dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SIEMERS: Now, I turn to the accusation raised against you by the Prosecution that you demanded that war be waged against America. The Prosecution has submitted in this connection Document C-152, or GB-122, which is to be found in the Document Book of the British Delegation, Number 10, Page 23. This is an extract from the War Diary of the Naval Operations Staff dealing with a report of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy-that is, you-to the Fuehrer on 18 March 1941. Under Figure 11 of this document, it is stated, and I quote: "Japan must proceed to take Singapore as soon as possible, since the opportunity will never again be so favorable (preoccupation of the entire British fleet elsewhere; the unreadiness of the United States to carry on a war against Japan; the inferiority of the United States fleet to the Japanese fleet). Japan is, indeed, preparing for this action but will carry it out, according to statements of Japanese officers, only at the moment when Germany proceeds with the landing in England. All efforts on Germany's part must therefore aim to incite Japan to immediate action. If Japan captures Singapore, then all other Eastern Asiatic problems relating to the United States and England will be solved (Guam, Philippines, Borneo, and Dutch East Indies). "Japan wants to avoid a war against the United States of America, if at all possible, and can do so if she takes Singapore promptly." The Prosecution has construed this statement of yours to mean that you wanted to lead Japan into a war against America. Is that correct?
RAEDER: It is one of the most incorrect assertions contained in the Indictment against me. It is entirely clear that, since I was involved in a naval war with England with my small German Navy, I did not want, under any circumstances, to have America on my neck as well; and it has been discussed here repeatedly that my most urgent effort during the entire first few years of the war was to avoid, under all circumstances, being involved with the United States. Admiral Wagner described here in detail the limitations which I had imposed on the German Navy in order to prevent any clashes with the United States. I imposed limitations which actually I could hardly justify when I carried on U-boat warfare with such relatively small means. On the other hand, the United States from the end of 1940 on, at the latest, and during the entire year of 1941, exerted pressure on us in our naval warfare wherever possible and committed actions which could be interpreted as definitely not neutral. I remind you merely of the repairing of British warships in the United States, something which up until that time was completely impossible and unheard of; and Roosevelt's orders to shoot given in July and in September 1941; attacks by the American destroyers Greer and Kearney in the Atlantic on our U-boats. In two cases U-boats were pursued with depth charges for 2 hours until finally they surfaced and fired, in one case damaging one destroyer. Despite all this, in June 1941 I reported to Hitler that we were continuing not to disturb the merchantmen of the United States in any way-with the result that United States merchantmen were crossing the Atlantic completely unmolested on sea lanes of their own choosing, were in a position to give reports about our U-boats and our sea warfare without our preventing them from doing so; because of this the British were in a position to camouflage their ships as American ships. That they did.
RAEDER: The first time our pocket battleship Admiral Scheer , while crossing the Atlantic, searched a ship flying the American flag it turned out to be the British ship Canadian Cruiser . Despite all this I recommended to the Fuehrer, and he fully approved my suggestion, that we should take no measures against American ships. That we did not go to Halifax to lay mines Admiral Wagner has already mentioned. I need not mention that any further.
DR. SIEMERS: Was this proposal that Japan capture Singapore only for the purpose of having assistance and an ally against England, with whom we were already at war?
RAEDER: That is actually the case, and I should like to picture very briefly the development which led to this proposal. This was not anything that I did on my own initiative, but rather at the beginning of the year 1941 political negotiations were carried on with Japan partly by the Fuehrer and partly by the Foreign Minister. I was not even called into these negotiations, and I must say regrettably so, for at these negotiations many things were discussed which were not correct. However on the other hand this shows again that there can be no talk about a conspiracy. Contact was made, and then the visit of the Foreign Minister Matsuoka took place, I believe, in March. On the basis of this entire development the Fuehrer, on 5 March 1941, issued Directive Number 24. That is Document C-75, USA-151, of 5 March.
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to call the attention of the High Tribunal to Document C-75, which is the same as USA-151, to be found in the Document Book of the British Delegation, Number 10a, Page 58. In this Directive, Number 24, it says under Figure 3a: "As the joint object in the war it is important to defeat England quickly and in that way keep the United States out of the war." And three paragraphs farther down, under "d," it says: "The capture of Singapore..."
THE PRESIDENT: That on Page 58 is Instruction Number 54, concerning collaboration with Japan.
DR. SIEMERS: I have just been advised-to my surprise-that only a part of this directive is to be found in the English translation. I ask that the Tribunal grant me permission, under these circumstances, to submit the complete directive later as a Raeder document.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got it in your Raeder book, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: No, not up until now; for I did not know that only a part had been translated. I am asking for permission to submit this whole document later as a Raeder document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: Thank you. This may be found under Figure 3a, and the next quotation will be found under Figure 3d, and it says: "The capture of Singapore, which is the key position of England in the Far East, would be a decisive achievement in the war effort of the three powers. Beyond that, attacks on other bases of British and American sea power, if the entry of the United States into the war cannot be prevented, will serve to shatter the might of the enemy in that zone...." I ask the Tribunal to note the fact that already on 5 March, which is the date of this directive, Hitler decreed the capture of Singapore. Consequently, the suggestion made by Admiral Raeder in Document C-152, dated 18 March, cannot be considered decisive, since a Hitler decree was already in existence.
RAEDER: May I make a brief remark about that? The same thing seems to apply to all the cases which are being mentioned here: First of all, the political decision by Hitler, the head of the State; then the directive of the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces to the Armed Forces; then the conclusions drawn by the commanders-in-chief of the separate branches of the Wehrmacht. So, after I received the directive of 5 March, I had to contemplate how Japan, after entering the war, could strategically be used with the best results. And that depended on how we could most effectively wound our main opponent, England, on the sea. In this connection I had to insist most urgently that Japan move against Singapore since there were also circles who were of the opinion that Japan should attack Vladivostok, which would have been a grave mistake. England's power center in East Asia had to be attacked. But the very fact that I believed that the capture of Singapore would cause the United States of America to shy away from the war occasioned this proposal of mine, and not the opposite.
DR. SIEMERS: In this same connection, I refer to Document 1877-PS which was submitted in the special Indictment against you. It is USA-152 and may be found in the Document Book of the British Delegation, Number 10, Page 320. It is a conversation between the Japanese Foreign Minister, Matsuoka-I am just told now that 320 is incorrect. It should be 319.
THE PRESIDENT: And it should be 10a, I think.
DR. SIEMERS: 10a, I beg your pardon. It is a conversation between Matsuoka and Von Ribbentrop on 29 March 1941. We have already discussed this matter. On Page 8 of this document, the following is said: "The Reich Foreign Minister again referred to the problem of Singapore. Because of the fear expressed by Japan that there might be U-boat attacks from the Philippines and that the British Mediterranean Fleet and Home Fleet would join the attack he had discussed the situation once more with Admiral Raeder. The latter told him that the British fleet would be so completely occupied in the home waters and in the Mediterranean this year that she would not be able to dispatch even a single ship to the Far East. "The American U-boats were described by Admiral Raeder as being so inferior that Japan would not have to concern herself about them at all." [Turning to the defendant.] Herr Von Ribbentrop, in reply to my question on 1 April 1946, declared that he had been mistaken, that the statement was probably made by Hitler. Will you please clarify this statement once and for all?
RAEDER: I can only confirm that I never discussed such questions with Herr Von Ribbentrop, for unfortunately there was no connection between the Foreign Office and the High Command of the Navy especially since the Fuehrer had forbidden that any information be given by the Foreign Office to the military authorities. I would never have made such statements since they were in direct opposition to my own opinion, and especially since in this case I had no basis for any such statements.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, were not, on the other hand, questions frequently dealt with in the Naval Operations Staff as to the industrial and military strength of the United States, and that for these reasons any entrance of the United States was to be feared?
RAEDER: This was fully clear to us, even to the last detail.
DR. SIEMERS: Did you at any time during the war see this Document 1877-PS, which is before you?
RAEDER: No, no.
DR. SIEMERS: Were you advised about these discussions between Herr Von Ribbentrop and the Foreign Minister Matsuoka or the discussion with Oshima?
RAEDER: No; I was merely told by the Fuehrer, and that is shown in the Document C-170, dealing with the results of this discussion with Matsuoka. But I had no discussions with Herr Von Ribbentrop.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the High Tribunal, I have just been asked to correct a word which I have just used; in order to be fair, I should like to do so. I said that Hitler, in his directive of 5 March 1941, "decreed" that Singapore be taken. The expression is not correct. He naturally could not give any orders to Japan. The mistake arises because the directive starts with the words: "The Fuehrer has commanded the following for our co-operation." And under Figure 3 it says: "The following directives apply in this case." And among these directives the taking of Singapore is mentioned. Admiral, in any conversation did you suggest to anyone at any time that Japan attack Pearl Harbor?
RAEDER: No, we never talked about that at all.
DR. SIEMERS: Did you hear anything about this plan before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?
RAEDER: Never. It was a complete surprise for me and the Naval Operations Staff that this attack took place; and it is a complete mistake in judging the mentality of the Japanese to assume that they would have spoken of such a plan to anyone, even inside Japan, who was not directly connected with it. In 1904 they likewise attacked Russian ships "out of the blue" without anyone suspecting anything at all.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, in this connection I should like to submit three documents which have been granted me, first Exhibit Number Raeder-19, to be found in Document Book 2, Page 108. This document deals with the report by the American General Marshall which has been placed at my disposal through the help of the Court. In this report, dated 1 September 1945, General Marshall stated the following; and I refer to Page 116: "In order to establish for the historical record where and how Germany and Japan failed I asked General Eisenhower to have his Intelligence officers promptly interrogate the ranking members of the German High Command who are now our prisoners of war. The results of these interviews are of remarkable interest. They give a picture of dissension among the enemy nations and lack of long-range planning that may well have been decisive factors of this world struggle at its most critical moments." And two paragraphs further: "No evidence has yet been found that the German High Command had any over-all strategic plan. Although the High Command approved Hitler's policies in principle, his impetuous strategy outran German military capabilities and ultimately led to Germany's defeat. The history of the German High Command from 1938 on is one of constant conflict of personalities in which military judgment was increasingly . subordinated to Hitler's personal dictates. The first clash occurred in 1938 and resulted in the removal of Blomberg, Von Fritsch, and Beck and of the last effective conservative influence on German foreign policy. "The campaigns in Poland, Norway, France, and the Low Countries developed serious diversions between Hitler and the General Staff as to the details of execution of strategic plans. In each case the General Staff favored the orthodox offensive, Hitler an unorthodox attack with objectives deep in enemy territory. In each case Hitler's views prevailed and the astounding success of each succeeding campaign raised Hitler's military prestige to the point where his opinions were no longer challenged.
DR. SIEMERS: His military self-confidence became unassailable after the victory in France, and he began to disparage substantially the ideas of his generals, even in the presence of junior officers. Thus no General Staff objection was expressed when Hitler made the fatal decision to invade Soviet Russia." And on Page 118, there is an extract dealing with Germany and Japan. I quote: "Nor is there evidence of close strategic co-ordination between Germany and Japan. The German General Staff recognized that Japan was bound by the neutrality pact with Russia but hoped that the Japanese would tie down strong British and American land, sea, and air forces in the Far East. "In the absence of any evidence so far to the contrary, it is believed that Japan also acted unilaterally and not in accordance with a unified strategic plan." And further, in the documents which were also granted me, Exhibit Raeder-113 and 114, in the Document Book 6, Page 491 and Page 497. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I think you should ask the witness whether he agrees with General Marshall's appreciation.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, do you agree with the opinions of the American General Marshall?
RAEDER: I have not completely absorbed these statements. In general they are the lines of thought which we also had pursued, but I cannot vouch for each single point. In order to speak with certainty I would have to look at them or they would have to be read to me again.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe the general confirmation is sufficient. In Document Raeder-113 I should like to refer to the heading: "Army Foresaw Japan's Move, Marshall Says: "Washington, December 11 (AP)-General George C. Marshall, formerly Army Chief of Staff, acknowledged last night that the Army knew more than 10 days before December 7, 1941, that a Japanese move toward Pearl Harbor might take them past the deadline where the American chiefs believed the U.S. should fight." In order to save time I shall not read the particulars; but it can be gathered from the report by Marshall that the American Army knew about it and later the date of November 25 and 26 is mentioned. In addition Marshall testifies that preparations had been worked out in the United States before the war for the construction of landing strips for American bombers in Rabaul, Port Moresby, and Singapore. In Exhibit Number Raeder-114, which I am also submitting, Henry L. Stimson, the former United States Secretary of War, made a statement under date of 21 March. "Henry L. Stimson, former U.S. Secretary of War, disclosed that the late President Roosevelt's War Cabinet had discussed and rejected-9 days before Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor- an American attack on the Japanese forces without further warning . . . "Stimson related that he had received on November 28, 1941 information of Japanese movements along the Asiatic coast. On the same day, he said, the Cabinet met and discussed the possible meaning of the Japanese move." He further said that: ". . . if the Japanese got into the Isthmus of Kra, the British would fight, and that if the British fought we would have to fight." According to this, Admiral, did the United States know about these Japanese plans before you did?
RAEDER: Apparently, yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I shall turn to the last accusation by the Prosecution, and that concerns Brazil. In this connection, the Prosecution has submitted Document 1807-PS, GB-227, to be found in the Document Book of the British Delegation 10a, Page 288. This is Jodl's diary, the entry of 16 June 1942. I have to beg your pardon, I am told it is Page 287, not 288. This entry reads: "The Naval Operations Staff applied on 29 May for permission to attack the Brazilian sea and air forces. It considers that a sudden blow against the Brazilian naval and merchant ships is expedient at this moment when defensive measures are still incomplete and there is the possibility of surprise, since Brazil is to all intents and purposes waging naval warfare against Germany." [Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution is accusing you of violating neutrality and violating international law because you made that proposal at a time when Brazil was neutral I call your attention to the fact that the war with Brazil broke out 2 months later on 22 August 1942. Please tell me briefly from memory just how you came to make this proposal.
RAEDER: The relations between Brazil and Germany at this time could not have been worse. The Germans were very much persecuted and treated very badly. Germany's economic interests were heavily impaired. The Brazilians were already completely on the side of the United States. They had allowed United States air bases to be established along the Brazilian coast, and also intelligence stations. They themselves confirmed that they had destroyed a German U-boat; and, on the other side, the German U-boats had also attacked Brazilian ships, for the Brazilian ships were not illuminated according to regulations and consequently could not be recognized as Brazilian ships. Germany had previously asked all of the South American countries to illuminate their ships in such a way that their nationality could be distinguished at night. Then there were air attacks on U-boats of the Axis Powers, and they could have been carried out only from Brazilian bases. At this request of the Naval Operations Staff to the Fuehrer, the Fuehrer decreed that once again we should ask the Italians what intelligence reports they had received; and Italy in turn confirmed that some weeks before Italian U-boats, which had been operating together with ours, had been attacked near the Brazilian coast. Likewise the Brazilian Air Ministry had made known the fact that Brazilian aircraft or United States aircraft coming from Brazilian air bases had attacked Axis U-boats. On the basis of that confirmation the Fuehrer permitted the use of weapons against Brazilian ships along the Brazilian coast. A plan was worked out, according to which a certain wave of U-boats, which left the French coast in June to proceed into the Atlantic, was to go to the Brazilian coast. The Fuehrer had ordered in particular that this was not to be mere pin-pricks but rather a serious enterprise. This operation was later stopped and not carried through. I am sorry that I am not able to say for what reason. But it can be seen from our document which gives the statements made in the War Diary.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, I believe that the entire accusation of the Prosecution regarding this planning would not have been raised if Document 1807-PS, Jodl's diary entry of 16 June, had been submitted in toto . Only the first part was submitted. Therefore, I submit this entry as Exhibit Number Raeder-115, to be found in Document Book 6, Page 500. From the further statements made by General Jodl in his diary we may conclude that the situation was correctly investigated. The first part, which was submitted by the Prosecution, that is, the first two sentences, I have already read. The rest of the entry is as follows: "Ambassador Ritter of the Foreign Office declares that an aggravation of the conflict with Brazil is undesirable in view of the attitude of Argentina and Chile and that, previous to measures of war against Brazil, consultations must be held with Italy and Japan. Acting on the report of the Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff, the Fuehrer has ordered on 30 May, that the Naval Operations Staff is to ascertain, by inquiring in Rome, whether the Brazilian reports about warlike actions against Axis U-boats are correct. The inquiry by the Naval Operations Staff shows that Italian U-boats were attacked on 22 and 26 May at the northeast corner of Brazil by airplanes which beyond a doubt had started from a Brazilian air base. The Naval Operations Staff transmit, moreover, the text of the official communique of the Brazilian Air Ministry about the fighting and propose to put into action near the main Brazilian harbors during the period from 3-8 August 10 U-boats to sail from 22 June to 4 July from ports in western France, along with the tanker U-460. The order for execution must be given to the U-boats by 15 June at the latest.
DR. SIEMERS: After the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy had reported this to the Fuehrer at the Berghof on the afternoon of 15 June, the Fuehrer declared himself in agreement with the intentions of the Naval Operations Staff but ordered, however, that before any final decision is made, the political situation be examined once again by the Foreign Office." I believe that this proves that we were careful enough; and I refer further to Exhibit Number Raeder-116 which I should like to submit herewith, in the same document book, Page 503, which is an extract from the War Diary. Under date 6 June there is an entry which states that the development has gone so far that: "... a latent state of war is practically already in existence, (Brazil entirely on the side of USA; most severe damage to all German interests; individual Brazilian steamers not properly illuminated sunk by U-boats; increasing agitation in Brazil; Brazilians claim they have already sunk German U-boat while patrolling the coast)." And a further extract from the War Diary, Exhibit Raeder-117, which I should like to submit herewith, to be found in the same document book, Page 509. I ask the High Tribunal to take notice of this document and its contents and I refer only to Figures 3 and 4 in detail. Under Figure 3 it reads: "When Brazilian ships began to provide themselves with camouflage paint and to arm, the order was given on 15 May 1942 to use arms at once against recognizable armed South Americans." And under Figure 4 it says: "On the basis of the fact that Axis submarines were attacked by vessels along the Brazilian coast and that the Brazilian Air Ministry officially made known that attacks had been made by the Brazilian Air Force, the Naval Operations Staff on 29 May 1942, in Document 12938/42, Top Secret, asked the Armed Forces Operations Staff for permission to use arms against Brazilian military forces and merchant ships." I submit also Exhibit Number Raeder-118, Document Book 6, Page 510. I ask the High Tribunal to take notice of this document.