dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HESSLER: No, on the contrary, he was annoyed because the crew of the aircraft had not been brought along by the U-boat.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Did any other person or persons on the staff put forward the view I have just expressed?
HESSLER: No, we knew every one on the staff, and it is out of the question that any member of the staff held a different opinion.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Korvettenkapitan Mohle testified that he asked Korvettenkapitan Kuppisch, who was a member of your staff, for an explanation of the Laconia order and that Kuppisch told him about the incident of the U-386; and told it in such a way as to make it appear that Commander, U-boats, ordered the shooting of survivors.
HESSLER: That is impossible.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Why?
HESSLER: Because Kuppisch took his U-boat out to sea in July 1943 and never returned from that cruise. The incident of U-386 happened in the autumn of 1943, which was later.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Korvettenkapitan Mohle in his first statement left the possibility open that this story about U-386 might have come from you. Did you discuss this matter with him?
HESSLER: No.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Are you certain of that?
HESSLER: Absolutely certain.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Did you hear of the interpretation given by Korvettenkapitan Mohle to this Laconia order?
HESSLER: After the capitulation-that is, after the end of the war and then through a British officer.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: How do you explain the fact that of the very few officers who received these instructions from Mohle, none raised the question of the interpretation of this order with Commander, U-boats?
HESSLER: I have only one explanation of this; and that is that these officers thought Korvettenkapitan Mohle's interpretation completely impossible, and not in agreement with the interpretation of Commander, U-boats.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Therefore, they did not think that clarification was necessary?
HESSLER: They did not think that clarification was necessary.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: The Prosecution's charges against Admiral Doenitz are based to a great extent on extracts from the War Diary of the SKL and Commander, U-boats, documents which are in the possession of the British Admiralty. How is it possible that all these data fell into the hands of the British Admiralty-and in toto?
HESSLER: It was the Admiral's desire that the war diaries of the U-boats and of Commander, U-boats, which formed part of the Navy archives, should be preserved and not be destroyed.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Did he say anything to you about this?
HESSLER: Yes, in that form, when I told him that our own staff data had been completely destroyed.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Did he give any reason as to why he did not want the Navy archives destroyed?
HESSLER: He wanted to keep these data unto after the war, and the Naval Operations Staff had nothing to conceal.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Is that your opinion or is that the opinion which Admiral Doenitz expressed to you?'
HESSLER: He told me, "We have a clear conscience."
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Immediately after the capitulation you were repeatedly interrogated on questions of U-boat warfare and you asked the senior officer present whether the German U-boat command would be accused by the British Navy of criminal acts. Is that right?
HESSLER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: And what answer did you receive?
HESSLER: An unhesitating "No."
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZB0HLER: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any defendant's counsel wish to ask any questions? [There was no response.] The Prosecution?
COL. PHILLIMORE: With the Tribunal's permission I would not propose to cross-examine and ask leave to adapt my cross-examination of the last witness because it is the same ground substantially.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Does any other Prosecutor wish to cross-examine? Yes, Dr. Kranzbuehler?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: I have no further questions to ask the witness, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: In the interrogation of the Defendant Doenitz he said that Godt and Hessler-that is you, is it not. . . ?
HESSLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: . . . told him, "Don't send that signal. You see, one day it might appear in the wrong; it might be misinterpreted." Did you say that?
HESSLER: I do not remember. As consulting officers, we often had to oppose orders which were being drafted, and we were entitled to do so; but I do not remember whether Admiral Godt and I did so in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Then later in this interrogation the Defendant Doenitz said: "I am completely and personally responsible for it"-that is that order-"because Captains Godt and Hessler both expressly stated that they considered the telegram as ambiguous or liable to be misinterpreted." Did you say that this telegram was ambiguous or liable to be misinterpreted?
HESSLER: I do not remember that point. I do not think I thought the telegram was ambiguous.
THE PRESIDENT: And lastly the Defendant Doenitz said this: "I would like to emphasize once more that both Captain Godt and Captain Hessler were violently opposed to the sending of the telegram." Do you say that you were not violently opposed to the sending of the telegram?
HESSLER: It is possible that we opposed the dispatch of the telegram because we did not consider it necessary to refer to the matter again.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say anything to the Defendant Doenitz about this telegram at all?
HESSLER: At the drafting of the telegram we talked it over, just as we discussed every wireless message drafted by us. As time went on, we drafted many hundreds of wireless messages so that it is impossible to remember just what was said in each case.
THE PRESIDENT: You began your answer to that question: "At the drafting of this telegram..." Do you remember what happened at the drafting of this telegram?
HESSLER: I can remember only that in the course of the socalled Laconic incident a great many wireless messages were sent and received; that many wireless messages were drafted; and that, in addition, U-boat operations were going on in the Atlantic, so that I cannot recall details of what happened when the message was drafted.
THE PRESIDENT: You said now that it was possible that you and Admiral Godt were opposed to the sending of this telegram. Is that your answer?
HESSLER: It is possible, but I cannot say.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Kranzbuehler, the witness can retire. 1The witness left the stand.]
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, this morning I had already advised the Prosecution that I shall not call the fourth witness scheduled-that is Admiral Eckardt. Therefore, my examination of witnesses has been concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: And that concludes your case for the present?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: That concludes my case, but with the permission of the Tribunal I would like to clarify one more question which deals with documents. The Tribunal has refused all documents which refer to contraband, control ports, and the "Navicert" system. These questions are of some importance if I am to give a correct exposition later on. May I interpret the Tribunal's decision as saying that these documents are not to be used now as evidence but that I may have permission to use them later on in my legal exposition?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Tribunal thinks that is a question which may be reserved until the time comes for you to make your speech.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Thank you, Mr. President. Then I have concluded my case.
THE PRESIDENT: We win adjourn now. [The Tribunal adjourned until 15 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
EMIL PUHL (Witness): Emil Johann Rudolf Puhl.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this 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 witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SAUTER: Witness Puhl, you were formerly Vice President of the Reichsbank?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: If I am correctly informed, you were a member of the Directorate of the Reichsbank already at the time of Dr. Schacht
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: When Dr. Schacht left, you were one of the few gentlemen who remained in the Reichsbank?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: You were then named by Hitler, on the suggestion of the Defendant Funk, to be Managing Vice President of the Reichsbank?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: When was that?
PUHL: During the year 1939.
DR. SAUTER: During the year 1939. You have said that you were Managing Vice President, and I presume this was due to the fact that banking was not the special field of the Defendant Funk while you were a banking expert, and that Funk in addition had charge of the Reich Ministry of Economics. Is that correct?
PUHL: Yes, but there was another reason, namely, the division of authority between official business on one side, and the handling of personnel on the other.
DR. SAUTER: The actual conduct of business was apparently your responsibility?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Hence, the title Managing Vice President?
PUHL: Yes. May I make a few comments on this?
DR. SAUTER: Only if it is necessary in the interests of the case. PUHL: Yes. The business of the Directorate of the Reichsbank was divided among a number of members of the Directorate. Every member had full responsibility for his own sphere. The Vice President was the primes inter pares, his main task was to act as chairman at meetings to represent the President in the outside world and to deal with problems of general economic and banking policy.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Defendant Funk referred to you as a witness as early as December. You know that, don't you? And accordingly, you were interrogated at the camp where you are now accommodated, I believe in Baden-Baden. . .
PUHL: Near Baden-Baden.
DR. SAUTER: . . . interrogated on 1 May?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Two days later you were again interrogated?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: On 3 May?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know why the matters on which you were questioned on 3 May were not dealt with during the interrogation on 1 May?
PUHL: I have before me the affidavit dated 3 May.
DR. SAUTER: 3 May. That deals with these business affairs with the SS.
PUHL: Yes. But I was questioned on this subject already on 1 May, only very briefly, and on 3 May there was a second interrogation for the purpose of discussing it in more detail.
DR. SAUTER: Did you not mention these business affairs of the Reichsbank with the SS during your interrogation on 1 May?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Did you mention them?
PUHL: A short statement was made.
DR. SAUTER: During the interrogation of 1 May?
PUHL: Yes. At any rate, the statement on 3 May made during the interrogation was only a more detailed record of what had already been briefly discussed before.
DR. SAUTER: I have the record of your interrogation on 1 May before me; I read through it again today. But as far as I can see, it contains no mention at ad of business affairs with the SS. You must be speaking now of another interrogation?
PUHL: Yes.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I think perhaps I can be helpful in this apparent confusion. The interrogatory which was authorized by the Tribunal was taken on 1 May, but on that same day, and independent of these interrogatories, a member of our staff also interviewed this witness. But it was a separate interview. It wasn't related to the interrogatory, and I think that is the source of the confusion.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Were you interrogated twice about these transactions with the SS?
PUHL: Yes, twice during the days around 1 May; that is correct. DR. SAUTER: Do you still remember the affidavit which you signed on 3 May?
PUHL: On 3 May, yes.
DR. SAUTER: It is the affidavit which deals with these transactions with the SS. Are your statements in this affidavit correct?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, have you been interrogated on these matters again since that time, since 3 May?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: When?
PUHL: Here in Nuremberg.
DR. SAUTER: When were you interrogated?
PUHL: During the last few days.
DR. SAUTER: I see. Today is Wednesday, when was it?
PUHL: Friday, Monday, Tuesday.
DR. SAUTER: Yesterday?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: On this matter?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Was a film also shown to you here?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Once or twice?
PUHL: Once.
DR. SAUTER: Had you seen this film before?
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: Did you recognize clearly what was presented in the film?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: I ask because, as you know, the film runs very quickly and is very short; the Prosecution showed it twice in the courtroom so that one might follow it fairly well. Did one showing suffice to make clear to you what the film contained?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Then will you tell me what you saw in it, only what you saw in the film, or what you think you saw.
PUHL: Yes. The film was taken in front of the safes of our bank at Frankfurt-on-Main, the usual safes with glass doors, behind which one could see the locked cases and containers, which had apparently been deposited there. It was the usual picture presented by such strong rooms. In front of these safes were several containers which had been opened so that their contents could be seen-coins, jewelry, pearls, bank-notes, clocks.
DR. SAUTER: What sort of clocks?
PUHL: Large alarm clocks.
DR. SAUTER: Nothing else? Didn't you see anything else in the film?
PUHL: Apart from these objects?
DR. SAUTER: Apart from these, shall we say, valuables, didn't you see anything else that is alleged to have been kept there?
PUHL: No, no.
DR. SAUTER: Only these valuables? Please go on.
PUHL: I noticed that among these valuables there were coins, apparently silver coins, and also bank-notes, obviously American bank-notes.
DR. SAUTER: Correct.
PUHL: It was astonishing that these things were given to us for safe-keeping, because if they had come to the knowledge of our officials, then no doubt...
DR. SAUTER: Speak slowly, please.
PUHL: . . . no doubt the bank notes would have been immediately turned over to the foreign exchange department, since, as is known, a general order existed for the turning in of foreign bank notes which particularly were much in demand. Something similar applies to the coins. These, too, ought to have been transferred to the treasury in accordance with the regulations and routine of business, that is to say, they should have been purchased for the accounts of the Reich.
DR. SAUTER: That is what you noticed in the film?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And nothing else?
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, valuable articles entrusted to the Reichsbank for safekeeping were supposed to have been kept in the Reichsbank in that way. Now I have been asking myself whether your Reichsbank really stored the valuables entrusted to it in the manner apparent from the film and I therefore want to ask this question of you: Do you as Managing Vice President of the Reichsbank know how valuables which were handed over for safekeeping in the strong-rooms were kept, for instance, in Berlin or in Frankfurt, where this film was taken?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Please tell the Court.
PUHL: The outer appearance of the safe installations in Berlin was somewhat similar to that in Frankfurt, and probably similar to any other large bank. These things were known to us as "closed deposits," a banking term, and were kept, as the name indicates, in closed containers. Space for these was provided by us and paid for by the depositors, according to the size in each case.
DR. SAUTER: Were these things kept-for instance, in Berlin or in Frankfurt-exactly as shown in the film?
PUHL: Well, I had the impression that the things of which we are now talking had been put there expressly for the purpose of taking the film.
DR. SAUTER: For the film. Do you recollect seeing a sack, which I think was shown in the film, with the label "Reichsbank Frankfurt?"
PUHL: Yes, I saw a sack labeled "Reichsbank;" I cannot say whether "Reichsbank Frankfurt."
DR. SAUTER: As far as I know, it had "Reichsbank Frankfurt" on it. For that reason we assumed that the film was taken at Frankfurt, and the Prosecution confirmed that.
MR. DODD: I don't like to interrupt but I think we should be careful about this statement. There have been two mistakes of some slight importance already. We didn't show the film twice before this Tribunal and that bag doesn't bear the legend "Frankfurt." It simply says "Reichsbank." And it was the Schacht film that was shown twice here, because it moved rather quickly.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, will you continue with your reply to the question. I can put it in this way: Did the Reichsbank keep gold articles and the like in such sacks?
PUHL: If I understand you correctly, you are asking this: When valuables were deposited with us, were they deposited in open sacks? Is that correct?
DR. SAUTER: I do not know what procedure you had.
PUHL: We at any rate had closed deposits, as the name implies. Of course, it may be a sack which is closed; that is quite possible.
DR. SAUTER: So far as I saw in banks at Munich, the things which were deposited there in increased measure during the war were without exception deposited in closed boxes or cases and the like, so that generally the bank did not know at all what was contained in the cases or boxes. Did you in the Reichsbank follow a different procedure?
PUHL: No, it was exactly the same. And the noticeable thing about this sack, as has been said, is the label "Reichsbank." Obviously it is a sack belonging to us and not to any private person.
DR. SAUTER: Then you too, if I may repeat this to avoid any doubt, you too kept in a closed container the valuables, which had been deposited as "closed deposits."
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Or they went to the strongboxes?
PUHL: The word "deposits" might be misleading. The closed containers went to the strong-room. The strong-room consisted of strongboxes where these cases or containers were deposited. Quite independent of that arrangement, we had the "open deposits." Open deposits are those which by initial agreement are administered openly. The strong-rooms for these were located in quite a different part of the building from the so-called main strong-room.
DR. SAUTER: But presumably, we are not concerned here with these open deposits?
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: Now, Witness, I come to the deposits of the SS. These deposits were not in Frankfurt but presumably in Berlin in the central bank.
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Now, will you give details about the discussions which the Defendant Funk had with you regarding the SS deposits. And may I ask you to consider your replies and search your memory very carefully before answering my questions. Naturally I shall allow you time. First of all, what did you and the Defendant Funk discuss when you talked about these deposits of the SS for the first time?
PUHL: I refer here to my affidavit of 3 May. I had a very simple talk with Herr Funk. It turned on the request of the SS to make use of our bank installations by depositing valuables for which, it was said, there was not sufficient protection in the cellars of the SS building. Perhaps, for the sake of completeness, I may add that "SS," in this connection, always means the Economic Department of the SS.
DR. SAUTER: What did the Defendant Funk speak of at the time? Did he specify exactly what should be accepted for safekeeping?
PUHL: He mentioned valuables which the SS had brought from the Eastern Territories, which were then in their cellars and which, above all, they requested us to keep in safety.
DR. SAUTER: But did the Defendant Funk tell you in detail what these valuables were?
PUHL: No, not in detail, but he said that in general they were gold, foreign currency, silver, and jewelry.
DR. SAUTER: Gold, foreign currency, silver, jewelry. . .
PUHL: To which I may add that gold and foreign currency had of course to be surrendered to the Reichsbank at any rate.
DR. SAUTER: Gold, foreign currency, silver and jewelry?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And that was supposed to have been confiscated in the Eastern Territories?
PUHL: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Did the Defendant Funk tell you at the time why these confiscations had been made, or who had been affected by them?
PUHL: No, that was not stated; the talk, as I have said, was brief.
DR. SAUTER: And what was your reply?
PUHL: I said that this sort of business with the SS would at least be inconvenient for us, and I voiced objections to it. I may add that we, as the Reichsbank, were always very cautious in these matters, for example, when valuables were offered us by foreign exchange control offices, customs offices, and the like.
DR. SAUTER: What was the actual reason for your objections in the case of the SS?
PUHL: Because one could not know what inconvenient consequences a business connection of this sort might produce.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, that answer does not satisfy me. Did you or the Defendant Funk not wish to have anything to do with the SS at all, or was there some other reason for your objections?
PUHL: The first 'part of your question I answer with "no." There was no objection on principle, nor could there be; for, after all, every German organization or institution had the legal right to enjoy the services of the Reichsbank. The circumstances arising out of these confiscations were uncomfortable, like the confiscations of the foreign exchange control offices, et cetera, which I mentioned, because one never knew what difficulties might result.
DR. SAUTER: So that, if I understand you well-please correct me if I interpret it wrongly-you voiced objections because these business affairs were somewhat uncomfortable for the Reichsbank, they fell outside the normal scope of business, and were as little welcome to you as, for instance, deposits of the customs authorities or the foreign exchange control offices, and so forth? Only for this reason?
PUHL: Yes. But I have to add something; we were asked whether we would assist the SS in handling these deposits. It was immediately clear, of course, and also expressly stated, that these deposits included foreign currency, and also securities and all sorts of gold coins, et cetera, and that the SS people did not quite know how to deal with these things.
DR. SAUTER: Did these things arrive subsequently?
PUHL: Yes. But something else happened before that. After this conversation the head of the Economic Department of the SS, whose name was Pohl, Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, contacted me. I asked him to come to my office, and there he repeated, what I already knew, namely that he would welcome it if we would take over these valuables as soon as possible.
DR. SAUTER: What was your answer?
PUHL: I confirmed what we had arranged and said, "If you will designate officials from your department, I shall inform our department, and together they can discuss the technical details."