dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon; 463. [Turning to the defendant.] From that document I want to quote to you from Page 10. It is Page 3 of the attached document. I want to put the following sentence to you. I quote: "Fuehrer asked Ob.d.M. whether there were any special wishes of the Navy with reference to bases on Dutch-Belgian coast. Ob.d.M. says no, since bases are within reach of the British coast and are therefore useless as submarine bases." According to this, Witness, you were not in favor of an occupation of Belgian and Dutch bases, nor did you in any way occupy yourself with this question.
RAEDER: This was always my point of view, that from the experience of the first World War Belgium and Holland, as far as the Navy was concerned, could not offer any useful bases, since all forces were under the control of the British Air Force. In the first World War serious fighting occurred between the submarines leaving their ports and destroyers stationed nearby. Therefore I declared myself not to be interested in Belgium and Holland.
DR. SIEMERS: Skipping various documents, I now come to D-843, GB-466. This is a document in which Dr. Breuer from the Oslo Embassy expresses the view that the danger of a British occupation of Norway was not really very great and that certain actions were only taken in order to provoke Germany. I have one more question on that. Did the Embassy in Oslo, that is to say Breuer, know about the information that Admiral Canaris was supplying to you?
RAEDER: I cannot tell you that, as far as I am concerned. I was never in direct contact with Dr. Breuer, only with the naval attache; but I must add that Dr. Breuer had only been in Oslo for a comparatively short period and that apparently he was not particularly well informed. The statements made by Norwegian Ministers were certainly not properly judged by him.
DR. SIEMERS: Was there not an order from Hitler that the Foreign Office should not be informed about probable plans concerning Norway?
RAEDER: Yes, he expressly ordered that, and it is obvious that for that reason the Reich Foreign Minister himself was informed very late.
DR. SIEMERS: In other words, as far as you can see, the ambassador could not have had Canaris' information through military sources.
RAEDER: No, hardly.
DR. SIEMERS: Then there were several documents, D-844 and D-845. It was put to you from those that there was no danger in Scandinavia. Was the information that you received at the time different?
RAEDER: Yes. I had continual information...
THE PRESIDENT: All this was gone into yesterday, and the witness gave the same answer.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe that the following has never been mentioned before. Did you know whether as early as 5 April mines had been laid in the territorial waters off Norway?
RAEDER: The Allies had announced it on 7 April, but the actual operations must have taken place a few days earlier.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, yesterday...
THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing] Dr. Siemers, the only purpose of re-examination is to bring out matters which are favorable to your client which have not been raised in crossexamination, that is to say, to explain anything which has not been given in cross examination. When he has given this account in cross-examination it is no good putting it to him again in re-examination. We have heard it.
DR. SIEMERS: I think that on this particular point one explanation is missing. [Turning to the defendant.] Yesterday you were asked, rather unexpectedly, what had been the technical changes since 1936 and how the legal situation regarding submarine warfare would have been influenced thereby.
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: It is a somewhat difficult question to answer in two seconds. You have mentioned aircraft. Can you not supplement your statement?
RAEDER: Yes, I forgot the most important point due to the fact that there was a rather lively controversy. The important point is that the spotting of vessels at sea by aircraft was something quite new and had been developed very efficiently. That development continued very rapidly during the war, until submarines could very quickly be located and pursued.
DR. SIEMERS: Regarding D-841, which is the affidavit from Dietmann, may I, with the Tribunal's permission, make a formal application? In this affidavit, there is the following sentence: "It is my personal opinion that the higher authorities of the Navy in Kiel and other places in Germany had knowledge of these dreadful things."
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't "had knowledge" but "must have had knowledge." It seems to me it is in the translation "must have had knowledge."
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I have not got the German and I do not know how the original is worded. I only have the English translation. It is not quite clear to me how the German version was worded. May I ask the Tribunal...
THE PRESIDENT: Is the document put in the original German or is it put in the English? The deposition is in German presumably.
DR. SIEMERS: I presume that originally the statement was in German. The copy I have states that this is a translation and that is English, but I have not seen the German original.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there must have been a German copy for the witness yesterday. I don't know whether or not it is the original. I didn't see it but I assume it was.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't the case that the deposition was made in German, then translated into English, and then translated back into German, was it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is why I assume it was the original. I am sorry this was done. I haven't got the original document in front of me but I assume that was so. I will find out in a moment for you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What is the point, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: I believe that this sentence should be struck from the document. It does not record a fact.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you are asking to have it struck out or...
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the witness sets out fully the facts in the preceding paragraphs of the affidavit and then it is true that he introduces the sentence "By my personal opinion...." but the gist of the statement is that from these facts which I have stated the higher formations of the Navy in Kiel and in other places in Germany must have had knowledge of these terrible conditions. A man who has been working in that detachment of the German Navy and knows the communications between that detachment and the headquarters is in a position to say whether headquarters would have knowledge from the facts he has stated. His inference has a greater probative value than the inference which the Court can draw. The objection to the statement of a matter of opinion is where the witness gives his opinion on a matter on which the Court is equally capable of drawing an opinion from the same facts, but the importance of that statement is that he is saying "working in the bow and being familiar with the chain of command and communications." I say that anyone at Kiel must have been able to learn from these facts what was going on at these places-so that is the narrow point, whether his special knowledge entitles him to express a view which the Court, without that special knowledge, would not be in a position to draw.
THE PRESIDENT: But ought he not theoretically to state all the facts; and if he does state all the facts, then the Tribunal will be in the same position as he is to form a judgment; and it is for the Tribunal to form the judgment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is exactly the point to which I was addressing my argument, that there is the additional fact, that because he was working there, was part of the chain of naval command and he is speaking of the knowledge of the naval command from the point of view of somebody who was working in it, and, therefore, he has on that point his opinion as to the sources of knowledge; and the necessity of constructive knowledge is an additional fact. My Lord, the state of a man's mind and the expression of his knowledge may be a fact in certain circumstances, just as much a fact as that stated, as Lord Bowen once put it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if the state of his knowledge is directly relevant to an issue.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is the point here.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a form of expert evidence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in a sense, it is not as Your Lordship says, in a form, it is not in a usual form, but it is the evidence of somebody who has special knowledge. My Lord, it is a well-known distinction, for example, in the laws of libel between the persons who have expert knowledge and the public at large; and, My Lord, the opinion of someone with a special knowledge of the facts must have probative value within Article 19 of the Charter. My Lord, if the provision that this Tribunal is not bound by the technical rules of evidence is to mean anything at all, I submit it should cover the expression of opinion on a point such as this; that is the ability to have knowledge, which is given by somebody who is in a special position to state such an opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a very small point, Sir David, and we have got to decide the matter and form our own opinion about it; and this man isn't here for the purpose of being cross-examined for anything of that sort.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, that is so, My Lord, but, of course that, with respect, cuts both ways. I mean here he gives an affidavit and part of it as the basis leads up to that conclusion. I should respectfully submit that that conclusion is a statement of fact-but, if Your Lordship says so, the time will come when we can ask Your Lordship to draw that conclusion as a matter of argument ourselves; but, My Lord, on the general position, the only reason that I have occupied even this much of the Tribunal's time is that Article 19 is an important matter in the view of the Prosecution and, therefore, we have to argue against its being whittled down. It is the only reason that I've taken up the Tribunal's time.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I just draw your attention to one point. Sir David has just been mentioning the well-known legal difference. That is just what I want to base my argument on, the difference between facts and opinions. Here it is a question of opinion and please note the following sentence does even go further; there, the witness is coming to a legal opinion and he is stating who is responsible; therefore, he is passing some sort of judgment. Furthermore, I beg you to consider that this is quite a minor official who, after all, cannot possibly make statements of such portent to the effect that higher formations in Kiel and some other places in Germany-he is quite vague-had some sort of knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, before the Tribunal adjourn, might I make a correction and an apology? My Lord, I thought that a copy in German had been put to the witness yesterday-of this affidavit; and apparently it was a copy in English. The original affidavit was sent off on the 6th of May; it was verified over the telephone by Colonel Phillimore and it has not yet arrived. An English copy was sent and has been processed and the original will be put in as soon as it arrives. My Lord, I thought that we had got the original but apparently it has not yet arrived, but it is an English document put to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you let Dr. Siemers see the original as soon as it arrives?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has carefully considered Dr. Siemers' application and it has decided that the passage to which he objects and which he asks the Tribunal to strike out in the affidavit of Walter Kurt Dietmann shall not be struck out in view of Article 19 of the Charter. The passage contains an opinion only, and the Tribunal will consider that opinion in relation to the whole of the evidence when it is before the Tribunal and will decide at that time the probative value of this opinion as well as the probative value of the other evidence.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I just have . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, may I remind you that you told us that your re-examination would take, you hoped, about half an hour?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Mr. President, I shall conclude very shortly. [Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, in connection with this Commando decree which we discussed a good deal, Sir David yesterday put a case to you regarding the attack on the ship Tirpitz . In this connection I should like to ask you: Do you recall that in the testimony of Wagner there was the question of a British sailor named Evans?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: And do you recall also that, according to the affidavit of Flesch, Number D-864, GB-457, Flesch declared, "I am unaware of the fact that Evans wore a uniform"?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I do not need to submit the document to you?
RAEDER: No, I recall it.
DR. SIEMERS: Do you recall further that it is said in Document UK-57, submitted on the same day as Wagner's testimony: "The British sailor Evans was captured wearing civilian clothing"?
RAEDER: Yes. I have the document here.
DR. SIEMERS: And that was one case where the SD, obeying the Commando order, committed a murder without the knowledge of the Navy?
RAEDER: Yes. This man had been apprehended by the SD or the Police, not by the Navy. He had only been interrogated in the meantime by the admiral.
DR. SIEMERS: The second case of which you are accused is the sabotage attack on German ships near Bordeaux. I clarified this situation in Wagner's testimony the other day. Do you recall that his document also states that these men tried to escape to Spain in civilian clothes?
RAEDER: Yes, that is true.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, when using the small fighter craft mentioned yesterday under the command of Vice Admiral Heye, did our soldiers ever wear civilian clothing?
RAEDER: No, never.
DR. SIEMERS: Always in uniform?
RAEDER: Yes, always in uniform. These craft were a weapon just like submarines, speed boats, et cetera .
DR. SIEMERS: As my last point, Mr. President, I should like to point out that yesterday Colonel Pokrovsky submitted a document, USSR-460, which deals with the Moscow notes.
COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, the point is that yesterday the Tribunal made a decision about submitting to the attorneys for the Defense extracts from USSR-460. Today the prosecutors have exchanged opinions among themselves; and the Prosecution of the United States, represented by Mr. Dodd; Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe for Great Britain; and myself for Russia, have agreed that it is necessary for us to request you to permit us to read into the record here today the three brief extracts referring to Doenitz, to Keitel, and to Jodl so that they will be included in the record. These are the excerpts which yesterday the Tribunal did not allow to have read into the record as evidence. If we understood the Tribunal rightly it was due to lack of time as the session was dragging on. Due to these circumstances these three extremely important excerpts-important from our point of view-the accuracy of which was confirmed yesterday by the Defendant Doenitz, have not been included in the transcript of the session. For that reason I am requesting just about 5 minutes time to read these excerpts into the record today, on behalf of the Prosecution of the three countries.
THE PRESIDENT: What would be the most convenient course, Dr. Siemers? Would you like to have them read now so that you can put any questions upon them?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I make some remarks about this document? The Soviet Delegation has been kind enough to put the original at my disposal. I perused the original yesterday, and I looked at the extracts. The Soviet Delegation desires to retain the original but has also been kind enough to put instead a photostatic copy of the extracts involved at the disposal of the High Tribunal. I am completely in agreement with the suggestion, but I personally do not have the intention of putting any questions on this document, which is clear to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: And so I would like to ask that the resolution put forth by the High Tribunal yesterday be upheld, that this should not be read, just as other documents were not read out either.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the document was originally in German. Presumably it has been translated into Russian; it has certainly been translated into English. Unless the French members of the French Prosecution want it read if it hasn't been translated into French there doesn't seem to be any use in taking up the time of the Tribunal by reading it into the record. We have got the document in English, and we have all read it.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I think there is one reason. Even if it is read into the record, it will at least be tomorrow before the transcript is available for the defendants who are referred to, and this witness, or this defendant, will be off the stand. If they want to cross-examine about what he has said about them, then we will have, I suppose, to bring this defendant back on the stand. I think we will lose far more time by doing that, rather than now having Colonel Pokrovsky take 5 minutes to read it. They will all hear it, and then if they want to examine about it, they can do so promptly.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, very well. Dr. Siemers, if you don't want to ask any questions about it, you can conclude your re-examination now, and then Colonel Pokrovsky can read the document. Then any of the other defendants can question the witness if they want to, upon it.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that not be the best way, Colonel Pokrovsky?
COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, certainly.
DR. SIEMERS: I agree, Mr. President, but I do believe that this document need not be read, because Mr. Dodd was somewhat mistaken when he said that the defendants are not familiar with this document. They and their counsel are thoroughly familiar with it. I believe everyone knows it, and I do not think that it needs to be read. However, in the final analysis, it really makes very little difference to me personally.
THE PRESIDENT: If the defendants' counsel do not want it read then the Tribunal does not want to have it read unless defendants' counsel want to ask questions upon it.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I, as defense counsel for Admiral Doenitz, am not interested in having the document read. I know the document.
DR. SIEMERS: I have just been advised that the Defense Counsel know the document and do not put any value on having it read nor do they wish to put any questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, Mr. Dodd and Colonel Pokrovsky, it does not seem that it serves any useful purpose to have it read.
MR. DODD: No, I am satisfied, Your Honor. I have not heard from Keitel's attorney; I assume he is satisfied. I am just concerned that at some later date-a very interesting document to us, of course-and I am just concerned some question may be raised and I am also sympathetic to the desires of these defendants not to have it read publicly. The Defendant Schacht's counsel has not spoken either. I think it might be well, Mr. President, if we had a careful statement from counsel for each of these men that they do not want to question or, if so, that we can be completely sure that it will not be raised again.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the defendants' counsel are all here or all the defendants are represented and they must clearly understand what I am saying and I take it from their silence that they acquiesce in what Dr. Siemers has said, that they do not wish the document to be read and they do not wish to ask any questions.
COL. POKROVSKY: I have not understood your decision, My Lord. Are you permitting me to read into the record these few excerpts or are you not?
THE PRESIDENT: No, Colonel Pokrovsky; I am saying that as the defendants' counsel do not wish the document to be read it need not be read.
COL. POKROVSKY: We do give a great deal of importance and significance to this document as it involves not only the interests of the Defense but also the interests of the Prosecution. The document was accepted by the Tribunal yesterday but for some reason only a very small part of the characterization given therein by Admiral Raeder was included in the stenographic record for the day. I do not see any reason why these excerpts should not be read into the record now, and why the witness Raeder, who intimately knew the Defendants Doenitz, Keitel, and Jodl, should not hear the excerpts here and now.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky and Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal ruled yesterday that it was unnecessary that the document should be read and the Tribunal adheres to that decision in view of the fact that the defendants' counsel do not wish it to be read and have no questions to put upon it. Yes, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I will now conclude my examination of Admiral Raeder. I do not know whether other questions will be put to Admiral Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any question which has arisen out of the cross-examination which the defendants' counsel want to put?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: I should like to put two questions, Mr. President. [Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, in cross-examination you were confronted with orders and memoranda as to the U-boat warfare.
RAEDER: Yes.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Do you consider yourself responsible for these decrees dealing with the U-boat warfare which you issued during your term as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy?
RAEDER: I consider myself fully responsible for all decrees issued as to the U-boat warfare which took place under my responsibility as well as every naval operation which I ordered. In the Naval Operations Staff: and together with the officers of the Naval Operations Staff I worked out these directives; I approved memoranda and in accordance therewith I gave my orders. The Commander of the U-boat fleet was solely the tactical commander of U-boats. He transmitted the orders and he carried through the details of the operations.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Admiral, yesterday Sir David charged you that he could not determine who actually gave the orders to change the log book of the U-boat which sank the Athenia . Admiral Godt testified in answer to my question that he had issued this order at the request of Admiral Doenitz. Do you know of any facts which would show this testimony of Admiral Godt to be incorrect?
RAEDER: Actually I was never concerned with this case. I only decreed the three points which have come up here several times.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Therefore, you consider Admiral Godt's testimony as being correct?
RAEDER: I assume that it is correct since everything else he said was very reliable.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can return to the dock.