SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, I agree that it was a dishonorable publication, untrue and dishonorable.
MAJOR JONES: Perhaps if you keep your headphones on—I have a number of questions to ask you, I am afraid—it might be more convenient for the work we have to do.
And you say that the Defendant Raeder thought it was dishonorable?
SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, he did as well.
MAJOR JONES: What action did he take to manifest his displeasure?
SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In this case he valued the interests of the State more than a newspaper article. The interests of the State required that in any event all complications with the United States were to be avoided.
MAJOR JONES: That appears to be a characteristic on the part of Raeder that runs throughout the history from 1928 to 1943, that throughout he put what he thought were the interests of the Nazi State before conditions of morality, honor, and public decency, is that not so?
SCHULTE-MÖNTING: That I do not believe. I believe that in this he acted consistently as a good patriot would act.
MAJOR JONES: You see, with regard to the invasion of Russia, for example, you said to the Tribunal that on both moral and strategic grounds, Raeder was against the invasion of Russia. Why did he not resign?
SCHULTE-MÖNTING: By way of reply I must mention first Hitler’s answer to Raeder’s statements against a war with Russia. This answer was to the effect that he saw no possibility of avoiding a conflict for the following reasons: