dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SIEMERS: Then, with the permission of the Court, the witness may retire. [Turning to the President.] Mr. President, in accordance with my statement at the beginning of this case, I have already submitted the majority of my documents during the examination. With the permission of the Tribunal, may I proceed now to submit as quickly as possible the remainder of the documents with a few accompanying statements. I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number Raeder-18, an excerpt from the Document Book 2, Page 105, an excerpt from a book which Churchill wrote in 1935 called Great Contemporaries. I ask the Tribunal to take official notice of the contents. Churchill points out that there are two possibilities, that one cannot say whether Hitler will be the man who will start another world war or whether he will be the man who will restore honor and peace of mind to the great German nation and bring it back serene, helpful and strong to a galaxy of the European family of nations. As Exhibit Number Raeder-20 I submit a short excerpt from Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf with reference to the fact that the Prosecution has said that from that book one could see that Hitler intended to wage aggressive wars. I shall show in my final pleadings how much one can see from that book. I ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the short excerpt on Page 154: "For such a policy there was but one ally in Europe, England." Exhibit Number Raeder-21, a speech made by Hitler to the German Reichstag on 26 April 1942, is to show how rights were increasingly limited in Germany and how the dictatorship became more and more powerful. Document Book 4, Exhibit Number Raeder-65, intended to facilitate my arguments, is the Hague Agreement about the rights and duties of neutrals in naval warfare. I need that for my final pleadings in connection with Exhibit Number Raeder-66, the statement of opinion by Dr. Mosler in Document Book 4, Page 289, the first document.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you give us the pages?
DR. SIEMERS: Page 289, Mr. PRESIDENT. It is the first page of the Document Book 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I ask the Tribunal to be kind enough to take up Document Book 5, since the remaining documents have already been submitted. I submit as Exhibit Number Raeder-100, Document Book 5, Page 437, a document from the White Book concerning the "top-secret" meeting of the French War Commission on 9 April 1940, with Reynaud, Daladier, Gamelin, General Georges, the Minister of the Navy, the Minister of the Colonies and the Air Minister present. It concerns the suggestion by Admiral Darlan of moving into Belgium. The suggestion was supported by General Gamelin and also by the Minister for National Defense and War. On Page 442 there is mention of the march into Holland and finally of Luxembourg. Since the High Tribunal has knowledge of the contents from the discussion of the documents, I do not want to read any details. I simply ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. I should also like to point out that on Page 443 of this very long document mention is made of the occupation of the harbor of Narvik and of the intention to get hold of the mines of Gallivare. I now submit Exhibit Number Raeder 102, in the same document book, Page 449. This is an order of the 2d Belgian Infantry Regiment of 13 April 1940 concerning information about friendly troops and the building of a fortified position. It can be seen from the document that the friendly troops mentioned are the Allies. Then I submit Exhibit Raeder-103, Page 452, which is a French document of 16 April 1940 from headquarters concerning measures about the rail transportation of French troops in Belgium. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of all these documents, which I shall not read in detail. The same applies to Exhibit Number Raeder-104, Document Book 5, Page 455, which is the order of 19 April 1940 of the 2d British Division concerning security measures in Belgium. There we find a directive similar to one in a document which has been submitted by the Prosecution, a directive to establish contact with Belgian civilian authorities.
DR. SIEMERS: Exhibit Number Raeder-105, Document Book 5, Page 459, is the statement of a Luxembourg citizen which shows that 200 men, French soldiers in uniform, entered Belgium in armored cars 7 days before the outbreak of the German-Belgian hostilities. May it please the Tribunal, I originally intended not to submit anything in this Trial concerning the character of my client because I was of the opinion that Admiral Raeder, both at home and abroad, enjoyed great respect. The first trial brief against Raeder did not affect that intention. Shortly before the presentation of that trial brief it was changed, becoming considerably more severe and containing moral accusations which seriously injure and insult Raeder's honor. I have no doubt that the High Tribunal will understand why under these circumstances I ask to be permitted to submit some of the documents granted me which concern Raeder's character. I submit Exhibit Raeder-119, Document Book 6, Page 514. That is a letter from Frau Von Poser addressed to me. It is not an affidavit and quite purposely I have submitted the original because in my opinion it will make a more immediate and direct impression than an affidavit which I would first have to ask for in my capacity as defendant's counsel. Similarly, there is a fairly long letter from Professor Dr. Seibt who approached me on his own initiative. I submit Exhibit Number Raeder-120, Document Book 6, Page 517. I would be grateful to the Tribunal if it would take judicial notice of that letter. In order to save time I refrain from reading it since it is six pages long. Then I submit Exhibit Raeder-122, Document Book 6, Page 526, a letter from Herr Erich Katz, which I submit with its appendices and I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. This presents one of the cases in which Raeder intervened personally, using his influence and position-he used the official stationery of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to intervene on behalf of Herr Katz who had been attacked as a Jew-and actually succeeded in protecting him.
DR. SIEMERS: Herr Katz has sent me these documents on his own initiative in order to show his gratitude. As Exhibit Raeder-123 I submit a letter from Gunter Jacobsen that concerns a similar case. Jacobsen also, without my asking it, approached me in order to testify that Raeder rescued his father, who as a Jew had been accused of race defilement, from the concentration camp Fuhlsbuttel-I believe it was still a prison at that time-so that Jacobsen could emigrate to England where he is living now. I submit as Exhibit Number Raeder-124, an affidavit...
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I must make the following statement. All four exhibits mentioned just now by Dr. Siemers are personal letters from various persons to Dr. Siemers. They are not sworn affidavits. They are not interrogations. Therefore these documents have little probative value, and I hold the view that they ought not to be admitted as evidence. Many letters are received, and if they were all to be submitted to the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have great-difficulty in establishing the truth and how far they are of probative value. In that connection, I personally object to the fact that these documents should he accepted as evidence in Raeder's case.
DR. SIEMERS: My Lord, may I . . .
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think that the matter is of sufficient importance to insist upon evidence being upon oath. The documents are admitted.
DR. SIEMERS: As Exhibit Number Raeder-124 I submit an affidavit by Konrad Lotter. The affidavit is very short and with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to read this one page: "Grand Admiral Raeder has always appeared to me a man who embodied the finest traditions of the old Imperial Navy. This was true particularly in regard to his philosophy of life. As a man and as an officer he was at all times the best model imaginable. "In 1941, when the anti-Christian policy of the Hitler regime was in full force in Bavaria, when cloisters were closed and in the education of the youth intolerance against every creed became crassly manifest, I sent a memorandum of 12 pages to the Admiral in which I presented to him my objections to this policy. Admiral Raeder intervened at once. Through his mediation, I was called to the Gauleiter and Minister of the Interior, Wagner, in Munich. After a series of discussions between the clerical, governmental, and Party authorities an agreement was reached which had the following results: The school prayer was retained, the crucifix was allowed to remain in the schools, et cetera ; furthermore, 59 clergymen who had been fined 500 marks each were pardoned. "The closing down of cloisters was also stopped at that time. Gauleiter Wagner had to..."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, all these documents have, been read by us very recently.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well. Then I just ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the remainder. I submit also the two documents, Exhibit Number Raeder-125 and Exhibit Number Raeder-126. Number 125 is an affidavit by the former Reich Defense Minister, Dr. Otto Gessler, and Number Raeder-126 is an affidavit by the Navy Chaplain Ronneberger. I ask you to take judicial notice of this latter document. I should like to be permitted to read the short affidavit by Dr. Gessler since it contains not only something of a purely personal nature, but also remarks concerning the accusations against Raeder. "I, Gessler, have known the former Admiral Dr. Raeder personally since about the middle of the 20's when I was Reichswehrminister. Raeder was then inspector of the educational system in the Navy. I have always known Raeder as a man of irreproachable, chivalrous character, as a man fully conscious of his duty. As to the subject of the Indictment, I know very little. "Raeder visited me repeatedly after my release from imprisonment by the Gestapo in March 1945 when I lay in the Hedwig Hospital in Berlin and he also made arrangements for me to get home, as I was ill and completely exhausted. I told him then about the ill-treatment I had suffered, especially the torture. He was obviously surprised and incensed about this. He said he would report this to the Fuehrer. I asked him at once to refrain from that, for I had been told before the torture, and officially, that all of this was taking place at the explicit order of Hitler. Moreover, I knew definitely that I would immediately be rearrested, since on my release I had signed the well-known declaration and could not even obtain a confirmation of my detention in order to get a ticket for my trip home. "I heard nothing about secret rearmament in the Navy, neither during my term of office nor later. During my term of office, until January 1928, Admiral Raeder would not have been responsible either, for at that time he was not Chief of the Naval Command.
DR. SIEMERS: "At the time of the National Socialist regime I was ignored by my former department and snubbed. One of the few exceptions was Dr. Raeder. Before 1939 among other things he invited me three times to visit on the cruiser Nurnberg although I had refused twice. During the visit in June 1939 he came to Kiel personally to pay his respects to me. At that time we also discussed the political situation. I expressed the apprehension that an attack on Poland would mean a European war. Raeder declared positively that he considered it out of the question that Hitler would attack Poland. When this did happen later, I explained this to myself on the grounds that Hitler liked to place even the highest military leaders face to face with accomplished facts." Then there is the statement "under oath" and the signature of the notary. As to the last Exhibit Number Raeder-126, from the Navy Chief Chaplain Ronneberger, I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it since it is too late to read it. It is a factual description and survey of church questions and of religious matters in the Navy. Mr. PRESIDENT, with that, with the exception of three points, I can conclude my case. There are still two interrogatories missing which have not yet been returned. I ask permission to submit these as soon as they are received. Then, there is the witness Generaladmiral Bohm, who has already been approved, but who on account of illness has not yet been able to appear. The British Delegation, through Sir David, has been kind enough to agree that if necessary this witness can be interrogated at a later date. May I be permitted to ask the Tribunal to keep this open and if possible to permit Admiral Bohm to be questioned at a later date. I want to point out now that it will not be so large a complex of questions as in the case of Admiral Schulte-Monting, which the Tribunal knows from the material I have submitted. This concludes my case Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 23 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the documents of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, the Tribunal admits the following documents which were objected to: Number 11, Number 47, Number 48, Number 50, Number 54, and Number 71. The remainder of the documents which were objected to are rejected. I will enumerate them: Number 5, Number 10, Number 14, Number 19b, Number 21, Number 22, Number 27, Number 31, Number 39, Number 55, Number 60, Number 61, Number 68, Number 69. That is all.
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, last night at the end of the session the counsel for Admiral Raeder submitted a certain number of documents including Document Raeder-105 of Document Book 5. This document is an excerpt from the German White Book , Number 5. It is the testimony of an old man of 72, a native of Luxembourg, who had lived in Belgium for only 6 months, and who affirms that in April 1940 he saw 200 French soldiers in Belgium. These soldiers, who he said were French, were in armored cars. I must ask the Tribunal to allow me to make objection to this Document Number 7 of the White Book Number 5, the original of which has never been submitted and has not even been reproduced in the White Book , as is the case with a certain number of documents in the German White Book . It is necessary that in the name of France and of Belgium a protest-a formal, categorical protest- be made against such an assertion. At no time before the invasion of Belgium by the German forces did any French troops set foot on Belgian soil. The reading of this document, Number Raeder-105 of Document Book 5 of Admiral Raeder, enables us to understand how there came to be the error in the testimony by Grandjenet that is cited. I have already told the Tribunal that this man is 72 years old and was from Luxembourg. To the question put to him by the German authorities as to how he recognized the soldiers he had seen as being of French nationality, he answered: "I was quite sure that they were French soldiers because I know their uniform well. Moreover, I recognized the soldiers because of the language they used when they spoke to me." Now, as far as the uniform is concerned, the Tribunal knows that at the time when these events took place, the Belgian Army had a uniform of the same color as the French Army and a helmet of the same shape. As for the language, the Tribunal knows that a great part of the Belgian population who live along the Luxembourg frontier speak French, and the Belgian soldiers recruited in these districts speak French.
M. DUBOST: The Tribunal will certainly remember that this witness, who is a very old man, had only been living for 6 months in Belgium and probably had only a limited experience with things Belgian-and especially with the Belgian Army. At any rate, we assert in the name of France and in the name of Belgium that before 10 May 1940 no French troops, no organized French troops, penetrated Belgium, and that the isolated individuals who did go into Belgium were interned there.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: If it please the Tribunal, may I reply very briefly? This matter concerns a document from the White Book , on which a decision has already been handed down once and which was granted me. I propose that the Prosecution be requested to submit the original if they dispute the correctness of this document. In this I am in agreement with a decision of the Tribunal according to which the application is to be made for the presentation of the original if it is available, or application should be made so that whoever has the original should produce it. As far as I know the Prosecution have the original, since all original documents were located in the Foreign Office in Berlin, or in the alternative place of safekeeping, and all the originals of these White Book s fell into the hands of the Allies.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by "original"? The original, I suppose, is the original of the White Book . Is that what you mean?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I mean now, Mr. President, the original of this court record.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this comes from a White Book . That is a printed document, I suppose, I do not suppose it contains the original of the statement of this Luxembourg man.
DR. SIEMERS: The White Book is a collection of numerous documents, and the single original documents are in the possession of the Foreign Office; in part they were from the files of the French General Staff, and partly they were records of court proceedings. Regarding the contents of this document...
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, you are not proposing that we should strike the document out, but the Tribunal will certainly take into account the facts to which you have drawn our notice.
M. DUBOST: This is an application that the Tribunal shall refuse to admit that document, Mr. President. At the same time this is a protest against the assertion made by the Defense that French soldiers violated Belgian neutrality in the course of the month of April. I hope the Tribunal will allow me to add a few words of explanation. The White Book , which we have here, comprises two parts. The first part reproduces texts and the second part gives photostatic copies of these texts. In the first part, which simply reproduces the texts, is found the document which I ask the Tribunal to strike from the record. We have searched in the second part which gives the photostatic copies of the documents in the first part, and we do not find it. We state to the Tribunal that the original of the document, which we ask the Tribunal to strike out, has not been reproduced in the German White Book , since it is not to be found in the second part.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that M. Dubost's entire explanation refers to the question of the value of the document as evidence and not to the question of the admissibility of the document. That this document is in order appears to me to be quite clear, since it is a record of court proceedings where a certain person, namely Grandjenet, has been interrogated. Everything said by M. Dubost referred more to the contents of the document than to the question of its value as evidence. May I ask therefore that the document be admitted, as has been done up to now, and ask that consideration be given to the fact that the document has value in connection with the other documents which have been granted to me and to Dr. Horn in his document book with reference to Holland and Belgium. If, in the second part of the document book there is no photostatic copy...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Siemers, and M. Dubost, the Tribunal will consider the objection that has been made.
DR. SIEMERS: May I merely mention, Mr. President, that if the photostat is not in the book, as M. Dubost states, then this is due to the fact that this court record in its original text was German, and the facsimiles are those prepared from the original text in French, that is to say, of those documents which in their original version were in French. If necessary I would appeal to Geheimrat Von Schnieden as a witness regarding this record, since he at the time was informed about all the records of this type and helped in the work of compiling the book.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the objection.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal I should like to say that the interrogatory put to the American Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Nimitz, is available. I received it the day before yesterday and in the meantime it has gone in to the interpreters for translation. With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to submit it now, in connection with the cases of Admiral Doenitz and Admiral Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution seen it?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got copies for us?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: I had been informed that the copies for the Tribunal would be handed on by the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless we have copies, the document must not be read. It must be put off until we have copies.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: There are two copies in English and one in French. I present the document as Number Doenitz-100.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Soviet members of the Tribunal do not have a copy of the document translated into their language, so you will present it at a later date. Will the counsel for the Defendant Von Schirach present his case?
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant Von Schirach): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I propose first of all to conduct the examination of the Defendant Schirach himself, and in the course of this examination I will bring to your attention the passage of the document book concerned, as the individual points come up. Following the examination of the defendant I shall then call my four witnesses, and at the end I intend to submit the remaining documents, insofar as these documents have not by that time been presented during the examination of the Defendant Von Schirach. I presume, Mr. President, that you agree to this procedure. I now call to the witness stand, first, Baldur von Schirach. [The Defendant Baldur von Schirach took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the following oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The defendant repeated the oath in German.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, what is the date of your birth?
BALDUR VON SCHIRACH (Defendant): 9 May 1907.
DR. SAUTER: That means that a few days ago you were 39. You have been married for 14 years; is that correct?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And you have four children, whose ages are. . .
VON SCHIRACH: 4, 8, 11, and 13 years.
DR. SAUTER: In the Third Reich you were mainly active as Youth Leader?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: What offices did you fill in that connection, that is, offices in the Party and in the Government-please state also how long you held these various offices?
VON SCHIRACH: To start with, in 1929 I was the leader of the National Socialist Students' Union. In 1931 I became Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP, at first on the staff of the SA Supreme Command; in 1932, Reich Leader for Youth Education of the NSDAP; in 1933, Youth Leader of the German Reich, at first under the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick. In 1934, I held the same position under the Reich Minister of Education, Rust. In 1936 the Reich Youth Leader became a leading Reich official, and in that capacity I came directly under the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.
DR. SAUTER: Now, which of your offices were Party positions and which of the ones you have mentioned were offices of the Reich?
VON SCHIRACH: Party positions were the office of Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP, and that of Reich Leader for Youth Education. Government positions: The Youth Leader of the German Reich, at first subordinate to the Minister of the Interior as I have described or under the Minister for Education, and then in an independent position.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you were removed from some of these offices in 1940. What positions in Youth Leadership did you lose in 1940, and what positions did you still continue to fill to the end?