dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
PUHL: That I cannot say but I can say that from the very beginning the name of the Minister of Finance was mentioned in this connection. But whether he was personally present, I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did Funk say to you what Himmler said to him?
PUHL: He asked that the facilities of the Reichsbank be placed at the disposal of the SS for this purpose.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then shortly after that, you took the matter up at the meeting of the Board of Directors?
PUHL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was Funk at that meeting?
PUHL: No, he was not.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you say to the Board of Directors?
PUHL: I reported to the Directorate briefly on the transaction.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you say to them?
PUHL: In a few words I described my conversation with Herr Funk and my conversation with Herr Pohl, and I confirmed the fact that the Reichsbank would take the valuables of the SS into their vaults.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And then did the Board of Directors approve the action?
PUHL: Yes; there was no objection.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, the defendant Funk said to you that these objects had come "from the East," did he not?
PUHL: Yes. rim; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you understand that he meant by that phrase, "from the East"?
PUHL: Principally Poland, occupied Poland. But some Russian territories might also have been included in that phrase.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You knew that this was confiscated property, I presume?
PUHL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, you told Pohl that the Bank would perform certain services in handling the property, did you not?
PUHL: Pohl asked me to place the good services of the Bank at the disposal of his men. That I agreed to do.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And did those services include arranging the property, putting it in sacks and describing it?
PUHL: That was not talked about.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you whether it was talked about. I asked you whether the services included arranging the property and putting it in different kinds of containers and sacks. Is that what you did?
PUHL: Yes, that was a matter for the decision of the treasury directors; if they considered it necessary, they could do it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was that done?
PUHL: That I cannot know. It is a treasury matter.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I put two more questions, two very brief questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: The one question, Witness, is this: You have been repeatedly asked here who has talked to you during the past few days.
PUHL: Here in Nuremberg?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, in Nuremberg. You know that several members of the Prosecution have discussed this with you during the last few days. I should like to establish here: Have I talked to you?
PUHL: No, I am seeing you for the first time in my life to-day.
DR. SAUTER: I just wanted to establish this, for the sake of correctness. And the second question is this-actually you have already confirmed this, but after the charge of the Prosecution I should like to hear it from you again-in all these negotiations or in the documents which have been submitted and which you have of course read, was mention ever made of the fact that these things came from concentration camps?
PUHL: The word "concentration camp" was used neither during the conversation with Herr Funk nor during the conversation with Herr Pohl.
DR. SAUTER: And Herr Funk did not give you an indication of that sort, either.
PUHL: No.
DR. SAUTER: Then I have no further questions, Mr. President; thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire, and the Tribunal will adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, you did offer 3947-PS as an exhibit, did you not?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir, I did, as Exhibit USA-850, I believe it was.
THE PRESIDENT: 850, was it? Yes, and then that copy of the Puhl affidavit was USA-851?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir, that is right. I did not offer the other affidavit because we discovered it wasn't sworn to as yet. I propose to do so and with your permission I delay the date. I have that witness here. This thing can't go on interminably, and I don't want to drag it on; but I would like to offer it as an affidavit when I can have him swear to it, and if there is going to be any demand for him I might respectfully suggest that Dr. Sauter states it now. He is not a prisoner, Mr. President, the witness Thoms. He is a free man in this country.
THE PRESIDENT: You are suggesting that he should be called now?
MR. DODD: If he is going to be called, I would suggest that it be done soon.
THE PRESIDENT: If he wants to cross-examine him he should be called now.
MR. DODD: I should be glad to have him now.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I am representing Attorney Dr. Kauffmann for the Defendant Goering. The Defendant Goering asked me to put two questions to the witness Puhl during his re-examination. The questions would probably be connected with the document which the Prosecution brought up in cross-examination of the witness Puhl, Document 3947-PS, of which the Prosecution read Page 2, Paragraph 3, beginning, "The Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich, Delegate for the Four Year Plan. . ."
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Seidl. If you want to put questions to the witness Puhl on behalf of the Defendant Goering you can do so and Puhl will be recalled for that purpose.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the difficulty consists of something else. The Defendant Goering says, and I think rightly, that he can put his questions to the witness with reason only if he has an opportunity of seeing the document to which the Prosecution referred. Therefore, during the cross-examination I wanted to have the guard pass on Document 3947-PS to Defendant Goering. That was refused, however, on the grounds that, by an order of the Commandant of the Prison, during the proceedings documents can no longer be handed, to those defendants whose cases have already been concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Although the document was read over the earphones the Defendant Goering and yourself shall certainly see the document, but the witness must be called during this sitting. You may see the document and the Defendant Goering may see the document, but the witness must be recalled for any questions at once.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, only excerpts were read from the document. In my opinion the Defendant Goering is right in saying: If I am to ask a sensible question I must know the whole document. I think there are only two possibilities; either the Prosecution must refrain from presenting new material during cross-examination of the defendants whose cases are said to have already been concluded. Or the defendant must be given the opportunity of seeing this evidence . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Don't go too fast!
DR. SEIDL: . . . or the defendant must be given the opportunity of seeing the evidence newly introduced, and when only excerpts of a document are read, he must have access to the whole document.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is only just over one page and there is only one paragraph in it which refers to Goering. And that paragraph has already been read. When I say one page, it is just one page of this English copy. I think you have a German translation before you.
DR. SEIDL: I have 31/z pages.
THE PRESIDENT: There is only one paragraph which relates to Goering.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, it is only a question of whether in the main proceedings I may give this photostat copy to the Defendant Goering or not. If this is possible, and. . .
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast!
DR. SEIDL: . . . and I see no reason why it should not be possible, then I will shortly be able to ask the witness Puhl any question that may be necessary; but I think the defendant is right in saying that he would like to see the entire contents of a document from which only excerpts have been read.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I might be a little bit helpful. I would like to point out that Dr. SEIDL had the document for l0 minutes anyway during the recess; and also I would like to point out that we did not preclude him, as members of the Prosecution, from having it. It is a security measure altogether.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it will satisfy you, Dr. SEIDL, if we order that the witness Puhl be recalled at 2 o'clock for Dr. SEIDL to put any questions to him that you wish. And of course he would have the document. He has got the document now, and of course Goering will have the document, too.
DR. SEIDL: That is the difficulty, Mr. President. I have the document, but on account of the existing instructions I cannot hand it to the Defendant Goering.
THE PRESIDENT: You can give the document to Goering now.
DR. SEIDL: I am not allowed to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: I am telling you to do it, and they will let you do it. Dr. Sauter, do you wish to cross-examine the man who has made a statement? Do you wish to cross-examine Thoms?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: You do?
DR. SAUTER: Yes. Mr. President, may I comment on what Dr. SEIDL has just said? It isn't only a question concerning this one document which Dr. SEIDL just wanted to give to the Defendant Goering, but it is a general question of whether during the session a defense counsel is authorized to hand to a defendant documents which have been submitted. Hitherto this has been allowed, but now the security ruling is that defendants whose cases have been completed for the present may no longer be given any documents in the courtroom by their defense counsel. Defense Counsel feel that this is an unfair ruling, since, as the case of Goering shows, it can very easily happen that a defendant is in some way involved in a later case. And the request which we now direct to you and to the Court is that Defense Counsel should again be permitted to give the defendants documents here during the session, even if the case of the defendant in question has already been concluded. That is what Dr. SEIDL wanted to ask you. Mr. President, may I say something else?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Sauter? You wanted to say something more to me?
DR. SAUTER: May I also point out the following: In the interrogation room down in the prison we have so far not been allowed to hand any documents to the prisoners with whom we were speaking. Thus, if I want to discuss a document with my client, I have to read the whole of it to him. And when 10, 12, or 15 defense counsel are down there in the evening, it is almost...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal is of the opinion that any document which is handed to the defendants' counsel may be handed to the defendants themselves by the counsel and that it does not make any difference that a particular defendant's case has been closed with reference to that rule.
DR. SAUTER: We are very grateful to you, Mr. President, and we hope that your ruling will not in practice encounter any difficulties.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then now, you want to cross-examine Thoms?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Thoms here? Can he be brought here at once?
MR. DODD: He is on his way-he is probably right outside the door.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, would the Marshal see if he is available.
MR. DODD: I have not had time, Mr. President, to have the affidavit sworn to because I have not seen the man.
THE PRESIDENT: No, but as far as his cross-examination is concerned, he can be put under oath here.
MARSHAL: No, Sir, he is not here yet.
MR. DODD: He is on his way.
THE PRESIDENT: He is not available.
MR. DODD: He is on his way. He was in Lieutenant Meltzer's office a minute ago and he went out to get him.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he can be called then at 2 o'clock after the other witness. Now, Dr. Siemers, would you be ready?
DR. SIEMERS: Your Honors, may I say, first of all, how I intend to proceed in the presentation of my case? In accordance with the suggestion of the Court, I should like to call Raeder as a witness in connection with all the documents which the Prosecution has submitted against him. I have given all these documents to Raeder so that he will have them before him on the witness stand, and no time will be lost by handing him each one individually. The British Delegation has kindly compiled the documents which were not included in the Raeder Document Book, in a new Document Book 10a. I assume that this document book is in the possession of the Tribunal. Thus, to facilitate matters, I shall give the page number of the English Document Book 10a or the English Document Book 10 in the case of each document. At the same time, if the Tribunal agrees, I intend already now to submit from my own document books those documents which in each case are connected with the matter under discussion. Thank you. May I then ask that Admiral Raeder be called to the witness stand. [The Defendant Raeder took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
ERICH RAEDER (Defendant): Erich Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral Raeder, may I ask you first to tell the Tribunal briefly about your past and your professional career?
RAEDER: I was born in 1876 in Wandsbek near Hamburg. I joined the Navy in 1894 and became an officer in 1897. Then normal promotion: two years at the naval academy; in each year, three months leave to study languages; in Russia during the Russo-Japanese War. 1906 to 1908 in the Reich Navy Office, in Von Taproots Intelligence Division, responsible for the foreign press and the publications Marine Rundschau and Nautikus. 1910 to 1912, Navigation Officer on the Imperial Yacht Eohenzollern. 1912 to the beginning of 1918, First Chief Naval Staff Officer and Chief of Staff to Admiral Hipper who was in command of the battle cruisers. After the first World War in the Admiralty, as Chief of the Central Division with Admiral Von Trotha. Then two years of writing at the naval archives: history of naval war. From 1922 to 1924, with the rank of Rear Admiral, Inspector of Training and Education in the Navy. 1925 to 1928, as Vice Admiral, chief of the Baltic naval station at Kiel. On 1 October 1928 Reich President Von Hindenburg named me Chief of the Navy Command in Berlin, at the suggestion of Reich Minister of Defense, Groener. In 1935 I became Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, and on 1 April 1939 Grossadmiral. On 30 January 1943 resigned as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy; I received the title of Admiral Inspector of the Navy, but remained without any official duties.
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to come back to one point. You said that in 1935 you became Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. This was only, if I am right, a new name?
RAEDER: It was only a new name.
DR. SIEMERS: So you were head of the Navy from 1928 to 1943?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: After the Versailles Treaty Germany had an army of only 100,000 men, and a navy of 15,000 men, with officers. In relation to the size of the Reich, the Wehrmacht was thus extremely small. Was Germany in the twenties in a position to defend herself with this small Wehrmacht against possible attacks by neighboring states, and with what dangers did Germany have to reckon in the twenties?
RAEDER: In my opinion, Germany was not at all in a position to defend herself effectively against attacks, even of the smallest states, since she had no modern weapons; the surrounding states, Poland in particular, were equipped with the most modern weapons, while even the modern fortifications had been taken away from Germany. he danger which Germany constantly faced in the twenties was . . .
DR. SIEMERS: One moment. Now continue, please.
RAEDER: The danger which Germany constantly faced in the twenties was a Polish attack on East Prussia with the object of severing this territory, already cut off from the rest of Germany by the Corridor, and occupying it. The danger was especially clear to Germany, because at that time Vilna was occupied by the Poles, in the midst of peace with Lithuania; and Lithuania took away the Memel area. In the south, Flume was also taken away, without objection being raised by the League of Nations or anyone else. It was, however, quite clear to the German Government of those days that one thing which could not be allowed to happen to Germany during that time of her weakness was the occupation of East Prussia and its separation from the Reich. Our efforts were therefore aimed at preparing ourselves to oppose a Polish invasion of East Prussia with all possible means.
DR. SIEMERS: You said that it was feared that such an invasion might take place. Did not several border incidents actually occur in the twenties?
RAEDER: Yes, indeed.
DR. SIEMERS: Is it true that these dangers were recognized, not only by you and by military circles, but also by the governments in the twenties, especially by the Social Democrats and by Stresemann?
RAEDER: Yes. I already said that the government, too, realized that such an invasion could not be allowed to happen.
DR. SIEMERS: Now, the Prosecution has accused you of conduct contrary to international law and contrary to existing treaties, even in the time before Hiller. On 1 October 1928 you became Chief of the Navy Command, and thus rose to the highest position in the German Navy. Did you, in view of the dangers you have described, use all your power to build up the German Navy within the framework of the Versailles Treaty, particularly with the object of protecting East Prussia?
RAEDER: Yes, I exerted all my strength for the reconstruction of the Navy, and I came to consider this as my life work. In all stages of this period of naval reconstruction, I met with great difficulties; and as a result, I had to battle in one way or another constantly throughout those years in order to put this reconstruction into effect. Perhaps I became rather one-sided, since this fight for the reconstruction of the Navy filled all my time and prevented me from taking part in any matters not directly concerned with it. In addition to material reconstruction, I put every effort into the formation of a competent officer corps and well-trained, especially well-disciplined, crews. Admiral Doenitz has already commented on the result of this training of our men and officers, and I should like only to confirm that these German naval men earned full recognition in peace-time, both at home and abroad, for their dignified and good behavior and their discipline; and also during the war, when they fought to the end in an exemplary manner, in complete unity, with irreproachable battle ethics, and, in general, did not participate in any kind of atrocities. Also in the occupied areas to which they came, in Norway for instance, they earned full approval of the population for their good and dignified conduct.
DR. SIEMERS: Since for fifteen years you were head of the Navy and reconstructed it in those years, can it be said that as chief of the Navy you are responsible for everything that happened in connection with this reconstruction?
RAEDER: I am fully responsible for it.
DR. SIEMERS: If I am correct, the only qualification would be the date 1 October 1928.
RAEDER: As regards the material rebuilding.
DR. SIEMERS: Who were your superiors, as regards the reconstruction of the Navy? You could not, of course, act with complete independence.
RAEDER: I was subordinate, firstly, to the Reichswehrminister and, through him, to the Reich Government, since I was not a member of the Reich Government; and secondly, I also had to obey the Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht in these matters. From 1925 to 1934 the Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht was Reich President Field Marshal Von Hindenburg, and after his death on 1 August 1934, Adolf Hitler.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in this connection may I submit Exhibit Number Raeder-3, a short excerpt from the Constitution of the German Reich. It is Number Raeder-3, in Document Book 1 on Page 9. Article 47 reads: "The Reich President has the supreme command of all the Armed Forces of the Reich." I also submit the Reich Defense Law, as Exhibit Number Raeder-4, Document Book 1, Page 11. I have to return to it later, but now I refer to Article 8 of the Reich Defense Law, which reads as follows: "The command is exclusively in the hands of the lawful superior. "The Reich President is the Commander-in-Chief of all Armed Forces. Under him, the Reich Minister for Defense has authoritative powers over all the Armed Forces. At the head of the Reich Army is a General, as Chief of the Army Command; at the head of the Reich Navy, an Admiral, as Chief of the Naval Command." These paragraphs remained in full effect under the National Socialist regime. I refer to them only because they confirm what the witness has said. In regard to naval reconstruction, he was thus third in authority: Reich President, Reich Minister of Defense, and then the head of the branches of the Wehrmacht. Admiral, the Prosecution accuses you of building up the Navy: First, in violation of the Versailles Treaty; secondly, behind the back of the Reichstag and the Reich Government; and thirdly, with the intention of waging aggressive wars. I should like to ask you now whether the reconstruction of the Navy was undertaken for aggressive or defensive purposes. Make a chronological distinction, however, and speak first about the period overshadowed by the Versailles Treaty, that is, from 1928 until the Naval Agreement with England on 18 June 1935. My question is: Did the reconstruction of the Navy in this period take place for purposes of aggression as the Prosecution has asserted?
RAEDER: The reconstruction of the Navy did not in any respect take place for the purposes of aggressive war. No doubt it constituted some evasion of the Versailles Treaty . Before I go into details, I should like to ask permission to read a few short quotations from a speech which I made in 1928 in Kiel and Stralsund, the two largest garrisons of my naval station. This speech was delivered before the public during a week devoted to an historical anniversary; and when I took up my duties in Berlin, it was handed as my program to Minister Severing, who regarded me with some suspicion at that time. That is the...
DR. SIEMERS: One moment. Raeder's statements in the year 1928 show his attitude of that time much more clearly than his present recollections; and for that reason I think the Tribunal will agree that I submit this speech as Exhibit Number Raeder-6, Document Book 1, Page 15. The speech itself begins on Page 17. I shall read...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, it would take five or ten minutes, so may I ask whether this is a proper time to adjourn? I am willing to continue, however.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, will you please grant permission for the Defendant Sauckel to be absent from the courtroom from the sessions of the 16th to the 18th inclusive so that he may prepare his defense?
THE PRESIDENT: Be absent in order to prepare his defense? Yes, certainly.