do not know if that is Herr Raeder’s view. I do not know.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, again I don’t want to argue with you; but if the Commander, the Chief of the Navy—and I think at that time he called himself chief of the naval war staff as well—allows the chief of his Operational Department to put this view forward to the Foreign Office—is it the practice of the German Navy to allow post captains to put forward a view like that when it is not held by the Commander-in-Chief?

It is ridiculous, isn’t it? No Commander-in-Chief would allow a junior officer to put forward that view to the Foreign Office unless he held it, would he?

DÖNITZ: Will you please ask the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Raeder. I cannot give any information as to how this letter came to be written.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will do that with very great pleasure, Defendant; but at the moment, you see, I have got to question you on the matters that you put forward, and my next question is: Was it not in pursuance of the view and desire expressed in that memorandum that the U-boat command disregarded from the start the London Treaty about warning ships?

DÖNITZ: No, on the contrary, entirely on the contrary. In the West we wanted to avoid any further complications, and we endeavored as long as possible to fight according to the London Agreement. That can be seen from all the directives that the U-boats received.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, ought you perhaps to draw his attention to the penultimate paragraph in that memorandum?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I probably should. My Lord, I will read the three, because if you will notice it goes on:

“The High Command does not assert that England can be beaten by unrestricted U-boat warfare. The cessation of traffic with the world trade center of England spells serious disruptions of their national economy for the neutrals, for which we can offer them no compensation.

“Points of view based on foreign politics would favor using military method of unrestricted U-boat warfare only if England gives us a justification, by her method of waging war, to order this form of warfare as a reprisal.

“It appears necessary, in view of the great importance in the field of foreign politics of the decision to be taken, that it should be arrived at not only as a result of military considerations, but taking into full account the needs of foreign politics.”

I am greatly obliged, Your Lordship.

[Turning to the defendant.] Did you hear of any qualification of this view which was arrived at on considerations of foreign politics? Did you hear anything about that?

DÖNITZ: No, I can only repeat that I saw this document here for the first time.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Well now, I would like you, just before we go on to the question, to look at Page 19 of the English document book, Page 49 of the German.

My Lord, the whole of the treaty, which is very short, is set out there. My Lord, I have the formal copy if Your Lordship would like to see it, but it is set out in these two paragraphs.

[Turning to the defendant.] You see:

“1. In action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules of international law to which surface vessels are subjected.

“2. In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned or of active resistance to visit or search, a warship, whether a surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew, and ship’s papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship’s boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the existing sea and weather conditions by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in position to take them on board.”

I had better remind you of that because I have some questions to put to you upon it.

Would you turn over the page and look at the foot of Page 20 in the English document book—it is either Page 50 or 51 in the German document book—where there are some figures set out.

Have you got the page?

DÖNITZ: Yes, I have read it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You read it. You see that it says in the two sentences before:

“In a certain number of early cases the German commander allowed the crew of the merchant vessel to get clear; and he even made some provision for them before he destroyed the vessel. Such destruction was in accordance with Article 72 of the Prize Ordinance; and therefore, for the purpose of this paper, the Germans have been given the benefit of the doubt in such cases.”

The following are the figures on record. This is for the first year of the war:

“Ships sunk: 241.

“Recorded attacks: 221.

“Illegal attacks: 112. At least 79 of these 112 ships were torpedoed without warning. This does not, of course, include convoy ships.”

I wanted you to be quite clear, Defendant, that it excludes, first of all, ships where any measures had been taken for the safety of the crew and secondly, it excludes convoy ships.

Now, do you dispute these figures in any way, that there were 79 attacks without warning in the first year of the war?

DÖNITZ: Yes, I do. These figures cannot be checked. Yesterday I stated that in consequence of the use of arms by ships we had to take other measures. So I cannot check whether this report, which for other reasons looks very like propaganda to me, takes into consideration the behavior of the crews and their resistance, et cetera. That is to say, it is impossible for me to check these figures or to say on what they are based. At any rate, the German point of view was that it was legal considering that the ships were armed and that they transmitted intelligence—were part of an intelligence organization—and that from now on action would be taken against these ships without warning. I have already mentioned the fact that England acted in exactly the same way, and so did other nations.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am going to ask you some questions about that, but let’s just take one example. Was any warning given before the Athenia was sunk?

DÖNITZ: No, I have already stated that that was a mistake; the Athenia was taken for an auxiliary cruiser. The sinking of an auxiliary cruiser without warning is quite legal. I have also stated already that on a thorough examination of the case, I have found that the commander should have been more cautious and that is why he was punished.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just want to get your view, Defendant. Did it ever occur to you that in the case of a merchant ship, if it were sunk without warning, it meant either death or terrible suffering to the crew and to these merchant seamen? Did that ever occur to you?

DÖNITZ: If merchant ships...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just answer the question.

DÖNITZ: If a merchant ship acts like a merchant ship, it is treated as such. If it does not, then the submarine must proceed to attack. That is legal and in accordance with international law. The same thing happened to the crews of German merchant ships.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That isn’t what I asked you. I wanted to know, because it is important on some of these points: Did it ever occur to you, did you ever consider, that you were going to cause either death or terrible suffering to the crews of merchant ships who were sunk without warning?

Just tell us, did it occur to you or didn’t it?

DÖNITZ: Of course; but if a merchant ship is sunk legally, that is just war, and there is suffering in other places, too, during the war.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you view with pride of achievement the fact that 35,000 British merchant seamen lost their lives during the war? Do you view it as a proud achievement or do you view it with regret?

DÖNITZ: Men are killed during wars and no one is proud of it. That is badly expressed. It is a necessity, the harsh necessity of war.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, just look at Page 29 in the English document book, or Page 58 in the German, whichever you care to look at. It is Document Number C-191, Exhibit GB-193. This is 22 September, 19 days after the beginning of the war.

“Flag Officer, U-boats, intends to give permission to U-boats to sink without warning any vessel sailing without lights.

“Previous instructions, permitting attacks on French war and merchant ships only as a defensive measure, purely French or Anglo-French convoys only north of the latitude of Brest and forbidding attacks on all passenger ships, give rise to great difficulties to U-boats, especially at night. In practice, there is no opportunity for attacking at night, as the U-boat cannot identify the target, which is a shadow, in a way that entirely obviates mistakes being made. If the political situation is such that even possible mistakes must be ruled out, U-boats must be forbidden to make any night attacks in waters where French and English naval forces or merchant ships may be moving. On the other hand, in sea areas where only English units are to be expected, the measure desired by the Flag Officer, U-boats, can be carried out. Permission to take this step is not to be given in writing, but need merely be based on the unspoken approval of the Naval Operations Staff. U-boat commanders would be informed by word of mouth”—and note the last line—“and the sinking of a merchant ship must be justified in the War Diary as due to possible confusion with a warship or an auxiliary cruiser.”

Now, just tell me—take your choice—do you consider that sailing without lights is either persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned or active resistance to visit and search, within the Treaty? Which of either of these things do you consider it to be?

DÖNITZ: If a merchant ship acts like a warship...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: First of all, you must answer my question, if the Tribunal does not rule otherwise; and then you can give your explanation. My question is this: Do you consider that sailing without lights is either persistent refusal to stop or active resistance to visit and search? Do you consider it to be either one or the other, or both of these things? Do you?

DÖNITZ: The question is not correctly expressed, because we are dealing with a certain operational area in which British and French...

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you will answer the question, please.

DÖNITZ: I beg your pardon?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you consider that sailing without lights is either persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, which is one of the matters in the Treaty, or active resistance to visit and search, which is the other matter set out in the Treaty? Now, do you consider that sailing without lights is either or both of these matters mentioned in the Treaty?

DÖNITZ: If a merchant ship sails without lights, it must run the risk of being taken for a warship, because at night it is not possible to distinguish between a merchant ship and a warship. At the time the order was issued, it concerned an operational area in which blacked-out troop transports were traveling from England to France.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your answer is that it is not covered by the Treaty, but by one of the matters in the Treaty; but your explanation was that you thought you were entitled to torpedo without warning any ship that might be mistaken for a warship. That is your answer, is it?

DÖNITZ: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Why didn’t the Defendant Von Ribbentrop and all these naval advisers stipulate for that when Germany adhered to this Treaty, if you were going to interpret it in that way? Were you ever asked about it before Germany adhered to this Treaty in 1936?

DÖNITZ: I was not asked before Germany signed this Treaty; Germany adhered to the Treaty in practice, as I know very well, until countermeasures were introduced; and then I received orders to act accordingly.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let us go through this document and see if you can help me perhaps a little more on some other points. Why was this action to be based on the unspoken approval of the naval war staff? Why hadn’t the naval war staff the courage to speak its approval in an ordinary order if it was all right?

DÖNITZ: Yes; the paper you are showing me is a note or memorandum made by a young official on the Naval Operations Staff. In fact—it was the idea of that particular officer on the Naval Operations Staff; and as I have pointed out here, I did not know of the matter—in actual fact, the Naval Operations Staff never gave me such an order. The contents of that paper are fiction.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, of course, they weren’t to issue an order at all. You see, this states with great frankness that you were to act on the unspoken approval of the naval war staff, so that the naval war staff could say, as you have said now, “We didn’t issue an order;” and the junior officers would be acting on an unspoken word, and I want to know—you have been Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy—why is it done in this way, why is it done by unspoken words, on oral orders?

DÖNITZ: No, precisely that is not correct. That was this young officer’s idea. The order which I received from the Naval Operations Staff stated explicitly that blacked-out vessels could be sunk in this area where English transports were traveling from England to France. So, you see, it contained none of the things stated in this memorandum. There is no doubt that the section chief and likewise the Chief of the Naval Operations Staff refused and rejected that entirely impossible idea and gave me that short and explicit order.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you suggesting to the Tribunal that on these vitally important points—“unspoken approval of the war staff, U-boat commanders informed by word of mouth”—that a young staff officer is allowed to put in an incorrect memorandum and get away with it uncorrected? Is that the way, is that the state of efficiency of the staff of the German Navy?

DÖNITZ: No, that is a misunderstanding. It actually has been corrected. That is a note submitted by the official on the Naval Operations Staff, of which his superiors on the Naval Operations Staff did not approve. It was corrected. There was no unspoken agreement but an explicit and clear order to myself; so that young officer’s idea had already been turned down by the Naval Operations Staff itself.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know that the original is initialed by Admiral Von Friedeburg?

DÖNITZ: No, that is quite wrong, that is impossible. “Fd” is written there—that means Fresdorf. That was Kapitänleutnant Fresdorf. He was an official on the Naval Operations Staff—not Friedeburg. He was a young officer in the first department of the Naval Operations Staff. These are all things which I learned of here. His chief, Admiral Wagner, had condemned it already. It was not Friedeburg, but Fresdorf. That is the way this young officer thought about it, but actually a definite order was issued without these things.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Take the next bit. “The sinking of a merchant ship must be justified in the War Diary as due to possible confusion with a warship or auxiliary cruiser.” Do you agree with faking the records after you have sunk a ship?

DÖNITZ: No, and it was not done. That also belongs to the same category—the ideas of that officer. No order for that has ever been given. The order of the Naval Operations Staff issued to me in that connection has been submitted and that is a clear and concise order, without the things mentioned here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Of course, you appreciate that these things, according to this memorandum, are to be stated without orders. There has to be no order because an order might come out—because if it is done without an order it won’t come out. Are you suggesting—you are putting it on the shoulders of this lieutenant commander, that he invented these three damning facts: Unspoken approval, oral instructions to commanders, and faking the orders? You say that these existed only in the mind of a Kapitänleutnant? Is that what you are telling the Tribunal?

DÖNITZ: Yes, yes, of course, because the clear, concise order was given by the Naval Operations Staff to me in which these things were not mentioned. And quite as clearly I passed my orders on. That is how it is. This memorandum, or these ideas of that officer, was already disapproved by his chief of department in Berlin. A clear order was given to me, however, and there was nothing in it about a War Diary and all these things mentioned here. That order is available.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, we shall be able to ask, I understand, Admiral Wagner as to where this Kapitänleutnant got hold of these ideas, is that so, or whether he made them out? Is that what you are telling us, that Wagner will be able to deal with this, will he?

DÖNITZ: Admiral Wagner ought to know all about it, because this official was in his department in Berlin.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Well, if you put that onto the Kapitänleutnant, let’s pass on to another point. In mid-November...

DÖNITZ: I am not laying any blame on anybody, but they are ideas of a young officer which were already disapproved of by his chief of department. I am blaming no one. I do not accuse anybody.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. I thought you were.

Well, now, let’s pass to another point. In mid-November of 1939, Germany gave warning that she would sink, without warning, merchant ships, if armed. Don’t you know that before that warning—if you want to see the point you will find it on Page 21 of the English document book or 51 to 52 of the German document book. It is just before the break, about five lines.

“By the middle of November, a score of”—that is 20—“British merchantmen had already been illegally attacked by gunfire or torpedoed from submarines.”

THE PRESIDENT: Which page did you say?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, Page 21, about ten lines before the break.

[Turning to the defendant.] You see, what I am suggesting, Defendant, is that the statement, the warning, that you would sink merchant ships, if armed, made no difference to the practice you had already adopted of sinking unarmed ships without warning.

DÖNITZ: In the beginning of October, if I remember correctly, I received the order or the permission, the legal permission, to sink armed merchantmen. From that moment on I acted accordingly.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just tell me: Was it your view that the mere possession of arms, a gun, on the merchant ship, constituted active resistance to visit or search within the Treaty; or was this a new addition for the guidance of German U-boat warfare which you were introducing completely independent of the Treaty?

DÖNITZ: It is a matter of course that if a ship has a gun on board she will use it. It would have been a one-sided obligation if the submarine, in a suicidal way, were then to wait until the other ship fired the first shot. That is a reciprocal agreement, and one cannot in any circumstances expect the submarine to wait until it gets hit first. And, as I said before, in practice the steamers used their guns as soon as they came within range.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But you know, the arming of merchant ships, Defendant, was well known in the last war. It was well known for 20 years before this Treaty was signed. And you will agree with me, won’t you, that there is not a word in the Treaty forbidding the arming of merchant ships? Why didn’t you give these ships the opportunity of abstaining from resistance or of stopping? Why did you go in the face of the Treaty which you had signed only 3 years before? That is all I want to know. If you can’t tell me, if you say it is a matter for argument, I will ask Admiral Raeder. At the moment, will you tell us, or can you tell us, why didn’t you keep to the Treaty?

DÖNITZ: That was not an infringement of the Treaty. I am not an expert on international law. I am soldier; and I acted according to my military orders. Of course, it is suicide for a submarine to wait till it receives the first hit. It goes without saying that the steamer is not carrying guns for fun, but to make use of them. And I have already explained what use was made of them.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, just one other matter, because I must cover these points in view of your evidence.

Did you order your commanders to treat the use of wireless as active resistance? Did you consider that the use of wireless for merchant ships was active resistance within the Treaty?

DÖNITZ: On 24 September, the Naval Operations Staff’s order...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, no, just answer the question first, Defendant, and then give your explanation. I said that to you quite 20 times yesterday and today. Did you consider the use of wireless by merchant ships as active resistance?

DÖNITZ: It is generally laid down by international law that a merchant ship can be fired on if it makes use of its wireless when stopped. That is also in the French Ordinance, for instance. In order to avoid more severe measures we had not, as a rule, done so yet. Not until the end of September, when I received a definite order or permission to do so, was that rule, which is in accordance with international law, put into effect.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Tell me, didn’t the German Admiralty know in 1936 that most merchantmen had wireless?

DÖNITZ: Of course, but according to the International Conference on International Law—I happen to know this because it appeared as a footnote in the Prize Ordinance—according to this conference of 1923, they were not allowed to use wireless when being stopped. That is international law and is found in all instructions. I know for certain that the French instructions say this too.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: At any rate again, the German Admiralty and the German Foreign Office did not make any mention of use of wireless in this Treaty.

What I am suggesting—I want to put it quite clearly to you—is that you were not bothering about this Treaty at all in any case where it didn’t suit you in the operations in this war.

DÖNITZ: That is not true.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, let’s pass on to neutrals. I haven’t heard you suggest that you were dealing with neutrals because they were armed, but let’s take a concrete example.

“On 12 November 1939...”

DÖNITZ: I have never said that neutrals were armed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is what I thought. Well, we will rule that out. We will take the example.

My Lord, it is given on Page 20 of the document book, and in the middle of the middle paragraph (Exhibit Number GB-191).

[Turning to the defendant.]

“On 12 November, the Norwegian Arne Kjode was torpedoed in the North Sea without warning at all. This was a tanker bound from one neutral port to another.”

Now, Defendant, were you classing tankers bound from one neutral port to another as warships; or for what reason was that ship torpedoed without warning? The master and four of the crew lost their lives. The others were picked up after many hours in an open boat. Why were you torpedoing neutral ships without warning? This is only the 12th of November in the North Sea, a tanker going from one neutral port to another.

DÖNITZ: Well, the submarine commander in this case could not see, first of all, that the ship was traveling from one neutral port to the other, but this ship...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Therefore...

DÖNITZ: No, not for that reason; no. But that ship was heading for England, and he confused it with an English ship. That is why he torpedoed it. I know of that case.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You approve of that action by the submarine commander?

DÖNITZ: No; that is an assertion made by yourself and it is in practice refuted by our clean submarine warfare and by the fact that it was done by mistake.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: When in doubt, torpedo...

DÖNITZ: That is one of the cases...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Don’t you approve of that: when in doubt, torpedo without warning? Is that your view?

DÖNITZ: No, no; that is merely what you assert. If one or two instances of mistakes are found in the course of 5½ years of clean submarine warfare, it proves nothing; but it does contradict your assertion.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well, now, let’s look at your clean U-boat warfare, if you want. Will you turn to Page 30 of the English book or Page 59 to 60 of the German book.

Now, the first of these—this is the note on the intensification of U-boat warfare. You say that on the directive of the Armed Forces High Command of 30 December—this is on the 1st of January 1940:

“...the Führer, on report by the C-in-C Navy”—that is the Defendant Raeder—“has decided: (a) Greek merchant vessels are to be treated as enemy vessels in the zone around Britain declared barred by the U.S.A.”

There is a mistake, My Lord, in the translation. You see it says “blockaded by the U.S.A. and Britain.” The proper translation should be “in the zone around Britain declared barred by the U.S.A.”

Now, Defendant, I don’t want to make any bad point, at any rate intentionally. Were you including Greek ships because you believed that most of the Greek merchant navy was on British charter, was being chartered by Britain? Was that the reason?

DÖNITZ: Yes. That was probably why the Naval Operations Staff gave the order, because of the Greek fleet sailing in England’s service. I assumed that those were the reasons of the Naval Operations Staff.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Assumed that was the reason. I do not want to occupy time on the point. What I want to know is this: Did that mean that any Greek ship in these waters would be sunk without warning?

DÖNITZ: Yes. It says here that they were to be treated like enemy ships.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In sum, then, that means that a Greek merchantman from then on would be sunk without warning if it came into the zone around the British coast.

Now, you mentioned the Bristol Channel, and you have given your explanation of the next sentence. You say all ships may be attacked without warning. For external consumption, these attacks should be given out as hits by mines.

I just want to get it clear from you. You are not suggesting that the reason of the Naval High Command was to conceal the maze of operations of the U-boats; the reason was to avoid trouble with neutrals whose good will you wanted to keep, was it not?

DÖNITZ: I already stated my position on that yesterday. These are matters connected with the political leadership and I know nothing about them. I myself, as Commander of U-boats, looked at them only from the angle of military advantage or expediency, just as England did in similar cases. What the political reasons may have been, I cannot say.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is my whole suggestion to you, you know, Defendant, that you were acting on the military necessity stated in that memorandum of the Naval Command that the maximum damage to England could only be achieved with unrestricted use of arms without warning. But let us just look at the next one now.

DÖNITZ: There were certain areas which neutrals had been warned not to cross. I stated yesterday that the same procedure was followed in English operational areas. If a neutral in spite of these warnings entered those areas, where military actions were constantly being carried on by one side or the other, it had to run the risk of suffering damage. Those are the reasons which induced the Naval Operations Staff to issue these orders.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As you mentioned that, I shall deal first with your areas. Your zone, which is published, was from the Faroes to Bordeaux and 500 miles west of Ireland. That is, your zone was 750,000 square miles; isn’t that right? Your zone around Britain was from the Faroes to Bordeaux, and 500 miles west of Ireland?

DÖNITZ: Yes, that is the operational area of August 1940.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, of August 1940.

DÖNITZ: And it is in accord in extent with the so-called combat zone which America forbade her merchant ships to enter.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say it is in accord. Let us just look at it and see what the two things were. The United States at that time said that its merchant ships were not to come into that zone. You said that if any merchant ship came into that zone, 750,000 square miles in extent, none of the laws and usages of war applied, and that ship could be destroyed by any means you chose.

That was your view, was it not?

DÖNITZ: Yes, that is the German point of view in international law, which was also applied by other nations, that operational areas around the enemy are admissible. I may repeat that I am not a specialist in international law but a soldier, and I judge according to common sense. It seems to me a matter of course that an ocean area, or an ocean zone, around England could not be left in the undisturbed possession of the enemy.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not think you are disputing it at all; but I want to get it quite clear. It was your view that it was right that if you fixed an operational zone of that extent, any neutral ship—and you agree that it is a neutral ship—coming unarmed into that zone could be destroyed by any means that you cared to use? That was your view of the way to conduct a war at sea; that is right, is it not?

DÖNITZ: Yes; and there are plenty of British statements which declare that in wartime—and we were at war with England—one cannot permit neutrals to enter and give aid to the belligerents, especially if they had previously been warned against doing so. That is quite in accordance with international law.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will discuss the matter of law with the Tribunal. I want to get at the facts.

That is the position which you adopt? And equally, if you found a neutral vessel outside the zone using its wireless, you would treat it as if it were a ship of war of a belligerent power, would you not? If a neutral vessel used its wireless after seeing the submarine, you would treat it as a ship of war of a belligerent power, would you not?

DÖNITZ: Yes, according to the regulations of international law.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. As I say, the matters of law rest with the Tribunal. I am not going to argue these with you. But, apart altogether from international law, did it ever strike you that that method of treating neutral ships was completely disregarding the life and safety of the people on the ships? Did that ever strike you?

DÖNITZ: I have already said that the neutrals had been warned not to cross the combat zones. If they entered the combat zones, they had to run the risk of suffering damage, or else stay away. That is what war is. For instance, no consideration would be shown on land either to a neutral truck convoy bringing ammunition or supplies to the enemy. It would be fired on in exactly the same way as an enemy transport. It is, therefore, quite admissible to turn the seas around the enemy’s country into a combat area. That is the position as I know it in international law, although I am only a soldier.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see.

DÖNITZ: Strict neutrality would require the avoidance of combat areas. Whoever enters a combat area must take the consequences.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. That is your view? I do not think it could possibly be put more fairly.

DÖNITZ: And for that reason the United States explicitly prohibited entry into these zones in November, because it refused to enter the combat zone.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In your view, any neutral ship which entered a zone of 750,000 square miles around Britain was committing an un-neutral act and was liable to be sunk without warning at sight. That is your view of how war at sea should be conducted; that is right, is it not?

DÖNITZ: Yes. Special lanes were left open for the neutrals. They did not have to enter the combat area unless they were going to England. Then they had to run the risk of war.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just want you to tell me, if you will look back to Document C-21; that is, on Page 30 of the English book and Pages 59 to 60 of the German, you see that in all these cases—you take the one in Paragraph 2, Page 5:

“Conference with the Chief of Naval Operations Staff”—on 2 January; that was the “intensified measures” in connection with the “Case Yellow,” that is, the invasion of Holland and Belgium—“the sinking by U-boats... without any warning, of all ships in those waters near the enemy coasts in which mines can be employed.”

Why, if, as you have just told the Tribunal several times, you were acting in accordance with what you believe to be international law, why did you so act only in areas where mines could be employed?

DÖNITZ: I have already explained that that was a question not of legality but of military expediency. For military reasons I cannot give the enemy explicit information as to the means of combat I am using in an area which may be mined. You operated in the same way. I remind you of the French danger zone which was declared, corresponding to the mined areas around Italy. You did not state which weapons you were using, either. That has nothing to do with legality. That is purely a question of military expediency.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see, I think you will appreciate that the point that I am putting to you is this: That you were pretending to neutrals that you were acting in accordance with the London Treaty, whereas you were actually acting not in accordance with the Treaty, but in accordance with instructions you laid down for yourself, based on military necessity.

What I am suggesting to you is that what the Naval High Command was doing was pretending to, and getting the advantage fraudulently of appearing to, comply with the Treaty. And that, I suggest, is the purpose of these orders that you would only do this where mines could be laid. Isn’t that what was in your mind?

DÖNITZ: It is not true that we tried to fool the neutrals. We warned the neutrals explicitly that combat actions were going on in these operational areas and that if they entered they would suffer damage. We pretended nothing; we told them explicitly: “Do not enter these zones.” England did the same.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, doesn’t the next sentence bear upon that?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Your Lordship; I am very much obliged to Your Lordship.

[Turning to the defendant.] Would you look at the next sentence in II-1, where it says the following?

“By the present order, the Navy will be authorized, in keeping with the general intensification of the war, to sink by U-boats, without any warning, all ships in those waters near the enemy coasts in which mines can be employed. In this case, for external consumption, pretense should be made that mines are being used. The behavior of, and use of weapons by, U-boats should take this into consideration.”

Do you say, in the face of that sentence, that you were not trying to fool the neutrals—to use your own phrase? Do you still say you were not trying to fool the neutrals?

DÖNITZ: No, we did not fool them because we warned them beforehand. In wartime I do not have to say what weapon I intend to use; I may very well camouflage my weapon. But the neutrals were not fooled. On the contrary, they were told, “Do not enter these zones.” After that, the question of which particular military method I use in these areas no longer concerns the neutrals.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now I want you to tell the Tribunal, what was your view of your responsibility to the seamen from boats that were sunk? Would you have in mind the provisions of the London Treaty, and will you agree that your responsibility was to save seamen from boats that were sunk wherever you could do so without imperiling your ship? Is that, broadly, correct?

DÖNITZ: Of course, if the ship herself behaved according to the London Agreement, or unless it occurred within the operational areas mentioned.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh? Do you really mean that? That is, if you sank a neutral ship which had come into that zone, you considered that you were absolved from any of your duties under the London Agreement to look after the safety of the crews?

DÖNITZ: In operational areas I am obliged to take care of the survivors after the engagement, if the military situation permits. The same held good in the Baltic and in many operational areas.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is what I put to you, Defendant. Please believe me, I don’t want to make any false point. I put to you: If they could do so without imperiling their ships, that is, without risking losing their ships. Let us get it quite clear: Do you say that in the zone which you fixed there was no duty to provide for the safety of the crew, that you accepted no duty to provide for the safety of the crew?

DÖNITZ: I have stated that I was obliged to take care of the survivors after the engagement, if the military situation permitted. That forms part of the Geneva Convention or the agreement on its application.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then it didn’t matter whether the sinking was in the zone or out of the zone. According to what you say, you undertook exactly the same duty towards survivors whether it was in the zone or outside the zone. Is that right?

DÖNITZ: No, that is not correct, because outside the zone neutrals were treated according to the Prize Ordinance, only inside the zone they were not.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I can’t understand is this—and really, I hope I am not being very stupid—what was the difference? What difference did you consider existed in your responsibility towards survivors if the sinking was inside the zone or outside the zone? That is what I want to get clear.

DÖNITZ: The difference was that neutrals outside the zone were treated according to the Prize Ordinance. According to the London Agreement, we were obliged, before sinking the ship, to see that the crew were safe and within reach of land. There was no obligation to do so inside the zone. In that case we acted according to the Hague Agreement for the application of the Geneva Convention, which provides that the survivors should be taken care of after the fight if the military situation permits.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you agree that an order in express terms to annihilate, to kill, the survivors of a ship that is sunk would be an appalling order to give?

DÖNITZ: I have already stated that the attacks on survivors were contrary to a soldier’s idea of fair fighting and that I have never put my name to any order which could in the slightest degree lead to anything of the kind—not even when it was proposed to me as a reprisal measure.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you agree that even with the discipline in your own branch of the service, there was a possibility that some U-boat commanders would have refused to comply with an order to annihilate survivors?

DÖNITZ: No such order was ever given.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think it is quite a fair question. What if it were given in express terms, “Annihilate survivors after you sink a ship”? You know your officers. Would there, at any rate, have been some danger that some of them would have refused to carry out that order?

DÖNITZ: Yes. As I know my U-boat forces, there would have been a storm of indignation against such an order. The clean and honest idealism of these would never have allowed them to do it; and I would never have given such an order or permitted it to be given.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that is what I put to you.

Now, just look at Page 33 of the English document book. That contains your own Standing Order Number 154 (Exhibit Number GB-196). Let me read it to you, rather slowly, if the Tribunal does not mind. It says:

“Do not pick up survivors and take them with you; do not worry about the merchant ship’s boats; weather conditions and distance from land play no part. Have a care only for your own ship and strive only to attain your next success as soon as possible. We must be harsh in this war.”

First of all, tell me, what do you mean by “your next success”? Doesn’t that mean the next attack on a vessel?

DÖNITZ: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, just look at that order of yours and compare it with the words of the London Treaty. The Treaty, you remember, says that a warship, including a submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without first having placed passengers, crew, and ship’s papers in a place of safety. For this purpose, the ship’s boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the existing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land or the presence of another vessel.

Defendant, you had that article of the London Treaty in front of you, had you not, when you were drafting this order? And you were deliberately excluding from your order the matters mentioned in the London Treaty? Listen to your order: “Do not worry about the boats; weather conditions”—one thing mentioned in the Treaty—“and distance from land”—another thing mentioned in the Treaty—“play no part.”

Your order could have been put in other language almost as clearly: “Disregard all the matters that are stated in Paragraph 2 of the London Treaty.”

Now tell me, didn’t you have the London Treaty in front of you when you drew that order?

DÖNITZ: Of course I had the London Treaty in my mind and in front of me. I stated in detail yesterday, however, that we were thinking in terms of an engagement, a ship under escort, as is shown by the order as a whole. You have taken just one paragraph. There was, therefore, no question of applying the London Agreement, which does not refer to ships under escort.

Secondly, we were thinking of an area in the immediate vicinity of the permanent positions, enemy defenses off the harbors on the British coast. The London Agreement has nothing to do with fighting ships under escort. Those are two entirely different things; and that order applied to this area and the combating of ships under escort. I explained that in detail yesterday.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But if you say that that only applied when it was a question of attacking ships in convoy, would you look at Page 26 of the English document book and at Page 57 of the German document book? There you will find the account of the sinking of the Sheaf Mead on 27 May 1940. And if you will look at the U-boat’s log, opposite the time group 1648 hours—which is on Page 27 of the English and Page 57 of the German (Exhibit Number GB-192)—this is what the log says:

“A large heap of wreckage floats up. We approach it to identify the name. The crew have saved themselves on wreckage and capsized boats. We fish out a buoy; no name on it. I ask a man on the raft. He says, hardly turning his head ‘Nixname.’ A young boy in the water calls, ‘Help, help, please.’ The others are very composed; they look damp and somewhat tired and have a look of cold hatred on their faces. Then on to the old course.”

If you turn to Page 57 of the German document book, or Page 28 of the English, you will find the last sentence from the survivors’ report describes the submarine as doing this:

“They cruised around for half an hour, taking photographs of us in the water. Otherwise they just watched us but said nothing. Then she submerged and went off without offering us any assistance whatever.”

There you see the point, Defendant, that your own commander says that there was a young boy in the water calling, “Help, help, please,” and your submarine takes a few photographs, submerges, and then goes off.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, ought you not to refer to the passage just after the name of the vessel, under 1648, “It is not clear....”?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “It is not clear whether she was sailing as a normal merchant ship. The following seemed to point to the contrary.”

And then, My Lord, it gives a number of matters.

Of course, My Lord, I am on the point of survivors at the moment. I am not taking this instance as a matter of wrongful sinking; I am taking it as an instance of carrying out this order.

I am very much obliged to Your Lordship, but that is why I didn’t do it.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

---