dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
COL. PHILLIMORE: When you were Chief of Staff Operations, did you not receive a full report every time there was a British Commando raid?
WAGNER: I have already said that I believe such incidents formed part of the situation reports to the SKL. '
COL. PHILLIMORE: I suggest you can answer that question perfectly straight if you wanted to. Here you were, a Senior Staff Officer, Commando Raids. Are you saying you did not personally see and read a full report on every one? .
WAGNER: I am not asserting that. I have answered each individual question by stating exactly what I remember.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you say that taking these men out and shooting them without a trial, without telling them they were going to be shot, without seeing a priest, do you say that. ..
WAGNER: With regard to the Navy. . .
COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you say that was not murder?
WAGNER: I do not wish to maintain that at all. I do maintain that I was presumably told about the cases in which men were shot by the Navy, and I am of the opinion that these people who were captured as saboteurs were not soldiers, but were criminals who, in accordance with their criminal...
COL. PHILLIMORE: Let us get it perfectly clear. Are you saying that the action taken in shooting these Commandos on all these occasions-are you saying that was perfectly proper and justified? I thought you agreed with me it was murder, just now. Which is it?
WAGNER: I would like to answer that in each individual case.
COL. PHILLIMORE: It is a very simple question to answer generally and it takes less time. Do you say that men captured in uniform should be taken out and shot without trial?
WAGNER: I cannot consider men of whom I know that they have orders to commit crimes, as soldiers, within international law.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Are you saying that this action was perfectly proper-are you?
WAGNER: Yes, entirely and perfectly.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Shoot helpless prisoners without trial, bully little neutrals who cannot complain? That is your policy, is it?
WAGNER: Not at all.
COL. PHILLIMORE: What crime did Robert Paul Evans commit, who attacked the Tirpitz in a two-man torpedo?
WAGNER: I am convinced it was proved that he belonged to a sabotage unit, and that besides the purely naval character of the attack on the ship, there were other aspects which marked him as a saboteur.
COL. PHILLIMORE: And you said just now that you did not remember the incident?
WAGNER: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Will you agree on this, will you agree with me, that if this shooting by the SD was murder, you and Admiral Doenitz and Admiral Raeder, who signed the orders under which this was done, are just as guilty as the men who shot them?
WAGNER: The person who issued the order is responsible for it.
COL. PHILLIMORE: And that person who passed it and approved it; is not that right?
WAGNER: I assume full responsibility for the transmission of this order.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Your Lordship, I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, D-658 was an old exhibit, was it not?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you given new exhibit numbers to all the new documents?
COL. P0TTLIMORE: I am very much obliged, Your Lordship. I did omit to give a new exhibit number to the affidavit by Flesch.
THE PRESIDENT: D-864.
COL. PHILLIMORE: D-864. My Lord, it should be GB-457. My Lord, I am very sorry. I was not advised, but I got it.
THE PRESIDENT: And all the others you have given numbers to?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Is there any other cross-examination? Then, does Dr. Kranzbuehler wish to re-examine? Dr. Kranzbuehler, I see it is nearly half-past eleven, so perhaps we had better adjourn for ten minutes. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Before Dr. Kranzbuehler goes on with his re-examination, I shall announce the Tribunal's decisions with reference to the applications which were made recently in court. The first application on behalf of the Defendant Von Schirach was for a witness Hans Marsalek to be produced for cross-examination, and that application is granted. The second application was for interrogatories to a witness Kaufmann, and that is granted. The next matter was an application on behalf of the Defendant Hess for five documents; and as to that, the Tribunal orders that two of the documents applied for under Heads B and D in Dr. Seidl's application have already been published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, and one of them is already in evidence, and they Will, therefore, be admitted. The Tribunal considers that the documents applied for under Heads C and E of Dr. Seidl's application are unsatisfactory and have no evidential value; and since it does not appear from Dr. Seidl's application and the matters referred to therein that the alleged copies are copies of any original documents, the application is denied in respect thereof. But leave is granted to Dr. Seidl to file a further affidavit by Gaus covering his recollection of what was in the alleged agreements. The application on behalf of the Defendant Funk for an affidavit by a witness called Kallus is granted. The application on behalf of the Defendant Streicher is denied. The application on behalf of the Defendant Sauckel firstly for a witness named Biedermann is granted, and secondly for four documents; that application is also granted. The application on behalf of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart for an interrogatory to Dr. Stuckart is granted. The application on behalf of the' Defendant Frick is granted for an interrogatory to a witness, Dr. Konrad. The application on behalf of the Defendant Goering with reference to two witnesses is granted in the sense that the witnesses are to be alerted. The application on behalf of the Defendants Hess and Frank for official information from the ministry of war of the United States of America is denied.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: I would Like to put another question to you on the subject of the Commando Order. Did the Naval Operations Staff have any part in introducing this order?
WAGNER: No, no part at ale
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Did you, did the Naval Operations Staff have the possibility, either before or during the drafting of the order, of investigating the correctness of the particulars mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the order?
WAGNER: No, such a possibility did not exist.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: The treatment of a man who had attacked the Tirpitz with a two-man torpedo in October 1942 has just been discussed here. Did you know that a year later, in the autumn of 1943, there was a renewed attack on the Tirpitz with two-man torpedoes, and that the British sailors who were captured at that time were treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention by the Navy, who had captured them?
WAGNER: The second attack on the Tirpitz is known to me. I do not remember the treatment of the prisoners.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: You mentioned that the Naval Operations Staff possibly received reports on the statements made by men of Commando units. From what aspect did those reports interest the Naval Operations Staff? Did operational questions interest you, or the personal fate of these people?
WAGNER: Naturally we were interested in the tactical and operational problems so that we could gather experiences and draw our conclusions from them.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Can you actually remember seeing such a report?
WAGNER: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Just now a document was shown to you dealing with the treatment of a Commando unit captured in a Norwegian fiord. It is Number 526-PS. Do you still have that document?
WAGNER: Possibly, some documents are still lying here.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Will you have a look at that document. I am having the document handed to you. In the third paragraph you will find a reference to the fact that this Commando unit was carrying 1,000 kilograms of explosives. Is that correct?
WAGNER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZB0HLER: Did you understand my question?
WAGNER: I answered "yes."
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: I am sorry, I did not hear you. In the fifth paragraph you will find that the Commando unit had orders to carry out sabotage against strong joints, battery positions, troop barracks, and bridges, and to organize a system for the purpose of further sabotage. Is that correct?
WAGNER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Did these assignments have anything to do with the Navy?
WAGNER: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Can you see any indication in the whole document which would suggest that the Navy had anything at all to do with the capture or the treatment of this Commando unit?
WAGNER: No, the document does not contain an indication of that sort.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: You were asked this morning about the case of the Monte Corbea. In connection with a court-martial ruling against the commander, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Raeder, sent a wireless message at that time to all commanders. This radiogram is recorded in Document Doenitz-78 in the. document book, Volume 4, Page 230. I shall read that wireless message to you: "The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy has personally and expressly renewed his instructions that all U-boat commanders must adhere strictly to the orders regarding the treatment of neutral ships. Any infringement of these orders has 14 May, 46 incalculable political consequences. This order is to be communicated to all commanders immediately." Do you see any suggestion here that the order is restricted to Spanish ships?
WAGNER: No, there is no such suggestion in this order.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: I submit to you a document which was used yesterday, D-807. It deals with notes to the Norwegian Government on the sinking of several steamers and contains the drafts of these notes of the High Command of the Navy. Does this document yield any indication at all that the notes were actually sent, or is it impossible to tell from the drafts that the notes themselves were ever dispatched?
WAGNER: Since there are no initials or signatures on either of these letters, they may be drafts. At any rate, proof that they were actually sent is not apparent from this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the page number of it?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: It was submitted yesterday, Mr. President. It is not in any document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: I now read to you the first sentence from another document which was put to you yesterday. Its number is D-846 and it concerns a discussion with the German Minister to Denmark, Renthe-Fink, on 26 September 1939. I shall read the first sentence to you: "Sinking of Swedish and Finnish ships by our submarines have caused considerable concern here on account of the Danish food transports to Great Britain." Does this report give any indication that these sinkings took place without warning, or were these ships sunk because contraband was captured on them in the course of a legitimate search?
WAGNER: The sentence which you have just read does not show how these ships were sunk. As far as I remember the document from yesterday, it does not contain any reference to the way in which these ships were sunk, so that it must be assumed as a matter of course that they were sunk in accordance with the Prize Ordinance.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: You were asked yesterday whether you considered the German note to the neutral countries of 24 November 1939 a fair warning against entering certain waters and you answered the question in the affirmative. Is that right?
WAGNER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: And then you were asked whether had deceived the neutrals, and you answered that question with "no." Did this negative answer apply to the previous question on the warning against sailing in certain waters, or did it refer to all the political measures with regard to neutral states which the German Government took in order to conceal their own political intentions?
WAGNER: The answer in that context referred to the previous questions which had been asked about warning the neutrals promptly of the measures which we adopted for the war at sea.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: I want to make this point quite clear. Do you have any doubt whatever that the pretense of minefields in the operational zones around the British Coast served not only the purpose of deceiving the enemy defense, but also the political purpose of concealing from the neutrals the weapons which we employed in the war at sea?
WAGNER: Yes, I expressly confirm this two-fold purpose.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: The two-fold purpose of secrecy?
WAGNER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZB0HLER: Do you have any doubt whatever that the German Government denied to neutral governments that certain ships were sunk by U-boats, although they had in fact been sunk by U-boats?
WAGNER: Yes. Or rather, no. I have no doubt that the denials were formulated in that way, as a generally accepted political measure adopted wherever indicated.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Yesterday you admitted the possibility that Admiral Doenitz, as Commander-in-Chief of U-boats, may have received knowledge from the Naval Operations Staff of the handling of political incidents caused by U-boats. Can you, after careful recollection, name a single instance when he did in fact receive from the SKL information on the political measures adopted?
WAGNER: No, I do not remember such an instance.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: I have no further questions.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, you have explained the basis of the Commando Order, as far as the Naval Operations Staff is concerned, by referring to Hitler's definite assertions that he had in his possession enemy orders saying that prisoners were to be killed. In connection with this Commando Order Colonel Phillimore dealt with the case of the British sailor Evans in great detail. In my opinion that case has not so far been clarified. Colonel Phillimore spoke of the murder of a soldier. I think that in spite of the soundness of the documents the Prosecution is mistaken about the facts, also in a legal respect. Will you once more look at both documents, Document D-864... Mr. President, that is Exhibit GB-457, discussed by Colonel Phillimore this morning. This is an affidavit by Gerhard Flesch. The Prosecution quoted the sentence which states that the Commanding Admiral of the Northern Coast of Norway had interrogated Evans personally. Admiral Wagner, does that sentence show that Evans was a prisoner of the Navy?.
WAGNER: No.
DR. SIEMERS: What was the situation according to the Flesch affidavit? Will you please clarify it?
WAGNER: According to the second paragraph of that affidavit, Evans must have been in the hands of the SD.
DR. SIEMERS: That is right. And, Mr. President, may I add that at the beginning of the affidavit Flesch states that he was the commander of the Security Police. The Security Police had captured Evans; he was therefore a prisoner of the SD. [Turning to the witness.] Is it correct, therefore, that the British sailor Evans was available to the German admiral in Norway for the sole purpose of being interrogated?
WAGNER: Undoubtedly.
DR. SIEMERS: And the admiral was interested in interrogating him merely to obtain purely factual information on the attack on the Tirpitz. Is that correct?
WAGNER: Quite correct.
DR. SIEMERS: May I ask you to look at the next paragraph of the Affidavit D-864? There it mentions Evans' clothes, and says: "It is not known to me that Evans wore a uniform. As far as I can remember, he was wearing blue overalls." Does this mean that Evans was not recognizable as a soldier?
WAGNER: No, probably not.
DR. SIEMERS: Will you now pass on to the Document UK-57 submitted by Colonel Phillimore? Mr. President, this is Exhibit GB-164 and should be in the original Document Book Keitel, but I think it was newly submitted today. [Turning to the witness.] You have a photostat copy, have you not?
WAGNER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Will you, please, turn to the fourth page. First, a question: Is it possible that this document was known to the Naval Operations Staff? Does the document indicate that it was sent to the Naval Operations Staff?
WAGNER: These are informal conference notes of the OKW which were apparently not sent to the Naval Operations Staff.
DR. SIEMERS: If I understand it correctly then, this is a document of the Intelligence Service of the OKW, is it not?
WAGNER: Yes. That is correct.
DR. SIEMERS: Under Figure 2 it says "attempted attack on the battleship Tirpitz." The first part was read by Colonel Phillimore: "Three Englishmen and two Norwegians were held up at the Swedish frontier." Can one, on the strength of this, say that they were presumably apprehended by the Police and not by the Wehrmacht?
WAGNER: Presumably, yes. Certainly not by the Navy; but probably by the Police, who controlled the frontiers, so far as I know.
DR. SIEMERS: Do you not think, Admiral, that this is not only probable but certain if you think back to the affidavit of 14 November 1945 by Flesch, the commander of the Security Police, who brought Evans from the frontier to Oslo?
WAGNER: If you take the two together, then in my opinion it is certain; I do not think there is any doubt about it.
DR. SIEMERS: Will you then look at the following sentence? Mr. President, that is under Figure 2, the last sentence of the first paragraph. I quote: "It was possible to take only the civilian-clothed British sailor Robert Paul Evans"-born on such and such a date-"into arrest. The others escaped into Sweden." Therefore, I think we may assume with certainty that Evans was not recognizable as a soldier.
WAGNER: Yes, no doubt.
DR. SIEMERS: Then, will you look at the following sentence. There it says-I quote: "Evans had a pistol holster used for carrying weapons under the arm-pit, and he had a knuckle duster."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it says nothing about civilian clothes in the English copy. I do not want to make a bad point, but it is not in my copy.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I do not have the document before me. SIR DAVID MAXW1;LL-FYFE: My Lord, the English copy that I have simply has, "However, only the British seaman, Robert Paul Evans, born 14 January 1922, at London, could be arrested. The others escaped into Sweden." My Lord, I think it can be checked afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT: Exact reference to the document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that was Document UK-57, and it is a report of the OKW, Office for Ausland Abwehr, of 4 January 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Did Colonel Phillimore put it in this morning?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I put it in, My Lord, I think it was-certainly in cross-examining the Defendant Keitel. It has been in before, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, it has already been put in with this lot.
DR. SIEMERS: I should be grateful to the Tribunal if the mistake were rectified in the English translation. In the German original text the photostat copy is included, therefore the wording "civilian-clothed" must be correct. Witness, we were discussing the sentence-I quote: "Evans had a pistol holster used for carrying weapons under the arm-pit, and he had a knuckle duster." How does this bear on the fact that he was wearing civilian clothes?
WAGNER: It shows that he...
DR. SIEMERS: Sir David would like me to read the next sentence too: "Acts of force contrary to international law could not be proved against him. Evans made detailed statements regarding the action and, on 19 January 1943, in accordance with the Fuehrer Order, he was shot." How does this bear on the fact that he was wearing civilian clothes? Does this show that he did not act as a soldier in enemy territory should act?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. The Tribunal considers that that is a question of law which the Tribunal has got to decide, and not a question for the witness.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I shall forego the answer. May I ask you to turn to the next page of the document and to come back to the Bordeaux case, a similar case which has already been discussed. You have already explained the Bordeaux case insofar as you said that the Naval Operations Staff was not informed about it. I now draw your attention to the sentence at the bottom of Page 3: "After carrying out the explosions, they sank the boats and tried, with the help of the French civilian population, to escape into Spain." Thus did the men concerned in this operation also not act like soldiers?
WAGNER: That, according to this document, is perfectly clear.
DR. SIEMERS: Thank you. And now one last question. At the end of his examination Colonel Phillimore asked you whether you considered Grossadmiral Raeder and Grossadmiral Doenitz guilty in the cases which have just been discussed, guilty of these murders as he termed them? Now that I have further clarified these cases I should like you to answer the question again.
WAGNER: I consider that both admirals are not guilty in these two cases.
DR. SIEMERS: I have no further questions.
DR. LATERNSER: Admiral, during cross-examination you explained your views on the Commando Order. I wanted to ask you: Were your views possibly based on the assumption that the order was examined by a superior authority as to its justification before international law?
WAGNER: Yes. I assumed that the justification for the order was examined by my superiors.
DR. LATERNSER: Furthermore, during cross-examination you stated your conception of what happened when a man was handed over to the SD. I wanted to ask you: Did you have this conception already at that time, or has it taken form now that a great deal of material has become known to you?
WAGNER: There is no question that this conception was considerably influenced by knowledge of a great deal of material.
DR. LATERNSER: You did not, therefore, at that time have the definite conception that the handing over of a man to the SD meant certain death?
WAGNER: No, I did not have that conception.
DR. LATERNSER: Now, a few questions regarding the equipment of the Commando units. Do you not know that automatic arms were found on some members of these units and that, in particular, pistols were carried in such a manner that if, in the event of capture, the man raised his arms, that movement would automatically cause a shot to be fired which would hit the person standing opposite the man with raised arms? Do you know anything about that?
WAGNER: I have heard of it.
DR. LATERNSER: Did you not see pictures of it?
WAGNER: At the moment I cannot remember seeing such pictures.
DR. LATERNSER: Did the Germans also undertake sabotage operations in enemy countries?
THE PRESIDENT: What has it got to do with that, Dr. Laternser?
DR. LATERNSER: I wanted to ascertain by means of this question whether the witness had knowledge of German sabotage operations, and furthermore, whether he had received reports about the treatment of such sabotage units.