dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. STAHMER: [Turning to the defendant.] A map was mentioned previously which is supposed to have been drawn up by you and which is contained in Mr. Dahlerus' book, the authenticity of which he confirmed this morning in answer to my question. I am having this map, which is to be found on Page 53 of his book, shown to you and I ask for your explanation of it. Goering: In the discussion that took place in the night of 29-30 August between Dahlerus and me, I believe at the Fuehrer's, I tore a map from an atlas on the spur of the inoment and outlined with a red pencil, and I believe a blue or green pencil, those regions-not the regions which we would demand, as declared here before by the Prosecution-but those regions of Poland in which Germans live. That the witness Dahlerus was also of this opinion can be seen most clearly from the fact that he repeated the same markings on another map and then wrote as follows, next to the marked section: "German population according to Goering;" and next to the dotted section: "Polish inhabitants according to Goering." He then goes on writing and draws boundaries: "Goering's first proposal for the boundary" which agrees with the markings of the regions of German and Polish populations. That was not a boundary proposal, but a separation of the two populations. And then he writes: "Hitler's proposal;" that is the final, the correct, and the only proposal transmitted to the Polish as well as to the British Government. If one compares my map one sees that here quite spontaneously and in a great hurry, with a two-color pencil, a quite superficial marking off of the approximate zones of population is made, that is, one in which the majority are Germans and one in which there are exclusively Poles. From the beginning Mr. Dahlerus was given only the broad outlines of the boundary proposal, which was later made more exact.
DR. STAHMER: That is the only one in question, the same one which was published, which was read to Ambassador Henderson, and which, as Henderson did not understand it, I had telephoned to the Embassy by Dahlerus during the night, and checked the next day.
DR. STAHMER: Will you please repeat the last sentence? I believe it did not come through. Goering: I said, the boundaries of the Corridor, as outlined here at Hitler's suggestion, were the official proposal which the Fuehrer, as the only person entitled to make final proposals, had worked out. It is the same proposal that was read to Ambassador Henderson, and as he did not understand it, I turned the note which was read to Henderson, over to Dahlerus for him to dictate it so that I could be sure that the English Ambassador was informed of it in its entirety. To do this was, as I have already said, actually an enormous risk, since the Fuehrer had forbidden this information being made public at the moment, and, as I have stated already, only I could take that risk. But for the rest, as far as my markings are concerned, they show clearly on the map: "German population according to Goering; Polish population according to Goering." But that was only approximate and done in a great hurry during the night, merely for his information, and on a map torn from an atlas.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus said that you called him up on the 23rd of August and asked him to come to Berlin immediately because in the meantime the situation had become serious. What made you consider the situation serious? Goering: Through the statements of the Fuehrer at the Obersalzberg on that 22d of August it was clear to me that the tension had reached its peak. The Fuehrer had stated that he would have to bring about a solution of the problem, if it were not possible to obtain one diplomatically. On that occasion, since it was simply an address, without discussion, before the higher officers of troop formations which would be used in case of war, I, as senior officer present, confined myself to saying to the Fuehrer at the end: "The Wehrmacht will do its duty." Of course it has to do its duty, if it is called upon. At the same time, however, I wanted to exert every effort in order to make as soon as possible -- it was now a matter of days; a definite date, the 25th or 26th, as decided at first, had not yet been set on this day to make one more attempt at negotiatiows. I wanted to be able to say to the Fuehrer, if such negotiations were successfully underway, that there were still prospects of and chances for a diplomatic solution. Hence, the concurrence of events on the afternoon of the 22d: the Fuehrer's speech and my immediate reaction of sending for Dahlerus from Stockholm. I, of course, did not tell him, and I could not, of course, as a German, tell him, a foreigner -- and especially not as an officer -- that my reason lay in these factors which I have explained. Things are now being represented as if there could never have existed in Germany such an idea as "secret military matter," or "secret," or "top secret," in German politics and in military life at all; as though we were obligated to make known every military and political step to the foreign press in advance. I therefore point out that we, of course, had the same procedures as those adopted in every other country of the world.
DR. STAHMER: How was it that you handled the negotiations personally and that the negotiations were not handled through the Foreign Office? Goering: I was bent on having this question settled peacefully as far as it was at all possible. The work of the Foreign Office is official. Here we were working at it anyhow, and according to the guiding principles laid down by the Fuehrer. I could make my influence felt only in a way which was as direct as possible but not expressly official, because for official action I did not hold the official position of Minister for Foreign Affairs as far as foreign countries were concerned. And at this time it was clear to me that it was not a question of formalities, but rather a question of the most practical and the quickest way of accomplishing something. If I wanted to influence the Fuehrer, that was possible only if I had something in my hand, that is, if I could say to him: "On my own responsibility, but with your knowledge and without committing you and your Reich policy, I am conducting negotiations in order, circumstances permitting, to create an atmosphere which will facilitate official negotiations in the direction of a peaceful solution." In addition, it would be faster.
DR. STAHMER: This clear fact, that it was a personal step on your part that was being taken alongside official diplomatic negotiations -- was that clear also to the British Government? Goering: It must have been clear from the entire action that this was a nonofficial negotiation which only at one or two points touched the official negotiations, or overlapped them. For instance, the phase where Ambassador Henderson, instead of returning immediately to Berlin, remained 1 or 2 days in London in order, first of all, through the unofficial negotiator, Dahlerus, to explain to the British Government the basis of these intentions, or for the negotiations, or to explain the note, as I shall call it; and when that had been done, the preparation for entering into these conferences was thereby considerably improved. And that not I alone was of the honest conviction on that day that a considerable step had been taken in the direction of a peaceful solution at that time -- I believe it was the 28th -- is demonstrated by the fact that the same view was held at the British Embassy at that moment, as the Embassy Councillor, Sir Ogilvie-Forbes, has very clearly stated. The situation did not become worse until the 29th. During all these negotiations it was not a question, as far as I was concerned, of isolating Poland and keeping England out of the matter, but rather it was a question, since the problem of the Corridor and Danzig had come up, of solving it peaceably, as far as possible along the lines of the Munich solution. That was my endeavor until the last moment. If it had been only a question of eliminating England from the matter, then, first of all, English diplomacy would surely have recognized that immediately -- it certainly has enough training for that. However, it did, enter into these negotiations. And, secondly, I probably would have used entirely different tactics. It is not that I am reconstructing things in retrospect; I am speaking of what actually happened in those days, of what I thought and wanted.
DR. STAHMER: The descriptions given by the Witness Dahlerus today, and in his book regarding his talks with the Fuehrer, by no means represent the way these talks took place. His descriptions are rather subjective, for the Fuehrer probably would not long have been party to such talks. There are also other subjective interpretations in the book, which perhaps are purely unessential, but which have been brought forward by the Prosecutor, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, that I, in a theatrical fashion, had handed to two collaborators two swords so that they might accomplish bold actions with them. One of those who allegedly received a sword from me was my civilian State Secretary Korner, not a soldier. The most I could have given him was a pen, since he had to draft decrees for the Four Year Plan. The second person was the chief of my office staff, a ministerial director, who also was no soldier and was not to earn any war laurels, but whose main task during the war was exclusively that of keeping my civilian, not my military, staff in order, and of insuring the functioning and progress of that work. For both these matters these gentlemen needed neither a sword nor any incitement to behave in a military way.
DR. STAHMER: Is it correct that it was first intended to undertake aggressive action against Poland on the 26th of August, and that this date was later postponed? Goering: It was provided that if by this time-- official negotiations were being carried on before this, that must not be forgotten - if by then these negotiations had not led to a solution of the problem, as a consequence of the general mobilization of Poland and the deployment of troops which had likewise taken place, and as a consequence of very serious border incidents that had actually occurred  I remind you of the bloody Sunday of Bromberg, of the more than 70,000 Germans who had fled, and of the Germans slain -- in other words, the atmosphere at this time was such that the Fuehrer would have wanted to bring about a solution by means of war. Then this delay came about, precisely because one believed that a diplomatic solution could still be found, and thus I took it as a matter of course that I should intensify to the utmost the unofficial course which I had already pursued in my previous efforts and see it through. This explains Dahlerus' frequent conferences in London and in Berlin, the frequent changes in those conferences, and the frequent flying to and fro. When the last attempt was suggested by me on the 3rd of September, the situation was as follows, and it also has not been described quite correctly. The British Government at first did not send any ultimatum after the 1st of September, but it sent a note in which it demanded the withdrawal...
THE PRESIDENT: Will the interpreter please tell the Tribunal what the last question asked by counsel was? Perhaps the interpreter would not know it. Does the shorthand writer know what the last question was? -- It does not seem to me that any answer has been given; it related to the 26th of August. [The interpreter repeated the question.]
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that was the question, and as far as I have heard there has been no answer to it yet.
DR. STAHMER: I did not understand that, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The question that you asked was whether the date of the 26th of August was arranged for the action to take place against Poland, and the Defendant Goering has been speaking for some considerable time and has not answered that question yet as far as I have heard. Goering: The question -- my answer to this question was that actually the 26th of August was at first planned by the Fuehrer as the date for the invasion, since he considered this date necessary, in view of the situation that I have described. It was then possible, however, to persuade him once more to postpone this date, in order to carry on further negotiations.
DR. STAHMER: How is it to be explained that Hitler's proposal failed? Goering: Which proposal?
DR. STAHMER: The last proposal of 27 August, that Dahlerus delivered to London. Goering: This proposal was, of course, an unofficial one and was followed by an official proposal that was read to the British Ambassador in the form of a note; that is, the British Government was informed what demands Germany would make on Poland. This proposal was not entirely understood, and was then unofficially -- but de facto -- made known not only to the British Government but also, to the Polish Ambassador, exactly and precisely, in the unofficial way that Dahlerus has described. It came to naught because the Polish Government did not agree to discuss this proposal. First there was a prolongation for a plenipotentiary to be appointed -- I believe until the 30th or the 31st; but nevertheless we waited even longer for a plenipotentiary. On the intimation that the Polish Ambassador might be this plenipotentiary, circumstances permitting, we waited for a conference with him; when he declared that he was not authorized to accept any terms, the Fuehrer decided on invasion the next day. This telegram I also sent to the British Ambassador via Dahlerus -- the telegram of the Polish Government to their Ambassador, in which they forbade him, in a postscript, to conduct any negotiations regarding proposals, or to accept any proposal, or any note on the subject. I immediately gave Dahlerus the decoded telegram, which I received from the investigation office mentioned the day before yesterday, so that he could hand it to Henderson, and I told him in addition, despite any scruples I might have had, that, since it was a matter of extraordinary importance, the British Government should find out as quickly as possible how intransigent the Polish attitude was, so that it might, circumstances permitting, influence the Polish Government in the direction of a conference. I thus gave away the key, that is, I showed that we had the Polish diplomatic code key and thus spoiled for Germany a real and important source of information.
DR. STAHMER: This was a unique step, that I could justify only by my absolute wish and determination to avert the conflict at the last moment. I should, therefore, like to read the appendix to the official dispatch; it is brief and runs: "From the Polish Government to the Polish Ambassador Lipski in Berlin." I skip the first part and read only the following: It is clearly seen from this that the Ambassador was not, as we had been told, authorized to do anything at all in the other direction, and this telegram, which the Fuehrer also read, probably indicated to him very clearly the hopelessness of arriving at an understanding with Poland.
DR. STAHMER: Were these negotiations begun and carried out by you with the earnest intention of maintaining peace? Goering: If one reads these writings in their context, that can be seen from this document; but I should not like to rely on the evidence of this book but on what I have to say here under oath. It was my firm determination to do everything to settle in a peaceful way this problem that had arisen. I did not want war; consequently I did everything I possibly could to avoid it. That has nothing to do with the preparations which I carried out as a matter of duty in my capacity as a high-ranking soldier.
DR. STAHMER: A matter was brought up here concerning a flying accident which might possibly have befallen Mr. Dahlerus. What about this remark? Goering: The witness Dahlerus said at the conclusion of his testimony that he must correct himself, that he had not received this absurd information from me, but that this was a conclusion of his because I had mentioned Ribbentrop's name shortly before in an entirely different connection. I had only one concern and that I indicated: Dahlerus flew in my own plane to London at that time; the tension was already very acute, and in all states mobilization and a threatened state of war had been proclaimed. Official air communications had been cut off long before. So it was possible that under certain circumstances a German plane flying to London with a courier or, vice versa, a British plane flying to Berlin at that time might incur danger from our anti-aircraft batteries or the like, and I wanted to obviate this danger as far as possible by telephoning Dutch and English authorities, as far as I remember. This was the only reason for my telling Dahlerus that I hoped he would arrive and return safely, because in those times an accident might easily have taken place. Herr Von Ribbentrop knew nothing whatsoever about the fact that Dahlerus was being sent. During the whole time I never discussed the matter of Dahlerus with Herr Von Ribbentrop. Thus he did not know at all that he was flying, that he went back and forth between me and the British Government. All that is an absolute concoction.
DR. STAHMER: On 26 September 1939 were you present at the conference between Dahlerus and Hitler? Goering: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: What did Hitler say then about Poland? Goering: It is correct that he made statements to the effect that a restoration of Poland as she existed before the outbreak of war could no longer be considered after the course taken by the battle, but that he would now, of course, keep the old German provinces that had been taken in 1918. But even at that time he indicated that the Government General in Warsaw would not interest him and pointed out very emphatically to Dahlerus that this was a question which was to be settled chiefly and decisively by Germany and Russia, and that there could thus be no question of a unilateral settlement with England because the greater part of Poland was already occupied by Russia. And these were agreements that he could no longer make unilaterally with England. That was the gist of the Fuehrer's statements.
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the testimony which you gave yesterday and ask you if it is correct. Is that a correct transcription of your testimony? Goering: Yes, I said that in no single.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is all. That is all I asked you. Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask to have your attention called to Document Number 3575-PS (Exhibit Number USA-781) which is the minutes of the Reich Defense Council of 18 November 1938, with you presiding. I call your attention to the statement that the "meeting consisted solely of a 3-hour lecture by the Field Marshal. No discussion took place." Is that correct? [Document 3575-PS was submitted to the defendant.] Goering: I have to read it first, this is the first time I have seen the document.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You did not know when you testified yesterday that we had this document, did you? Would you kindly answer that question? Goering: I have not seen this document before. I have to look at it first. It says here: "Notes on the session of the Reich Defense Council on 18 November 1938." The Reich Defense Council, as it was described here, comprised few people. Here there were present, however, all Reich ministers and state secretaries, also the commanders-in-chief of the Army and the Navy, the chiefs of the General Staff, of the three branches of the Armed Forces, Reichsleiter Bormann for the Deputy of the Fuehrer, General Daluege, SS GruppenFuehrer Heydrich, the Reich Labor Fuehrer, the Price Commissioner, the President of the Reich Labor Office, and others. When I gave my testimony I was thinking only of the Reich Defense Council as such. This is dealing with the Reich Defense Council within the framework of a large assembly. Nevertheless, I was not thinking of that; this concerns, over and beyond the Reich Defense Council, an assembly that was much larger than that provided for under the Reich Defense Council.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the fact that the "Field Marshal stated it to be the task of the Reich Defense Council to correlate all the forces of the nation for accelerated building up of German armament." Do you find that? Goering: Yes, I have it now.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The second paragraph? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Under II, "The Physical Task: The assignment is to raise the level of armament from a current index of 100 to one of 300." Goering: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: I cannot quite see the reason why it repeatedly happens that the Defense does not receive documents that are discussed in Court and that are submitted to the Court. The document now discussed is also not known to us, at least not to me. Durmg the last few days I have noticed that several times documents were suddenly presented by the Prosecution without any effort having been made to inform us of their existence.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is perfectly true, and I think every lawyer knows that one of the great questions in this case is credibility, and that if we have, in cross-examination, to submit every document before we can refer to it in cross-examination, after we hear their testimony, the possibilities of useful crossexamination are destroyed. Now, of course, he did not know; and we have had the experience of calling document after document to their attention, always to be met with some explanation, carefully arranged and read here from notes. No defendant has ever had better opportunity to prepare his case than these defendants, and I submit that cross-examination of them should not be destroyed by any requirement that we submit documents in advance.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you wish to say something?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I should like to make two points. First, I am entirely agreed if Mr. Justice Jackson wants to make use of the element of surprise. I should merely be thankful if the Defense then were also permitted to use the element of surprise. Yet we have been told heretofore that we must show every document we want to submit weeks ahead of time, so that the Prosecution has several weeks to form an opinion on it. Secondly, if the element of surprise is being used, I believe that at least we, as Defense Counsel, should not be given this surprise at the moment when the document is submitted to the Court and to the witness. I have at this moment neither today's documents nor the documents of the previous days.
THE PRESIDENT: What you have just said is entirely inaccurate. You have never been compelled to disclose any documents which you wished to put to a witness in cross-examination. This is cross-examination and therefore it is perfectly open to Counsel for the Prosecution to put any document without disclosing it beforehand; just as Defense Counsel could have put any document to witnesses called on behalf of the Prosecution, if they had wished to do so, in cross-examination. I am sure that if counsel for the defendants wish to re-examine upon any such document as this, a copy of it will be supplied to them for that purpose. The Tribunal now rules that this document may be put to the witness now.
DR. SIEMERS: Does the Defense also have the opportunity, now that it is known to the entire Court, of receiving the document?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. SIEMERS: I should be thankful if I could have a copy now.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am frank to say I do not know whether we have adequate copies to furnish them to all the Defense Counsel now.
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe you have not, but you can let them have one or more copies,
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But I do not think we should furnish copies until the examination with reference to that document is completed, that is to say...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Dix.