dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
GEN. RUDENKO: You did not know about it. Very well. Tell me, in the German totalitarian state was there not a governing center, which meant Hitler and his immediate entourage, in which you acted as deputy? These directives must have concerned Keitel and Himmler also. Could Himmler of his own volition have issued directives for the extermination of 30 million Slavs without being empowered by Hitler or by you? Goering: Himmler gave no order for the extermination of 30 million Slavs. The witness said that he made a speech in which he said that 30 million Slavs must be exterminated. Had Himmler issued such an order de facto, if he kept to regulations, he would have had to ask the Fuehrer -- not me, but the Fuehrer -- and the latter would probably have told him at once that it was impossible.
GEN. RUDENKO: I did not say it was an order; I said it was a directive from Himmler. You therefore admit, or you state rather, that Himmler could have issued instructions without discussing them with Hitler? Goering: I emphasize that such instructions could not have been given by Himmler, and I know of no instructions; also no directive has been mentioned here.
GEN. RUDENKO: I shall repeat the question once more: Is it not true that the directives and the orders of the OKW with regard to the treatment of the civilian population and prisoners of war in the occupied Soviet territories were part of the general directives for the extermination of the Slavs? That is what I want to know. Goering: Not at all. At no time has there been a directive from the Fuehrer, or anybody I know of, concerning the extermination of the Slavs.
GEN. RUDENKO: You must have known about the mass extermination of the Soviet citizens from the occupied territories of the Soviet Union with the help of the SD and the Security Police. Is it not true that the Einsatz Kommandos and their activities were the result of the plan prepared in advance for the extermination of Jews and other groups of Soviet citizens? Goering: No. Einsatz Kommandos were an internal organ which was kept very secret.
GEN. RUDENKO: I shall have several other questions. Perhaps it is better to adjourn now.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think it will take, General Rudenko?
GEN. RUDENKO: I think not more than another hour.
THE PRESIDENT: All these documents which you have been putting to the witness, as I have pointed out to you, are documents which have already been put in evidence and documents which seem to me to speak for themselves. I hope, therefore, that you will make your cross-examination as short as you can. The Tribunal will now adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 22 March 1946 at 1000 hours.]
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, yesterday I received the translation of Document D-728. It is the document which was objected to yesterday as being incorrect.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: I request to have this retranslated, since this translation is considerably different from the original wording and, in particular, fails to make clear where the mistakes are which led to the objection against the document. On the first page of that document there are about 20 to 30 objections to be made. The translator, since he could not realize the importance of the document, translated it quickly without emphasizing the decisive points. A careful translation ought to be made, which would enable us to get an idea of the original document. I am fully aware of what the difficulties are.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, the translation shall be checked by a different translator, or, if you like, by two different translators.
DR. SERVATIUS: May I ask to have a new translation made for comparison, since the version which we have here is also evidence of the fact that the original already contains considerable mistakes.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, it shall be checked and retranslated.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then, I request further that the opinion of an expert on the German language be obtained. This opinion will ascertain that the author of this document does not have full control of the German language and that it must have been drawn up by someone who was a foreigner. I do not want to give detailed reasons, but I would like to make this motion in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you must certainly make a written application about that.
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall submit it in writing.
GEN. RUDENKO: Defendant Goering, in your statement you said that the attack on Poland was perpetrated after the bloody happenings in the town of Bromberg. Goering : I said that the date for the attack was set due to the bloody events which included, in addition to many other incidents, also the Bloody Sunday at Bromberg.
GEN. RUDENKO: Do you know that these events happened on 3 September 1939? Goering: I might have made a mistake regarding the date of Bromberg; I would have to see the documents about that. I merely quoted that as one example among a lot of others.
GEN. RUDENKO: It is understandable. The attack was perpetrated on 1 September, and the events in the town of Bromberg, which you just mentioned to the Tribunal, happened on 3 September 1939. I submit to the Tribunal the document evidence issued by the High Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, which is duly certified in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter. From this testimony it is clear that the events about which the Defendant Goering is testifying here happened on 3 September 1939, that is to say, on the third day after the attack by Germany on Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: You can put the document to the witness, if you want.
GEN. RUDENKO: I have no German text. I have it in English and in Russian. I just received this document. It is dated 19 March, and I will submit it to the Tribunal as conclusive evidence to prove this fact.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think this is the appropriate time to put in documents in that way. Very well, you can put in the document now if you like.
GEN. RUDENKO: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: It must be translated into German, of course.
GEN. RUDENKO: I have no German translation of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: It has to be translated into German in order that defendant's counsel may see it.
GEN. RUDENKO: We will do that without fail.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I ask to have the document read now? It is only a short memorandum; so we can hear immediately what it contains.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Will you read it into the record, General Rudenko?
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, Sir. It is very short: I should like to prove by this document that the events regarding which the Defendant Goering gave testimony happened after the attack by Germany on Poland. Goering: I am not sure whether we are both referring to the same event.
GEN.RUDENKO: I am speaking about the events in the town of Bromberg. You spoke about them. Goering: Perhaps two different events took place in Bromberg.
GEN.RUDENKO: It is quite possible. I pass on to the following question: It is known to you that there was an order by the OKW regarding the branding of Soviet prisoners of war, and what do you think about that? Goering: That order is not known to me, and no representative of the Air Force was present at this preliminary discussion as I have ascertained here from the records.
GEN. RUDENKO: I am interested as to whether you knew about this or not. The orders are quite clear. Goering: No.
GEN. RUDENKO: Do you know that the German High Command ordered that Soviet war prisoners and Soviet citizens had to be used for clearing mine fields and transporting bombs that had not exploded, et cetera ? Do you know about that? Goering: I know that Russian prisoners of war who were engineers had to clear the mines which they had laid. To what extent the civilian population was employed for that purpose I do not know, but it was possible.
GEN.RUDENKO: It is quite clear. Do you know about an order regarding the destruction of the towns of Leningrad, Moscow, and other towns of the Soviet Union? Goering: In my presence the destruction of Leningrad was discussed only in the document which was mentioned yesterday, in the sense that the Finns, in case of the capture of Leningrad, would have no use for such a big city. Of the destruction of Moscow I know nothing at all.
GEN. RUDENKO: Do you remember the minutes of the meeting? This document was presented to you yesterday -- the minutes of the meeting of 16 July 1941. You were present at this meeting. They state that the Fuehrer declared ...
GORIMG: I have just mentioned and confirmed that.
GEN. RUDENKO: Did you speak about this same document? But, besides this statement, there were also official orders. Goering: Would you be good enough to put them before me, then I would be able to ascertain whether they are correct and whether they were known to me.
GEN. RUDENKO: I have no intention of submitting these documents to you. They have already been submitted to the Tribunal. I am interested only as to whether you were aware of these orders. Goering: I received no order to destroy Leningrad or Moscow in the sense which you have indicated.
GEN. RUDENKO: All right. You were told only about the important happenings. But orders for the destruction of cities, and murder of millions of men, et cetera , went through so-called service channels. Goering: If a town was to have been destroyed by bombing, then that order would have been given by me directly.
GEN. RUDENKO: On 8 March, here in the Tribunal, your witness Bodenschatz stated that you told him in March 1945 that many Jews were killed and that for that you will have to pay dearly. Do you remember this testimony of your witness? Goering: This testimony, in the form in which it was translated now, I do not recollect at all. The witness Bodenschatz never said it that way. I ask that the record of the session be brought in.
GEN. RUDENKO: How did Bodenschatz say that? Do you remember? Goering: That if we lost the war we would have to pay dearly.
GEN. RUDENKO: Why? For the murders which you had perpetrated? Goering: No, quite generally, and after all, we have experienced just that.
GEN. RUDENKO: Quite generally. I have a few concluding questions to put to you. First of all, regarding the so-called theory of the master race. I should like to put to you only one question in this connection and I should like you to reply directly to it. Were you in accord with this principle of the master race and education of the German people in the spirit of it, or were you not in accord with it? Goering: No, and I have also stated that I have never used that expression either in writing or orally. I definitely acknowledge the differences between races.
GEN. RUDENKO: But do I understand you correctly that you are not in accord with this theory? Goering: I have never expressed my agreement with the theory that one race should be considered as a master race, superior to the others, but I have emphasized the difference between races.
GEN. RUDENKO: You can answer this question; it seems, you do not consider it right? Goering: I personally do not consider it right.
GEN. RUDENKO: The next question: You have stated here to the Tribunal that you did not agree with Hitler regarding the question of the annexation of Czechoslovakia, the Jewish question, the question of war with the Soviet Union, the value of the theory of the master race, and the question of the shooting of the British airmen who were prisoners of war. How would you explain that, having such serious differences, you still thought it possible to collaborate with Hitler and to carry out his policy? Goering: That was not the way I worded my answers. Here, too, we must consider separately various periods of time. As to the attack against Russia, there were no basic differences but differences as to the date.
GEN. RUDENKO: You have told that already. Excuse me; I do not want you to be lengthy on this theme. Will you reply directly? Goering: All right. I may have a different opinion from that of my Supreme Commander, and I may also express my opinion clearly. If the Supreme Commander insists on his opinion and I have sworn allegiance to him, then the discussion comes to an end, just as it is the case elsewhere. I do not think I need to elaborate on that.
GEN. RUDENKO: You are not just a simple soldier, as you stated here; but you have presented yourself also as a statesman? Goering: There you are right. I am not only a simple soldier, and just because I am not a simple soldier but occupied such a prominent position, I had to set an example for the ordinary soldier by my own attitude as to how the oath of allegiance should be adhered to strictly.
GEN. RUDENKO: In other words, you thought it possible, even with the presence of these differences, to collaborate wilth Hitler? Goering: I have emphasized it and I maintain that it is true. My oath does not hold good only in good times but also in bad times, although the Fuehrer never threatened me and never told me that he was afraid for my health.
GEN. RUDENKO: If you thought it possible to co-operate with Hitler, do you recognize that, as the second man in Germany, you are responsible for the organizing on a national scale of murders of millions of innocent people, independently of whether you knew about those facts or not? Tell me briefly, "yes" or "no." Goering: No, because I did not know anything about them and did not cause them.
GEN. RUDENKO: I should like to underline again, "whether you were informed of these facts or not." Goering: If I actually do not know them, then I cannot be held responsible for them.
GEN. RUDENKO: It was your duty to know about these facts. Goering: I shall go into that.
GEN. RUDENKO: I am questioning you. Reply to this question: Was it your duty to know about these facts? Goering: In what way my duty? Either I know the fact or I do not know it. You can ask me only whether I was negligent in failing to obtain knowledge.
GEN. RUDENKO: You ought to know yourself better. Millions of Germans knew about the crimes which were being perpetrated, and you did not know about them? Goering: Neither did millions of Germans know about them. That is a statement which has in no way been proved.
GEN. RUDENKO: The last two questions: You stated to the Tribunal that Hitler's Government brought great prosperity to Germany. Are you still sure that that is so? Goering: Definitely until the beginning of the war. The collapse was due only to the war's being lost.
GEN. RUDENKO: As a consequence of which, you brought Germany, as a result of your politics, to military and political destruction. I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Chief Prosecutor for France wish to cross-examine?
M. AUGUSTE CHAMPETIER DE RIBES (Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): I ask the Tribunal for permission to make one very short statement to fulfill the desire expressed by the Tribunal and to abbreviate as much as possible the discussions at this Trial. The French Prosecution has come to an agreement with Mr. Justice Jackson and with Sir David that the questions put to the Defendant Goering as a witness should be only those which are considered pertinent. The questions have been asked and we have heard the answers of the defendant, as far as it was possible to obtain from him, anything except propaganda speeches. I think the Defense will not be able to complain that its freedom has been curtailed. It has been able to use its freedom abundantly, in the past 12 sessions without having been able in any way to weaken the Prosecution's overwhelming accusations, without having been noticeably able to convince anyone that the second man in the German Reich was in no way responsible for launching the war or that he knew nothing of the atrocities committed by the men whom he was so proud to command.
THE PRESIDENT: You will no doubt have the opportunity later to comment, but the question that I ask you now is whether you wish to ask the witness definite questions.
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: Mr. President, I have finished; I have said all that I wanted to say, that is to say, after all these long discussions, the French Prosecution feels that nothing has been changed in the crushing accusation which we brought forth. Consequently, I have no further questions toask the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: The British Prosecution has stated that you issued direct orders to the Hermann Goering Division during its employment in Italy referring to the fight against the partisans. Is, that statement correct? Goering: No. The Hermann Goering Division was a ground division and was part of the operational task force of an army and army group. Consequently, it could never have received orders for its tactical employment from me, from Berlin or from my headquarters, which were not on the scene. Therefore I could not have given it any orders as to whether and how it was to be employed in the partisan war. Only such orders are in question as referred exclusively to matters of personnel and ecfuipment or which concerned the internal administration of justice with regard to officers; nor did the division submit to me daily reports but only ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELIFYFE: I did not catch that. I am sorry, My Lord, I should have spoken earlier. I gather that these questions are directed to the Hermann Goering Division. The defendant never dealt with that point when he was being examined in chief; and, therefore, I never dealt with it in cross-examination, because the point had not been raised. It is therefore my submission that it is quite inadmissible for the matter to be raised in re-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You must remember, Sir David, that the practice in foreign countries is not the same as the practice in the United States and in England; and although it is perfectly true that Dr. Stahmer, according to the rules of England at any rate, would not be able to raise this point in re-examination, we are directed by the Charter not to deal technically with any question of evidence. It may be you would have to ask him some questions thereafter in cross-examination, although I hope that will not be necessary, in view of the evidence of the witness Kesselring.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I considered that point, but I wanted only to make it clear that the Prosecution has not dealt at all, because it had not been raised previously with this point.
THE PRESIDENT: No; either in the examination or in the crossexamination.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Or in the cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I had already noticed the point that the question had not been raised in the evidence of Hermann Goering.
DR. STAHMER: May I, in explanation, assert that I received the document only yesterday and consequently could not take any attitude earlier toward this question, which has been dealt with already by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: But, if my recollection is correct, the witness, Field Marshal Kesselring, raised this very point himself, and therefore the point was obvious and could have been raised in examination in chief, in which case it would have been dealt with by the Defendant Goering. It does not depend upon any particular document; it depends upon the evidence of the Field Marshal Kesselring, who said that he was bypassed -- I think the word as it was translated was that he was bypassed between the Hermann Goering Division and the Defendant Goering, although the Hermann Goering 22 March Division was under his command. So it has nothing to do with any document.
DR. STAHMER: May the witness continue, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Goering: The division was under my command only as far a personnel, commissioning of officers, and equipment was concerned but not as to its employment. I did not receive reports daily, but at intervals, regarding events, losses, replacements. That, on the whole, was all the connection I had with that division. I could not give any orders for its employment, since it was under the command of parts of the Army.
DR. STAHMER: Did you receive a report regarding the event at Civitella? Goering: No, I did not receive that report. I have learned of it for the first time here from the affidavit of an Army general who was in command of that division and who, was also responsible for these matters, and who apparently is trying now to shift that responsibility to the division and, because of the name of the division, on to me.
DR. STAHMER: Your relation to Hitler and your influence upon him has again been touched upon during cross-examination. Will you please summarize the facts briefly by particular periods, which are necessary to form an opinion on that relation? Goering: Already during the cross-examination I have pointed out that a very long period is involved here. In 1923, when I was an SA leader, my relation was normal. Then there is a long interval -- 1931 ...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal: It seems to me in the interests of time highly objectionable to allow th witness now to summarize. He was given the advantage of answering any questions he wanted as he went along. It seems to me that when he has covered a subject at least once -- and as a matter of fact he covered this one four or five times in an address at nearly every question that would permit -- that that at least should bring us to the end of that subject. It was exhausted. The matter of time here is a grave matter. By our calculation -- a careful calculation -- of the witnesses which have been allowed, this Trial will now project into August. It does not seem that we should allow him to play this game both ways, to make his speeches during the cross-examination and then to sum them up again afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal has allowed you to ask questions which, strictly speaking, are not admissible in re-examination and I want to make it clear to you what questions are admissible in re-examination -- only these which arise out of the cross-examination. As to this particular question, the Defendant Goering was allowed to make what were really speeches in his examination in chief without any interruption whatever; and he went over the whole history of the Nazi regime from its inception until the end of the war and the Tribunal does not consider that he ought to be at liberty to go over the same ground again in re-examination.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I had merely asked that question because up to now it had not been dealt with comprehensively and I think it necessary, in order to form an opinion of the defendant and his attitude during that time, to have a comprehensive and coherent account of this matter which in my opinion is so important for the decision to be made in this Trial. If, however, the Tribunal objects to this question, I must submit to that decision and withdraw the question. [Turning to the defendant.] I have another question. During your examination, you stated, regarding certain accusations, that you want to assume responsibility for them. How is that to be understood? Goering: As to responsibility, one must discern between formal and actual responsibility. Formally, I bear responsibility for that which was done by those departments and offices which were under my command. Although I could not possibly have seen or known beforehand everything that was issued or discussed by them, I must nevertheless assume formal responsibility, particularly where we are concerned with the carrying out of general directives given by me. Actual responsibility I see in those cases in which I personally issued orders or directives, including in particular all acts and facts which I signed personally or issued authentically, but I mean these facts only and not so much general words and statements which were made during those 25 years here and there in small circles. In particular, I want to say the following very clearly about responsibility: The Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, is dead. I was regarded as his successor in leading the German Reich. Consequently I must declare, with reference to my responsibility, that it was my aim ...