dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
COL. PHILLIMORE: "Ambassador Oshima heartily agreed with the Fuehrer's comments, and said that the Japanese, too, are forced to follow these methods." My Lord, the next document, D-446, I put in as Exhibit GB-198. I do not propose to read it. It is an extract from B.d.U. War Diary of the 16th of September 1942; and it is part of the story in the sense that it was on the following day that the order I complain of was issued, and the Defense will, no doubt, wish to rely on it. It records an attack on a U-boat which was rescuing survivors, chiefly the Italian survivors of the Allied liner Laconia, when it was attacked by an Allied aircraft. My Lord, the next document, D-630, I put in as Exhibit GB-199. It contains four documents. The first is a top-secret order, sent to all commanding officers of U-boats from the defendant's headquarters, dated 17th of September 1942: "1. No attempt of any kind must be made at rescuing members of ships sunk; and this includes picking up persons in the water and putting them in lifeboats, righting capsized lifeboats and handing over food and water. Rescue runs counter to the rudimentary demands of warfare for the destruction of enemy ships and crews. "2. Orders for bringing in captains and chief engineers still apply. "3. Rescue the shipwrecked only if their statements will be of importance to your boat. "4. Be harsh, having in mind that the enemy takes no regard of women and children in his bombing attacks on German cities." Now, My Lord, that is, of course, a very carefully worded order. Its intentions are made very clear by the next document on that same page, which is an extract from the defendant's war diary; and I should say there, as appears from the copy handed in to the Court, the war diary is personally signed by the Defendant Doenitz.
COL. PHILLIMORE: It is the war diary entry for the 17th of September 1942: "The attention of all commanding officers is again drawn" and I would draw the Tribunal's attention to the word "again" "to the fact that all efforts to rescue members of the crews of ships which have been sunk contradict the most primitive demands for the conduct of warfare for annihilating enemy ships and their crews. Orders concerning the bringing in of the captains and chief engineers still stand." The last two documents on that page consist of a telegram from the commander of the U-boat Schacht to the defendant's headquarters and the reply. Schacht had been taking part in the rescue of survivors from the Laconia. The telegram from Schacht, dated the 17th of September 1942, reads: "163 Italians handed over to Annamite. Navigating officer of Laconia and another English officer on board." And then it goes on setting out the position of English and Polish survivors in boats. The reply sent on the 20th: "Action as in wireless telegram message of 17th of September was wrong. Boat was detailed to rescue Italian allies and not for the rescue of English and Poles." It is a small point, but of course "detailed" means before the bombing incident had ever occurred. And then as for the next document, D-663, that was issued later and may not yet have been inserted in the Tribunal's Document Book; D-663 I put in as Exhibit GB-200. My Lord, this is an extract from an operation order, "Operation Order Atlantic Number 56," dated the 7th of October 1943, and the copy put in is part of sailing orders to a U-boat. As I shall prove through the second witness, although the date of this order is the 7th of October 1943, in fact it is only a reproduction of an order issued very much earlier, in the autumn of 1942. "Rescue ships: A so-called rescue ship is generally attached to every convoy, a special ship of up to 3,000 gross registered tons, which is intended for the picking up of survivors after U- boat attacks.
COL. PHILLIMORE: These ships are for the most part equipped with a shipborne aircraft and large motorboats, are strongly armed with depth charge throwers, and are very maneuverable, so that they are often taken for U-boat traps by the commander." And then, the last sentence: "In view of the desired destruction of ships' crews, their sinking is of great value." If I might just sum up those documents, it would appear from the War Diary entry of the 17th of September that orders on the lines discussed between Hitler and Oshima were, in fact, issued, but we have not captured them. It may be they were issued orally and that the defendant awaited a suitable opportunity before confirming them. The incident of the bombing of the U-boats detailed to rescue the Italian survivors from the Laconia afforded the opportunity and the order to all commanders was issued. Its intent is very clear when you consider it in the light of the War Diary entry. The wording is, of course, extremely careful but to any officer of experience its intention was obvious and he would know that deliberate action to annihilate survivors would be approved under that order. 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.
COL. PHILLIMORE: 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.
THE PRESIDENT: Say this: "I swear by God - the Almighty and Omniscient - that I will speak the pure truth - and will withhold nothing and add nothing." [The witness repeated the oath in German.]
COL. PHILLIMORE: Peter Josef Heisig, are you an Oberleutnant zur See in Germany?
HEISIG: I am Oberleutnant zur See in the German Navy.
COL. PHILLIMORE: And were you captured on the 27th of December 1944, and now held as a prisoner of war?
HEISIG: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Did you swear an affidavit on the 27th of November 1945?
HEISIG: Yes. COL. PHILLIMORE And is that your signature? [Document D-566 was submitted to the witness.] My Lord, that is the Document D-566.
HEISIG: That is the document I signed.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I put that in as Exhibit GB-201. [Turning to the witness.] Will you take your mind back to the autumn of 1942? What rank did you hold at that time?
HEISIG: I was senior midshipman at the 2d U-boat Training Division.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Were you attending a course there?
HEISIG: I took part in the training course for U-boat officers of the watch.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you remember the last day of the course?
HEISIG: On the last day of the course, Grossadmiral Doenitz, who was then Commander-in-Chief of the U-boats, reviewed the 2d U-boat Training Division.
COL. PHILLIMORE: And what happened at the end of this tour?
HEISIG: At the end of his visit - not at the end but rather during his visit - Grossadmiral Doenitz made a speech before the officers of the 2d U-boat Training Division.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Can you fix the date of his visit?
HEISIG: I remember the approximate date; it must have been at the end of September or the beginning of October 1942.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Now, will you give the Tribunal - speaking slowly an account of what Admiral Doenitz said in his speech?
HEISIG: Grossadmiral Doenitz said in his speech that the successes of the U- boats had declined. The strength of enemy air control was responsible for that decline. New antiaircraft guns had been developed which would in future make it possible for the U-boats to fight off enemy aircraft. Hitler had personally given him the assurance that U-boats would be equipped with these antiaircraft guns before all other branches of the Armed Forces. It could be expected therefore that the successes of former times would be reached again within a few months. After speaking about his good relations with Hitler, Grossadmiral Doenitz discussed the German armament program. A question by an officer regarding a newspaper article which stated that the Allied countries were building more than a million tons of merchant shipping every month, Admiral Doenitz answered by saying that he doubted the credibility of this estimate and said it was based on an announcement by President Roosevelt. He then spoke briefly about President Roosevelt, about the American production program and armament potential, and added that the Allies had great difficulty in manning their ships. Allied seamen considered the route across the Atlantic dangerous, because German U boats were sinking Allied ships in great numbers. Many of the Allied seamen had been torpedoed more than once; these facts spread and make the seamen reluctant to go to sea again. Some of them were even trying to shirk a crossing of the Atlantic, so that the Allied authorities were compelled, if it became necessary, to retain the men aboard by force of law. Such indications were favorable to the Germans. From the facts that, firstly, the Allies were building very many new merchant ships and, secondly, that the Allies were having considerable difficulties in manning these newly built ships, Admiral Doenitz concluded that the question of personnel was a very grave matter for the Allies. The losses in men affected the Allies especially seriously, because they had few reserves and also because...
COL. PHILLIMORE: I don't want to interrupt you, but did he say anything about rescues at all? You have told us about the Allied losses and how serious they were.
HEISIG: Yes, he mentioned rescues, but I would like to speak about that later. Grossadmiral Doenitz said that the losses of the Allies affected them very seriously, because they had no reserves and also because the training of new seamen required a very long time. He could not, therefore, understand it, if submarines were still...
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, just a moment. I don't think we want to hear the whole of Admiral Doenitz' speech. We want to hear the material part of it. COL. PHILLIMORE [to the witness.]: Now, you have dealt with the question of losses. Will you come to the crucial part of the speech, at the end, and deal with that? What did the Grand Admiral go on to say?
DR. THOMA: The testimony of the witness does not concern me directly, but I have an objection to raise. According to German law and according to the German Code of Criminal Procedure, the witness must say everything he knows about a matter. If he is asked about a speech of Grossadmiral Doenitz, he must not, at least according to German law, relate only those parts which, in the opinion of the Prosecution, are unfavorable to the defendant. I believe this principle should also apply in these proceedings, whenever a witness is questioned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is not bound by German law. I have already said that the Tribunal does not desire to hear from this witness all of Admiral Doenitz' speech. It will be open to any of the counsel for the defendants to cross-examine this witness. Your intervention is therefore entirely unnecessary.
COL. PHILLIMORE: [to the witness.]: Now, will you deal with the crucial parts of the Grand Admiral's speech?
HEISIG: Grossadmiral Doenitz continued, saying approximately that under the circumstances he could not understand how German U-boats could still rescue the crews of the merchant ships they had sunk, thereby endangering their own ships. By doing that, they were working for the enemy, since these rescued crews would sail again on new ships. The stage had now been reached in which total war had to be waged also at sea. The crews of ships, like the ships themselves, were a target for the U-boats; thus it would be impossible for the Allies to man their newly built ships; and moreover it could then be expected that in America and the other Allied countries a strike would break out, for already a part of the seamen did not want to go back to sea. These results could be expected if our tactics would render the war at sea more vigorous. If any of us consider this war or these tactics harsh we should also remember that our wives and our families at home are being bombed. That, in its main points, was the speech of Grossadmiral Doenitz.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Now, about how many officers were present and heard that speech?
HEISIG: I have no experience in fixing the number of people present at large indoor gatherings. I can only give you a rough estimate: approximately 120 officers.
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the witness is available for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the United States prosecutor wish to ask any question? [There was no response.] The Soviet prosecutor? [There was no response.] The French prosecutor? [There was no response.] Now, any of the defendants' counsel may cross-examine the witness.
FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBUHLER (Counsel for Defendant Doenitz): I represent Grossadmiral Doenitz.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will understand that what I said to Dr. Thoma was not intended to interfere with your cross-examination; it was only intended to save time. The Tribunal did not desire to hear unimportant passages in the Defendant Doenitz' speech. Therefore, they did not want to hear them from this witness. However, you are at liberty to ask any questions that you please.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Oberleutnant Heisig, did you yourself take part in an action against the enemy?
HEISIG: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: On which boat were you, and who was your commander?
HEISIG: I was on U-877, under Kapitanleutnant Finkeisen.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Please repeat your answer.
HEISIG: I served on U-877 in an action against the enemy, and the commander was Kapitanleutnant Finkeisen.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Were you successful in action against enemy ships?
HEISIG: The boat was sunk on its way to the area of operations.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Before you were able to sink an enemy ship?
HEISIG: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: was the boat sunk?
HEISIG: By depth charges. Two Canadian frigates sighted the U-boat and destroyed it through depth charges.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Your testimony today differs in an essential point from the statement you made on the 27th of November. How did you come to make this statement of the 27th of November?
HEISIG: I made the statement in defense of my comrades who were put before a military court in Hamburg and sentenced to death for the murder of shipwrecked sailors.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Your statement begins by saying that you had received reports that German sailors were being accused of murder and that you therefore considered it your duty to depose the following affidavit. What reports had you received, and when?
HEISIG: At the beginning of the Hamburg proceedings against Kapitanleutnant Eck and his officers I was a prisoner of war in Great Britain; there I heard on the radio and read in newspapers that these officers were to be tried. Since I knew one of the accused officers, Leutnant August Hoffmann, very well and had spoken with him on this subject on two or three occasions, I considered it to be my duty to come to his assistance and to his defense.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Were you not told in your interrogation on the 27th of November that the death sentence against Eck and Hoffmann had already been confirmed?
HEISIG: That - I don't remember whether it was on the 27th of November, I only remember that I was told here that the death sentence had been carried out. I no longer remember the date, as I was interrogated several times.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Since you have knowledge of the circumstances, do you maintain that the speech of Grossadmiral Doenitz mentioned in any way that fire should be opened on shipwrecked sailors?
HEISIG: No; we gathered that from his words; and from his reference to the bombing war, we gathered that total war had now to be waged against ships and crews. That is what we understood, and I talked about it to my comrades on the way back to the Hansa.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Speak slowly, please.
HEISIG: We were convinced that Admiral Doenitz meant that. He did not express it clearly. FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER Did you speak about this point with any of your superiors at the school?
HEISIG: I left the school on the same day. But I can remember that one of my superiors, whose name to my regret I do not recall - nor do I recall the occasion - once spoke to us about this subject and advised us that, if possible, only officers should be on the bridge ready to annihilate shipwrecked sailors, should the. possibility arise, or should it be necessary.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: One of your superiors told you that?
HEISIG: Yes, but I cannot remember in which connection and where. I received a lot of advice from my superiors on many things. FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER Was it at the school?
HEISIG: No; I left the U-boat Training Division on the same day.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Were you instructed at the school in the standing orders of war?
HEISIG: Yes; we were instructed in the standing orders of war.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Did these standing orders mention anywhere that shipwrecked sailors were to be fired on or their rescue apparatus destroyed?
HEISIG: The standing orders did not mention that. But - I think one can assume this from an innuendo of Captain Rollmann, who was then officers' company commander a short time before that, some teletype message had arrived containing an order prohibiting rescue measures and demanding that sea warfare should be fought with more radical, more drastic means.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Do you think that the prohibition of rescue measures is identical with the shooting of shipwrecked sailors?
HEISIG: We came to this...
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Please, answer my question. Do you think these two things are identical?
HEISIG: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, I am afraid the Tribunal will have to adjourn now; and I have an announcement to make. You may cross-examine tomorrow.
DR. THOMA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: As I have already said, the Tribunal will not sit in open session this afternoon. The announcement that I have to make is in connection with the organizations which are alleged to be criminal under Article 9 of the Charter, and this is the announcement: The Tribunal has been giving careful consideration to the duty imposed upon it by Article 9 of the Charter. It is difficult to determine the manner in which the representatives of the named organizations shall be permitted to appear in accordance with Article 9 , without considering the exact nature of the case presented for the Prosecution. For this reason, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, at this stage of the Trial, with many thousands of applications being made, the case for the Prosecution should be defined with more precision than appears in the Indictment . In these circumstances, therefore, it is the intention of the Tribunal to invite argument from the Counsel for the Prosecution and for the Defense, at the conclusion of the case by all prosecutors, in regard to the questions hereinafter set forth. The questions which need further consideration are as follows: 1. The Charter does not define a criminal organization, and it is therefore necessary to examine the tests of criminality which must be applied and to decide the nature of the evidence to be admitted. Many of the applicants who have made requests to be heard assert that they were conscripted into the organization, or that they were ignorant of the criminal purposes of the organization, or that they were innocent of any unlawful acts. It will be necessary to decide whether such evidence ought to be received to rebut the charge of the criminal character of the organization, or whether such evidence ought more properly to be received at the subsequent trials under Article 10 of the Charter, when the organizations have been declared criminal, if the Tribunal so decides. 2. The question of the precise time within which the named organization is said to have been criminal is vital to the decision of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal desires to know from the Prosecution at this stage whether it is intended to adhere to the limits of time set out in the Indictment . 3. The Tribunal desires to know whether, in the light of the evidence, any class of persons included within the named organizations should be excluded from the scope of the declaration, and which, if any. In the indictment of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the Prosecution have reserved the right to request that Politische Leiter of subordinate grades or ranks, or of other types or classes, be exempted from further proceedings without prejudice to other proceedings or actions against them. Is it the intention of the Prosecution to make any such request? If so, it should be done now. 4. The Tribunal would be glad if the Prosecution would also: (a) Summarize in respect of each named organization the elements which in their opinion justify the charge of being a criminal organization. (b) Indicate what acts on the part of individual defendants, indicted in this Trial - in the sense used in Article 9 of the Charter - justify declaring the groups or organizations of which they are members to be criminal organizations. Submit in writing a summary of proposed findings of fact as to each organization, with respect to which a finding of criminality is asked. The Tribunal hopes it is not necessary to say to the Prosecution that it is not seeking to interfere with the undoubted right of the Prosecution to present its case in its own way, in the light of the full knowledge of all the documents and facts which it possesses, but the duty of the Tribunal under Article 9 of the Charter makes it essential at this time to have the case clearly and precisely defined. This announcement will be communicated to the Chief Prosecutors and to Defense Counsel in writing. The Tribunal will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. [The Tribunal adjourned until 15 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]