dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
RAEDER: I should like to point out again here that the trial brief makes the comment that consultation took place regarding the scale on which the plan should be executed. Particularly in this case this does not at all represent the character of the speech correctly. The meaning of the whole first part of the speech, as I said, is extremely vague. Whereas in the 1937 speech he gave 1943 to 1945 as the latest deadline and the possibility of an earlier date under certain improbable circumstances, here Hitler speaks of a solution as being possible in 15 to 20 years He says that Poland is always on the side of the enemy, in spite of the treaty of friendship, that her secret intention is to take advantage of any opportunity to act against us, and that he, therefore, wants to attack Poland at the first opportunity. The Polish problem cannot be separated from the conflict in the West, but a conflict in the West must not be permitted to arise simultaneously. If it is uncertain as to whether a war with the West will or will not take place in the wake of the German-Polish conflict, then a line of battle first against England and France is perhaps of greater importance. Then again, he says that we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into a war with England on account of Poland, a war on two fronts such as the incapable men of 1914 had brought about. Then again, England-and that is comparatively new here-is the driving force against Germany. We must prepare for a long war in addition to a surprise attack, obviously against England. It is astonishing that we were to endeavor, at the beginning of such a war, to strike a destructive blow against England. The goal is to force England to her knees. Then follows quite a new part...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the defendant appears to be reading from a document an argument about this document. That is not giving evidence. If he can tell us anything about what happened at this meeting, it is open to him to do so.
DR. SIEMERS: He is repeating, with the aid of this document, the involved thoughts which Hitler expressed at that time, and he is pointing out the contradictions contained in Hitler's speech at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of argument, to point out that there are conflicts between one part of the document and another. That is not the subject of evidence. He has already told us that Hitler's speeches generally were-that one speech generally contradicted another, but we can see for ourselves from the document if one part of it conflicts with another.
DR. SIEMERS: Is it not of importance, Mr. President, that the abstruse statements of Hitler at that time had such an effect on the witness that he says so and so many points are false? Then the whole tendency which we read out of it cannot be true. As I understand the witness, Hitler must have had mental reservations back of such conflicting remarks to commanders. But I believe we can shorten this. Herr Grossadmiral, according to the wish of the Court, just explain what the effect was on you and what in your opinion were the special designs connected with this document.
RAEDER: By contrasting these sentences, I wanted only to show how muddled the speech was. At the end there is a second part in which a number of doctrinaire, academic opinions on warfare are expressed and a conclusion to the effect that it was also a wish of Hitler to have formed in the OKW a research staff to work out all these plans for war preparation, evaluation of individual weapons, et cetera , without the participation of the general staffs, with which he did not like to collaborate. He wanted these things to be in his own hands. Thus it was the formation of a research staff which motivated this speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I have already told you that the Tribunal thinks that argument is not evidence. This seems to be purely argument upon this document. If there is anything in the shape of recollection as to what passed at this meeting, that would be evidence; but merely to argue upon the document is not in evidence.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may the witness not say what effect Hitler's processes of thought had on him? The Prosecution say that Hitler and Raeder entered upon a conspiracy together.
THE PRESIDENT: He can say he did not understand it or did not think it was sincere.
DR. SIEMERS: In this connection I should like to point out that the witness referred to this point because this is the only passage from this document which the Prosecution have not read. In this document the sentences about the research staff, as I noticed immediately, were not read. This research staff was what Hitler wanted to obtain. Herr Grossadmiral, after this speech, was anything changed in your department?
RAEDER: No. The conclusion drawn was: First, that the ship construction program was to be continued in the same way as in the past-so Hitler himself said-and in the second place, he said that the armament programs were to be geared for the year 1943-1944. That was the positive thing which I could conclude for myself. At that tine, moreover, I was strongly impressed by the speech which Hitler himself made at the launching of the battleship Bismarck in Hamburg. There he said that the Wehrmacht, as the keenest instrument of war, had to protect and help to preserve the peace founded on true justice. That made the greatest impression on me at that time with regard to Hitler's intentions.
DR. SIEMERS: Was the fleet at that time in a position to do this?
RAEDER: No. It was completely incapable.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, if there are any passages in this document which have not been read and to which you attach importance, you may read them now; and for the rest, all that the Tribunal thinks you ought to do is to ask the defendant what his recollection was or what happened at that meeting, and if he can supplement the document as to what happened at the meeting, he is entitled to do so. The Tribunal does not intend to prevent your reading anything from the document which has not yet been read nor from getting from the witness anything which he says happened at the meeting.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I understood the witness to mean that he recalled the research staff which the Prosecution had not mentioned. Thus it came about that the witness, since he too knows the document, at the same time pointed out that the research staff was also mentioned in the document. I believe that can explain the misunderstanding. The situation is clear to me, and perhaps I may read this sentence in that connection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. SIEMERS: Under Number 3, toward the end of the Document L-79, it says: "To study weak points of the enemy. "These studies must not be left to the general staffs. Secrecy would no longer be guaranteed. The Fuehrer has, therefore, decided to order the formation of a small research staff within the OKW composed of representatives of the three branches of the Wehrmacht and, as occasion arises, the three commanders-in-chief-that is to say, general staff chiefs. "The staff shall keep the Fuehrer constantly informed. "The research staff shall undertake the planning of operations from the theoretical side and the preparations which of necessity arise therefrom..."
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. A passage is left out in the English translation. The copy I have before me says, "These studies must not be left to the general staffs; secrecy would no longer be guaranteed." And then it goes on, "This staff shall keep the Fuehrer informed and shall report to him." I do not think it is very important. Go on.
DR. SIEMERS: Apparently the paragraph about the research staff in the Armed Forces High Command was left out in the English. Continuing the document: "The purpose of certain regulations concerns no one outside the staff; however great the increase in armament of our adversaries may be, they must at some time come to the end of their resources and ours will be greater. The French have 120,000 men in each class! We shall not be forced into a war, but we shall not be able to avoid one." This research staff, in effect, eliminated the commanders-in-chief and that was what Hitler wanted to achieve. If I am correctly informed, the rest has been read by the Prosecution-namely, the subsequent aim and the principle, to be specific, the well-known order to keep everything secret and, at the end, that which the witness remembered, that the shipbuilding program should not be changed and the armament program should be fixed for 1943-1944. [Turning to the defendant.] Had Hitler at this time intended a war of aggression, would he have had to speed up any particular part of the Navy's armament?
RAEDER: Yes, indeed. He would have had to speed up all naval construction.
DR. SIEMERS: Would not the construction of submarines especially have had to be speeded up?
RAEDER: Yes, of course, particularly because they could be built most quickly.
DR. SIEMERS: How many submarines did you have at this time?
RAEDER: I cannot say exactly. I think about 26.
DR. SIEMERS: If I remember rightly, Admiral Doenitz has already answered that there were 15 capable of sailing in the Atlantic-by the way, there were altogether 26.
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, in the winter of 1938-1939, did you have a talk with Sir Nevile Henderson on relations between Germany and England? RAEDER Yes, a very short talk at an evening reception in the Fuehrer's house, where I stood near Ambassador Henderson and Herr Von Neurath, and wherein the question was discussed-it was brought up by me-as to whether England had not welcomed Germany's offer to set the proportion of strength at 1 to 4 and would not draw certain conclusions from this reciprocal relationship. Ambassador Henderson answered, without anyone else having brought up this question, "Yes, that would be shown in the future when the colonial question was settled." I later reported this answer to the Fuehrer in order to use it to maintain a friendly policy toward England.
DR. SIEMERS: We are now at the summer of 1939. Admiral, in the course of the summer, after the speech of 23 May 1939, did you talk to Hitler in view of the generally known danger of war, and what did he tell you?
RAEDER: Whenever I talked to the Fuehrer, I always brought up the question of England, whereby I annoyed him to a certain extent. I tried to convince him that it would be possible to carry out the peace policy with England which he himself had urged at the beginning of his regime. Then he always reassured me that it remained his intention to steer a policy of peace with England, always leaving me in the belief that there was no danger of a clash with England-in any case, that at this time there was no such danger.
DR. SIEMERS: Now I come to the third key document-namely, Hitler's speech before the commanders-in-chief on 22 August 1939, at Obersalzberg. There are two documents: Document 1014-PS and Document 798-PS. Document 1014-PS is Exhibit USA-30, in Raeder Document Book 10a, Page 269; and Document 798-PS is Exhibit USA-29, in Document Book 10a, Page 266. In regard to this Document 1014-PS, which I have here in the original in the form submitted by the Prosecution, I should like to make a formal request. This Number 1014-PS was read into the record in the afternoon session of 26 November 1945 (Volume II, Page 286). I object to the use of this document. I request that this document be stricken from the trial record for the following reason...
THE PRESIDENT: What document are you speaking about now, 1014-PS?
DR. SIEMERS: In Raeder Document Book 10a, Page 269, Exhibit USA-30.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, what are your reasons?
DR. SIEMERS: The deficiencies which were already mentioned in the other transcripts are much greater here. This document is nothing but two pieces of paper headed "Second Speech by the Fuehrer, on 22 August 1939." The original has no heading, has no file number, no diary number, and no notice that it is secret; no signature, no date, no...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to look at the original. Yes, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: It has no date, no signature-in the original in the folder, it has no indication of where the document comes from. It is headed "Second Speech..." although it is certain that on this date Hitler made only one speech, and it is hardly 1 1/2 pages long, although . . .
THE PRESIDENT: When you say it has no date, it is part of the document itself which says that it is the second speech of the Fuehrer on the 22d of August 1939.
DR. SIEMERS: I said, Mr. President, it has a heading but no date.
THE PRESIDENT: But you said it has no date.
DR. SIEMERS: It has no date as to when these notes were put in writing. It has only the date of when the speech is supposed to have been made. On all documents which the Prosecution submitted, also in the case of minutes, you will find the date of the session and the date on which the minutes were set up; also the place where the minutes were set up, the name of the person who set it up, an indication that it is secret or something like that. Furthermore, it is certain that Hitler spoke for 2 1/2 hours. I believe it is generally known that Hitler spoke very fast. It is quite out of the question that the minutes could be 1 1/2 pages long if they are to give the meaning and the content, at least to some extent, of a speech which lasted 2 1/2 hours. It is important-I may then refer to still another point. I will submit the original of Document 798-PS afterwards. I am no expert on handwriting or typewriters, but I notice that this document, which is also not signed, whose origin we do not know, is written on the same paper with the same typewriter.
THE PRESIDENT: You say we do not know where it has come from-it is a captured document covered by the affidavit which was made with reference to all other captured documents.
DR. SIEMERS: Well, but I would be grateful to the Prosecution if, in the case of such an important document, the Prosecution would be kind enough in order to determine the actual historical facts to indicate more exactly where it originates. Because it is not signed by Schmundt or Hossbach or anyone and has no number, it is only loose pages.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know whether the Prosecution can do that, but it seems to me to be rather late in the day to ask for it.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Mr. President, I do not know what the exact origin of this document is offhand, but I expect that we could probably get some information before the Tribunal if the Tribunal wishes us to do so: But as the President pointed out, it is a captured document and everything that counsel says about it seems to go to its weight rather than to its admissibility.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know where the document was found, if that is possible.
MR. DODD: I will make an effort to find that out.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, Mr. Dodd just pointed out that my objection comes rather late. I believe I recall correctly that repeated objections were raised...
THE PRESIDENT: I think it was I who pointed it out, not Mr. Dodd.
DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me. I believe I recall correctly that the Defense on several occasions raised objection during the Prosecution's case, and it was said that all statements could be made during the Defense's case at a later time-namely, when it is the defense counsel's turn to speak.
THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that it might not be possible at this stage to find out exactly where the document came from, whereas, if the question had been asked very much earlier in the Trial, it might have been very much easier. That is all I meant. Have you anything more to add upon why, in your opinion, this document should be stricken from the record?
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to point out, Mr. President, that I do not do it for formal reasons but rather for a very substantial reason. Most important words in this document have constantly been repeated by the Prosecution during these 5 or 6 months- namely, the words "Destruction of Poland, main objective... Aim: elimination of vital forces, not arrival at a certain line." These words were not spoken, and such a war aim the German commanders-in-chief would not have agreed to. For that reason it is important to ascertain whether this document is genuine. In this connection, may I remind the Court that there is a third version of this speech as mentioned in this courtroom-namely? Document L-3, which is even worse than these and which was published by the press of the whole world. Wherever one spoke to anyone, this grotesque and brutal speech was brought up. For that reason it is in the interest of historical truth to ascertain whether Hitler spoke in this shocking way at this time. Actually, I admit he used many expressions which were severe, but he did not use such words, and this is of tremendous significance for the reputation of all the commanders who were present. Let me point out the next words. They say expressly, "close your hearts against pity, brutal measures." Such words were not used. I will be in a position to prove this by another witness, Generaladmiral Boehm. I therefore request the Court to decide on my request for striking this document from the record. I should like to point out that the document is mentioned in the record at many points. Should the honorable Court so wish, I would have to look for all the points. I have found only four or five in the German record. If necessary, I would give all the points in the English record. It was submitted on 26 November 1945, afternoon session (Volume II, Page 286).
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need bother to do that. You are now only upon the question of whether the document should be stricken from the record. If it were to be stricken from the record, we could find out where it is. Is that all you wish to say?
DR. SIEMERS: One question to Admiral Raeder. The words which I just read, "brutal measures, elimination of vital forces"-were these words used in Hitler's speech at that time?
RAEDER: In my opinion, no. I believe that the version submitted by Admiral Boehm, which he wrote down on the afternoon of the same day on the basis of his notes, is the version nearest to the truth.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in order to achieve clarity on this question, I submit as Exhibit Raeder-27, in Raeder Document Book 2, Page 144, an orderly reproduction of this speech.
RAEDER: May I also have Document Book 2?
DR. SIEMERS: This is the speech according to the manuscript of Generaladmiral Hermann Boehm. Generaladmiral Boehm was present at Hitler's speech on 22 August 1939 at Obersalzberg. He made the notes during the speech. He transcribed them in the present form on the same evening-that is, on 22 August 1939-in the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel in Munich. I have certified the correctness of the copy. The original is in the handwriting of Generaladmiral Boehm. Boehm has been called by me as a witness for various other questions. He will confirm that the speech was made in this form as I have submitted here. A comparison of the two documents shows that all terms, such as "brutal measures," are not contained in this speech. It shows further...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Surely this part of Dr. Siemers' argument must go to weight. He has said that a comparison of the two documents shows such and such. I have just looked at the end of Admiral Boehm's affidavit and it contains, I should argue, every vital thought that is contained in Document 1014-PS. But whether it does or not, that is a matter of weight, surely. We cannot, in my respectful submission, go into intrinsic comparisons to decide the admissibility of the document. As I say, on that I should have a great deal to say by comparing the documents in detail. That is not before the Tribunal now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal was only wanting to hear whatever Dr. Siemers has got to say upon the subject.
DR. SIEMERS: A comparison of the document with Document 798-PS, in the longer and better version, as the Prosecution submitted . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has just pointed out, a mere comparison of the documents-of the two or three documents does not help us as to its admissibility. We know the facts about the document. It is a document in German, captured among German documents.
DR. SIEMERS: I understand. I made the statement only in order to show that I am not raising objections for formal reasons, but because the thing is actually of great importance. In proof of my...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, you will be able to urge that when you make your speech in criticism of the document as to its weight. You will be able to point out that it does not bear comparison with a fuller document taken down by Admiral Boehm or with the other document.
DR. SIEMERS: Absolutely right. To explain my formal request, I refer to my statement on the formal character of the document which I submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The application to strike out Document 1014-PS is denied. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Has Counsel for the Prosecution understood that the Tribunal wishes to have information as to where that document was found?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord; we will do our best to get it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and also the other, Document 798-PS.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, if Your Lordship pleases.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, I submitted Document Raeder-27, which is the Boehm version, to you. You have read the speech in this version. Is this reproduction correct on the whole, in your recollection?
RAEDER: Yes. In my opinion, this version is that one which corresponds most closely to reality. I remember especially that Hitler devoted a large portion of his remarks to the point that England and France would not intervene, giving reasons why they would not. He mentioned a number of reasons, and I missed just that portion, in its elaboration, in the other reproductions of the speech.
DR. SIEMERS: In the version of the speech Document 798-PS or Exhibit USA-29 it says verbatim: "I am only afraid that at the last moment some swine will offer me some plan of arbitration." Were those words used in the speech at that time?
RAEDER: In my recollection, certainly not. The Fuehrer was not accustomed to using expressions like that in speeches which he made to the generals.
DR. SIEMERS: On the other hand, the version put forth by Boehm shows that Hitler had, by this time, decided to attack Poland. I am asking you to give us briefly the impression, which the speech made on you at the time. Tell me also why, despite this speech which even in this version is severe, you retained your office as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy.
RAEDER: Without doubt, I had the impression that the situation was serious and tremendously tense. The fact, however, that Hitler in his speech put too great a stress on proving that France and England would not intervene, and the second fact that Herr Von Ribbentrop, the Reich Foreign Minister, left for Moscow on the same day to sign a pact there, as we were told-these things filled not only me but all listeners as well with the strong hope that here again was a case of a clever move by Hitler, which in the end he would successfully solve in a peaceful way. Therefore I saw no reason to resign my office at that moment. I would have considered that pure desertion.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, in this connection I would like, because of their chronological correspondence, to submit the two documents Exhibits Raeder-28 and 29, and I ask that the Tribunal only take judicial notice without my making further reference to them. The Prosecution have cited Document C-155 and have accused you, through this document...