SCHULTE-MÖNTING: He was known through his literary activity at the time of the “Tirpitz Era,” when he edited the Nautikus, and later, after the first World War, through his two works on cruiser warfare in the last World War, for which he received an honorary doctor’s degree and which, I should say, gained him a reputation among experts.
DR. SIEMERS: The defendant is accused of building up the Navy with the intention of carrying on an aggressive war, and this even after the Treaty of Versailles was already in force.
SCHULTE-MÖNTING: That is not correct. Never in all my conversations which I had with Raeder was the thought—much less the word—of an aggressive war mentioned. I believe that all his actions and his directives contradict this.
DR. SIEMERS: Were there possibly any ideas of a strategic nature under consideration, while the Versailles Treaty was in force, with a view to an aggressive war?
SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Never.
DR. SIEMERS: What was the basic reason for the maneuvers held by the Navy from the years 1932 until 1939?
SCHULTE-MÖNTING: They were held exclusively with a view to the security, protection, and defense of the coastal waters and the coast itself.
DR. SIEMERS: Was a war with England taken as a basis for any of these maneuvers between 1932 and 1939?
SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, that was never made a basis, and I believe that would have appeared impossible and unreasonable to every naval officer. I remember that even at the beginning of the year 1939 Raeder issued a directive to the front commanders to hold maneuvers, in which he excluded a maneuver directed against England as an impossibility. It was forbidden to carry out that maneuver at all.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, it is now confirmed, as you know, that the Navy in the twenties, with the knowledge of the then parliamentary government, violated the Treaty of Versailles. These questions have been discussed a great deal here, therefore, we can be brief.