Q. Now to get back to this meeting of 23 May, 1939, is that where Hitler talked about concluding a peace with the western powers after the war with Poland?
A. No, not in this precise formulation. There were never discussions with regard to concluding a peace with this or that party. What you just mentioned concerned concluding peace with the western powers only occurred after the Polish campaign, October and November, 1939, when Hitler held a speech at the Reichstag.
Q. Well, did he talk at this meeting of May 1939 about the campaign against Poland?
A. Yes, I believe that this also was discussed; yes.
Q. Well, if he discussed that, he also had to discuss the possibility of the western powers entering on Poland's side because they had a treaty with Poland, didn't they?
A. Absolutely. This was also mentioned. I remember now for certain a chain of ideas which read approximately as follows: one could be certain, however, of the fact, that I shall never permit the tension to come so far as to produce a war between Germany and half of the world or with the whole world, or to create a two-front war.
Q. He said at that meeting, he did not want to have a two-front war?
A. Yes, indeed, explicitly.
Q. Did he talk about the possibility of operations against England at that meeting?
A. I cannot say yes, but he discussed the fact that the Polish operation could also cause a friction with the western powers, therefore, also with England. That was one of the possibilities he wanted to prevent.
Q. Himmler did not want to have any trouble with anybody but Poland, is that what you gathered?
A. Yes. Yes, indeed.
Q. Just Poland, not anybody else?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it at this meeting that he talked about creating a incident to start the Polish war or was that at a later one? Do you recall?
A. No. No. No. That is one of the points which I always understood after the end of the war, namely that firstly, the so-called bad treatment of the population between Germany and Poland probably had been greatly exaggerated by the German propaganda. Secondly, I learned last year that the attack on the radio station Gleiwitz was not arranged by Poles, but apparently by Germans. Hitler did not specify about the creation of such an incident in May 1939.
Q. You did not find out until after the war was over that the attack on that radio station, which was allegedly made by Poles actually was made by Germans dressed in Polish uniforms, is that right?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Do you recall Hitler even saying anything like, "Don't worry about the incident that will touch off this Polish conflict. I will take care of that. Do you recall his ever saying anything like that either at the meetting under discussion or at the meeting held at Obersalzberg in August 1939:
A. No not in this connection. He said without his the instigating this, the tension with Poland could be increased so much that the honor of the Reich and the German nation would necessitate an attack.
Q. An attack by whom?
A. An attack by the German Wehrmacht, of course.
Q. This meeting held in 1939, you had an opportunity to discuss it during the first trial of the United States, that is against Hermann Goering etc.?
A. No. I did not. I was not examined as a witness. I had been called as a witness here. However, I was not examined. On the basis of my coming to Nurnberg, I interested myself very much in all these various questions.
Q. And how long did this meeting last? How long?
A. Well, I would say about an hour and a half to two hours. I believe this is correct.
Q. Did anybody talk beside Hitler?
A. No. Nobody else.
Q. I guess nobody talked very much when he was around. Do you know who else was there.
A. It all depended upon the subject of the conference. In this case it was a speech by Hitler. Later on, toward the end of August, 1939, it was also an explicitly a speech held by Hitler. There were conferences with the Fuehrer, however, where one could discuss the military operations and how they should be carried out. The military leaders made their oral reports. And then there was a discussion in one or another form of course. Such a discussion was possible, it also was always carried out.
Q. Do you remember who was at this meeting of May 23, 1939?
A. The defense counsel asked me about that before.
Q. I can ask you about it, too.
A. As the Prosecutor just asked me, according to what I said before, I have to answer: the three leaders of the Wehrmacht, Goering, Brauchitsch and Raeder. And the Chief of the General Staff of the Army, Halder. The Chiefs of the Admiral-Staff were present. Furthermore, General Bodenschatz was there and Schmundt. From the Navy, Puttkammer and Albrecht, and Engl as adjutant out of the army and the adjutant of the Luftwaffe, I do not remember his name. And Jeschoneck, adjutant.
Q. Jeschoneck was not an adjutant.
A. He was a chief of the general staff of the Luftwaffe. I believe there was a small mistake in translation.
1319 a
Q. That is what I wanted to clear up. Colonel Schmundt was an adjutant then?
A. Colonel Schmundt was chief adjutant.
Q. Did you see Keitel there?
A. Yes. Keitel was probably there, too. Jodl was probably there, too.
Q. Did you see Milch?
A. That is just the point in question. I was personally of the opinion that Goering was there at the time, but it has been eight years since that conference and it is quite possible that perhaps Feldmarshall Milch was also there in addition to Reichsmarshall Goering or as his deputy.
Q. Did you see Warliamont there?
A. I could not remember that. I do not believe he was.
Q. Did you hear him say anything about labor at that meeting?
A. No, I could not recall that any such idea was expressed during tho meeting. I do not see in what connection this problem would have fitted in.
Q. You don't think at that time that Hitler wanted to go to war with anybody else other than Poland, do you?
A. Well, that again is the question, if he wanted to. At the time, at least I was of the opinion that it was not his wish to create the friction between Germany and Poland, and at that time he wanted it known he might be forced to do so.
Q. In other words, you might got into a war with Poland through no fault of your own, maybe Poland would attack you?
A. The later, I do not believe. One could say that, if I have the right to express a political opinion, that, because of the non-aggression pact which was concluded with Poland in 1939, one could hardly expect an attack of Poland. We counted this could be possible, but not probable.
Q. You knew in 1939, May, that you had a non-aggression pact with Poland did you not?
A. I must admit right now I do not remember exactly. There were quite a few pacts also with Poland. One was at that time, May, 1939. If it had any importance, I do not remember such a one.
Q. Did you attend any other meetings with all of the chiefs of the various branches of the Wehrmacht between May 1939 and September 1, 1939, except this one which is referred to in Prosecution's Exhibit 3 and the conference at Obersalzberg which was held in August about which we had some talk before?
A. Well, I only participated in these two conferences with Hitler. As far as I know there was no other conference of all the other Wehrmacht branches before the attack on Poland.
Q. What did you think this was all about, this May meeting?
A. Well --
Q. Did you think he just had you in there to make a speech?
A. I just tried, when the Defense Counsel, asked me such a question, to give an explanation. I, myself, and also Admiral Raeder recognized the tendency or the intention which Hitler had in this conference of 1939, but under it vaguely, as I said before, the main thing was the Studium Ausschuss, or teaching institutes, which the Fuehrer mentioned toward the end of his speech. The creation of this institute was stressed by him to such an extent that Raeder and I were of the opinion that this was the main topic of the speech which lasted from one and half to two hours. That is why he pointed out the dangers of a war in the East. That is why he mentioned the fact there could be a friction between Germany and the Western powers. Once in a while, in between, he told us, "Do not worry, I shall not make any fast decisions. I shall see to it that Germany does not come into war with the whole world, etc." In other words, according to both Admiral Raeder's opinion and mine, it was not quite a statement concerning war aims or war within a short time, but only the very drastic reasons given for an organizational measure.
Q. Do you remember him saying anything about the aim will be to force England to her knees?
A. The way you just said it now, I don't know. It could be that he said we don't have to make ourselves unreasonable illusions as it will be impossible to force England down to her knees, for instance, with our Uboat weapons, with the U-Boat weapons which was very weak at the time. In other words, the possibility of such being expressed is admitted. However, if this was used I cannot swear to it.
Q. Well, do you remember talking about England which can be blocked from western France at close quarters by the air force?
A. No, no I don't remember that.
Q. Do you remember him talking about the Navy with its submarines extending the range of the blockade?
A. You mean to extend the range of the blockade? Well, I do not remember exactly, but if this problem was touched upon, however, it sort of fixes the whole chain of ideas with the possibility of the development of war which was discussed, and that could fit in, yes it could.
Q. Well, you did not have any aircraft carriers in the Navy, did you?
A. No, we did not. We had only one which was under construction.
Q. And you did not have any battleships and heavy cruisers to amount to anything, did you?
A. Well, battleships -- well, we owned two -- two were being constructed, and for a blockade against England we furthermore had the three heavy cruisers which between 1930 and 1935 had already built.
Q. Well, other than these heavy cruisers that you had, the principal weapon of the Navy was the submarine, was it not?
A. For such a war as actually took place the submarines, of course, were the best weapons that we could use, on account of the very simple reason that the high sea forces were very very weak. If one prepares oneself for a war explicitly as a war -- as it happened in 1930, then we should have had twenty four times as many submarines, as we actually had at the beginning of the war, in order to wage war successfully against a strong power as England was.
Q Do you remember him talking about the Army holding positions essential to the Navy and the Airforce, and in that connection he continued saying, if Holland and Belgium were successfully occupied and held, and if France is also defeated, the fundamental conditions for a successful war against England would have been secured?
A The ways and possibilities of waging war against England were discussed, at the same time comparisons were made regarding the course of the war in 1914-1918, and it is quite possible that the Fuehrer said that the basis on which the war 1914-1918 was conducted, the high sea warfare as had to be carried out, was not sufficient. That the war against England could be taken into consideration again would have to be carried out on a broader and greater basis. I believe that this was one of the aims which the Fuehrer mentioned, and this Studien-Ausschuss, or teaching institution was to concern itself with it.
Q As a matter of fact he talked about the World War I, and mentioned the fact that if you had two battleships and two more cruisers in the German Navy in the first World War, and if the battle of the Juetland had been fought in the morning that the British Fleet would have been defeated?
A I don't know if I do understand the prosecutor's question that the Fuehrer spoke about the Skagerrak, or about battle of Juetland.
Q In World War I?
A In that connection the opinion was accepted by Hitler that had there been two or three more battleships and cruisers, the battle would have been won, is that it?
Q Yes, and if the battle had been fought in the morning instead of later in the day, as it happened?
A I don't remember that.
Q You don't recall him saying anything about that?
A No, I don't. I believe that I would have recalled all of that if he would have mentioned the Skagerrak battle. No, I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think that he spoke about those things.
1323 a
Q. These final principles that Dr. Bergold asked you about, no one must be --- (interruption) no one must be admitted who was not concerned, and so forth?
A. That is concerning the secrecy, yes, he discussed that I know that, because it is usual that after every conference of such a nature where secret things were discussed, all the participants are told or are reminded of such a secrecy.
Q. And this was a very important conference, wasn't it?
A. Indeed.
MR. DENNEY: Nothing further, Your Honor.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, you have had a fairly good recollection of the subjects which were discussed at that meeting, had you not?
A. Yes. Yes, indeed.
Q. Are you personally acquainted with the Schmundt memorandum?
A. No, I never read it. I remember from last year, that this Schmundt memorandum was used during that first session and played quite an important part there.
Q. Well, you knew about the question on the colonies on which the memorandum deals, and in part reads: "Colonies: Beware of gifts of colonial territory. This does not solve the food problem. Remember - blockage." Do you recall that item being discussed?
A. I am sorry, but I cannot tell you with certainty that I could swear to such a statement. No, I cannot.
Q. That appears in the memorandum there, and the next item says: "If fate brings us into conflict with the west, the possession of extensive areas in the East will be advantageous. Upon record harvests we shall be able to rely on even such in time of war then in peace." Do you recall that?
DR. BERGOLD: Excuse me. The witness cannot answer the question from the way you put it, Your Honor. From the way you say that.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: We are not getting anything through the system. I am not getting any response.
1324 (a)
DR. BERGOLD: That one translation that came through in German was that the witness can not understand the question.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I an reading from the -
DR. BERGOLD: He said that it was difficult to fight in the East while there could be a conflict with the West. What it said here I shall read it from the German: If such based on a conflict with the West, that the possession of extensive territory in the East was advantageous upon record harvests we shall rely on in time of war instead of peace. I believe I helped Your Honor with this.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Well, do you recall that item being discussed?
THE WITNESS: Well, I must say to my regret, I have to say that I do not remember one sentence, or one certain idea out of a conference which occurred eight years ago. I am afraid I can not state with certainty that I do. However, it is most probable that such an expression as mentioned here in this Schmundt record is in connection with the ideas which I remember at that time with this, and it is possible that such a sentence was used.
Q. Then the next item, Population. "The population of non-German will perform no military service and will be available as a source of labor. Do you recall this discussion?
DR. BERGOLD: May I read it in German?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: If you will, please.
DR. BERGOLD: The population of non-German areas have to be put at the disposal of that country for work later."
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Do you recall that item being discussed?
A. No, I don't. I can not remember this question either, and I don't see the logical connection of this either, the logical connection with the chain of ideas that were debated at that time. This sentence is not as probable to me as the one that was mentioned before.
Q. Well, if he would discuss such a subject as harvests, do you think it is so unlikely that he would discuss a subject such as labor?
A. Yes, it is possible. It is likely, but I can not swear to it.
Q. You would not exclude the possibility that he did discuss labor in this sense?
A. No. I would not. It is possible; that is quite right.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That is all.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. I have one further question, witness. Before you mentioned the fact that Hitler wanted to prevent a two-front war, by all means, and now there is a passus here which I will read to you: "Japan is one of the important questions. Even if at first, for various reasons, her collaboration with us appears to be somewhat cool and restricted, it is nevertheless in Japan's own interest to take the initiative in attacking Russia in good time."
Was such a chain of ideas mentioned there, or is not this in contradiction with the idea of the prevention of a two-front war?
A. Well, as far as this statement is concerned, as it was read I can not remember it. I do not recall it, and I don't think that it falls within the logical connection, as, according to my opinion, Hitler made it a basis for his speech at that time 1326 (a) I can not recall, and I do not believe it either.
Q. I asked you if Japan was discussed at all.
A. No, according to my recollection, in May 1939, Japan was not mentioned at all. Japan began to play a certain part in Germany toward the end of 1940. I know that early in 1941, on the basis of operational discussions, a Japanese commission came here to study the German situation -- early in 1941.
Q. Witness, I shall come back to the question of the extended basis of an attack against England. Did Hitler at the time discuss the point or mention the fact that Holland or the Low Lands and Belgium were to be attacked, or to force them to enter the war against England and to put its country or citizens at their disposal?
A. This is also a question which I would like to answer Yes or No, but right now 1 can't do either because after eight years I can not be expected to remember.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Do you remember Hitler saying at the meeting in May, "There will be war. Our tasks is to isolate Poland. The success of the isolation will be decisive"?
A. That he used this sentence I do not recall. As of today I would like to give a precise answer, I am sure that such a sentence certainly was not used.
Q. Well, of course, we do not expect you to remember exactly what was said at the meeting eight years ago, but you do remember that there was talk about the possibility of invading Poland?
A. Yes. I just wanted to mention that this precision concerning an attack on Poland, in my opinion, was not discussed.
Q. Do you mean to say that Hitler did not mention Poland?
A. He did mention it; Hitler did mention Poland, of course.
Q. Did ho mention possible war with Poland?
A. Yes, He did, yes.
Q. Did he mention possible invasion of Poland?
A. In this connection, according to my opinion, no.
1327 (a)
Q. You talked about war with Poland, but not about invading Poland?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. How else was was with Poland to come about except by Germany invading her?
A. I just tried to answer this, which was one of the questions of the Prosecutor; namely, that Hitler was of the opinion that the attitude of Poland with respect to our border population was so aggressive that the case could occur that the honor of the German Reich would necessitate an attach against Poland. That, of course, would have led to a provoked aggressive war.
Q. In other words, he anticipated incidents on the border?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Well, he was right about that, was he not?
A. In our opinion at the time, I am sure he was not wrong.
Q. There was an incident on the border?
A. Not only the Gleiwitz incident, but also various incidents from Poland against Germany -- people who were attacked and sent from their territories. That, at the time at least, was mentioned. Today I am in no position whatsoever to determine what is true and what is exaggerated.
Q. Is it your opinion that Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland because of border incidents?
A. Today I am no longer of that opinion.
Q. You know better now?
A. Yes, today I do.
Q. Was it your opinion in September 1939 that Poland was being invaded because of border incidents?
A. Absolutely. In 1939 we were in good faith; so was the whole German people. We actually believed in those things
Q. You believed that border incidents had occurred which justified the invasion of Poland?
A. Another question, which is more of a political nature though. I could imagine now that the border incidents which were the reason for a war could, of course, have been taken care of on the basis of arbitration.
1328 (a) However, it is possible that Hitler at the time liked these incidents and that they were welcome to him, so to speak.
Q. I think there is a good deal to what you say. He liked them so well that he created at least one himself?
A. Yes, yes, indeed.
DR. BERGOLD: No further questions
MR. DENNEY: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess so that we may see Judge Beals at this time about the witness Brandt.
Lest you misunderstand, the Court is not recessing until 1:30 now. I may be able to get Mr. Brandt immediately.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I have understood.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess for approximately fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 1 is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring in Rudolf Brandt to the witness stand.
RUDOLF BRANDT took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You will raise your right hand and repeat 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.)
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You may be seated.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, I ask permission first to instruct the witness that he has the right as the defendant in Case 1 to refuse to answer questions that could incriminate him.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will advise the witness to that effect. That is that he may refuse to answer any questions if such answers would tend to incriminate or degrade him.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, please speak slowly and I ask further that you interpolate a short pause after my questions before you answer so that the interpreters can interpret my question to its conclusion. Witness, please state to the Court your first and last names.
A. Rudolf Emil Herman Brandt.
Q. When were you born, witness?
A. 2 June 1909.
Q. What was your last position and rank in the German Reich?
A. I was personal expert of the previous Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler.
Q. Witness, do you recall having signed an affidavit on the 30th of August 1946?
A. Yes.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, this is the sworn affidavit of the witness, Document No. 191, Exhibit No. 124. The last document in Prosecution Document Book 5-B.