You will be told that this order, although perhaps unfortunately phrased, was merely intended to stop a commander from jeopardizing his ship by attempting a rescue, which had become increasingly dangerous, as a result of the extended coverage of the ocean by Allied aircraft; and that the notorious action of the U-boat Commander Eck in sinking the Greek steamer Peleus and then machine-gunning the crew on their rafts in the water, was an exception; and that, although it may be true that a copy of the order was on board, this action was taken solely, as he himself swore, on his own initiative.
I would make the point to the Tribunal that if the intention of this order was to stop the rescue attempts in the interests of the preservation of the U-boat, first of all it would have been done by calling attention to Standing Order 154.
Second, this very fact would have been prominently stated in the order. Drastic orders of this nature are not drafted by experienced staff officers without the greatest care and an eye to their possible capture by the enemy.
Third, if it was necessary to avoid the risks attendant on standing by or surfacing, not only would this have been stated but there would have been no question of taking any prisoners at all except possibly in circumstances where virtually no risk in surfacing was to be apprehended.
Fourth, the final sentence of the first paragraph would have read very differently.
And fifth, if, in fact—and the Prosecution do not for one moment accept it—the defendant did not mean to enjoin murder, his order was so worded that he cannot escape the responsibility which attaches to such a document.
My Lord, I would call my first witness, Peter Heisig.
[The witness, Peter Josef Heisig, took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
PETER JOSEF HEISIG (Witness): My name is Peter Josef Heisig.