A Greener then told me that he had the intention to discuss these matters at the cabinet meeting and to receive clarification on this point.
QWere the leaders of the Wehrmacht to be present at this Meeting?
AOn 18 October those leaders were to appear and did appear.
QMr. Minister, when did you meet Grand Admiral Raeder?
AThe first meeting, according to my recollection, was in the first few days of October, 1928, probably on the dry when he paid me an official visit on my assuming office.
DR. SIEMERS:As Raeder exhibit Number 6, I submitted to the High Tribunal, as the High Tribunal will probably recall, a speech by Raeder dating to 23 January 1928. There was a covering letter with this document. This document will now be submitted to the witness. BY DR. SIEMERS:
QAccording to this document, your meeting with Raeder was on 5 October 1928. Did it take place five days after the appointment of Raeder as commander in chief of the navy?
AThis discussion probably took place on that day.
QJust a moment, Mr. Minister. May I ask you to confirm to the High Tribunal that this discussion with Raeder was saved by you and that it is a true and authentic copy?
AThe letter which I put at your disposal, Mr. Solicitor, is on original letter by Raeder. It is in accordance with the incidents which you just mentioned.
QThen, on 5 October this conversation with Raeder did take place, and the conversations between you and Raeder, in its basic line, was in accordance with the thought of this speech?
AYes.
QDo you recall that in this speech, Raeder proclaimed specifically that a war of aggression was a crime?
AYes, I remember that.
QDid you on the occasion of this conversation tell Raeder that you had agreed with Groener that the violations of the Treaty of Versailles would have to be rectified and that a cabinet meeting would have to take place?
AI do not recall the details, but most likely, yes.
QDid you demand of Raeder that between yourself and him there should have to be sincerity and truthfulness and clarity?
AOf Raeder as well, but especially of the Chief of the Land Forces.
QOn the basis of this discussion with Raeder, did you have the impression that you could work pleasantly and correctly together with Raeder and that he would tell you the truth?
AYes, I had that impression.
QAnd on October 18 1928 the cabinet meeting which we have already mentioned took place. May I ask you to describe that cabinet meeting, but briefly in case it is agreeable to the High Tribunal to have the witness picture this session I believe that a description of this session would save time, rather than to have me ask single questions. Therefore, Mr. Minister, be brief in telling us what happened.
AAt this session, members of the cabinet were familiarized with all those things which might be considered a concealment of the budget or which Were violations of the Versailles Treaty. Both gentlemen, the Commander in Chief of the army and the Commander in Chief of the Navy, spoke.
QI beg your pardon; did the entire cabinet attend?
AYes, with the exception of one or two members who were ill, but it was a session at which all the most essential members were present.
QWas Stressmann present?
AI cannot tell you whether Stressmann was present. He was ill in September and whether he had recovered by 18 October, I cannot say.
I may say, Mr. Solicitor, that if Mr. Stressman was not present, certainly someone else who was an authorized deputy from the Foreign Office was present.
QWere Admiral Raeder and the Commander of the army present for this meeting and did they expressly give the asssurance--as I remember, an affidavit--that only those violations which were mentioned were the violations which had taken place?
AWhether that was set down in such a solemn manner as an affidavit, I do not know, but, in any event, at the request of the Reichschanceller and on my request, they said that no further violations would take place.
QThey assured you specifically that there would be no further violations without the knowledge of the Reich Government?
AYes.
Q And over and above that, they stated that now the cabinet know about everything?
AYes.
QWas that declaration made?
AYes, that declaration was made.
QDid those secret budgets which were violations of the Treaty of Versailles concern important and essential things?
AI was used to violations of the Versailles Treaty, and I was especially interested in the extent of the violations and the size and sum. I wanted to know what I could do in my now capacity against organizations which were not permitted, and I wanted to know what the total sum was that was involved. I was thereupon told--and I believe that this was set down and confirmed in writing later -- that perhaps five and a half to six million marks was the amount involved in the concealment of the figures.
QMr. Minister, do you remember the administrative figures as they applied in those days, and what can we gather from those figures? Can we show that they were tremendous violations with the intention of aggressive purposes, or can we gather that in the final analysis they were just trifling violations?
AI do not have the figures as they apply to the administrative plans of the/navy and the army, and, therefore, I cannot quote the figures from memory, but my entire impression was -- I gathered from the army that trifles were involved. This impression was the one which caused me to assume a certain political responsibility for those things, and especially in this connection, since we were assured that further concealment of the budget or other violations were not to happen again.
QDo you remember that Groener at this session declared that the small infringements of the Treaty concerned themselves purely with defenses, with flak batteries, with a strengthening of the coasts?
AI cannot give you the details today, but I might remind you that all the speeches which Groener made at the time when he was Defense Minister were along those general lines. In all of his speeches in the Reichstag, Mr. Groener expressly declared that he was interested in a happy pacifism. In answer to your question, Mr. Solicitor, I reply that Groener's statement, and I believe his directives, were based on defense and defensive measures.
QAt the end of this session, the Reich government took the responsibility for the infringements and the secret budget in a small scope?
AIn the sense and in the scope that we have mentioned.
QThen in the future, on the part of Raeder, did the Reich Government act according to these directives?
AI cannot answer that quite so positively, but I can say that the infringements of the navy against those agreements did not take place during my term of office as Minister of the Interior.
QAre you of the opinion, since you know Raeder sufficiently well, that the promise that he made that he would not infringe secretly on the Treaty -- that he kept this promise?
AI had the impression of Raeder that he was a decent person, and I believed that he would keep his word.
QJust one more question, Mr. Minister. Of course, you cannot remember the details, but do you perhaps recall that on the occasion of the cabinet meeting of 18 October there was discussion about a Dutch firm which was carrying on the construction of U-boats?
AThe details about this question I cannot give you, but I do know that at that period of time, that subject was much discussed -- whether that was done in another cabinet meeting or in another meeting of parliament or another committee of parliament -- that experimental stations had been established for the army and the navy in Russia, Sweden and Holland.
QPurely experimental stations?
AI can say only that there was talk to this effect. Whether experimental stations had been established I cannot tell you from my own experience.
QMr. Minister, could Germany hope that some day, despite the Versailles Treaty, she would be permitted to build U-boats?
AThe leading statesmen-
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Siemers, how can he answer that there was a hope that they would be allowed to build U-boats? That is what your question was, was it not; was there a hope?
DR. SIEMERS: I know, Mr. President, these questions were dealt with in the government which obtained through the years 1928 to 1932, and I believe that Stresemann carried on these discussions.
Since Stresemann is no longer alive, I would like to ask Mr. Severing on this point.
THE PRESIDENT:That is more political gossip. BY DR. SIEMERS:
QMr. Minister, on whom did it depend that this was brought up in the Reichstag? Raeder is accused of acting behind the back of the Reichstag. Who submitted this to the Reichstag? Did Raeder do that?
AI do not quite follow you. Who submitted the budget, you mean?
QYes.
AThe budget was submitted by the exports within the various ministries and was sent to the entire cabinet, and from the cabinet these suggestions as to the budget were put to the Reichstag.
QThe matter of dealing with the budget before the Reichstag was a matter for the Reich Government and not for the commander in chief of the navy, is that right?
AAs far as the budget was submitted to the Reichstag, in the main committee of the Reichstag, the exports were responsible for bringing it to the Reichstag, but the responsibility was to the Reich Cabinet.
THE PRESIDENT:It was never alleged as to the defendant Raeder that he submitted it to the Reichstag; it was never put to him.
DR. SIEMERS:Mr. President, yesterday it was asserted -
THE PRESIDENT:Go on with any other questions? BY DR. SIEMERS:
QDo you recall whether at the and of 1929 you talked with a member of the government, with the various leading personalities in the Wehrmacht, and on that occasion made a statement which was publicized later by certain persons.
AYes, it is correct that on one occasion --I might perhaps say after there had been a decrease in my respect for some personalities -- I named Groener and Raeder in this connection..
QMr. Minister, how many concentration camps do you know of?
AHow many do I know of now?
AI am sorry; not now. How many did you know of before the collapse of Germany?
A Perhaps six to eight.
QMr. Minister, did you know before the collapse of Go many, specially, did you know in 1944, about the mass murders which have been dealt with so frequently in this proceeding?
AI had knowledge of concentration camps and received this knowledge when this thing was going on. I heard of a few cases which touched me personally very deeply.
First of all, the police president of Altenau became a member of the Reichsbank. He was a Social Democrat who had rightish tendencies, and I was told that he was murdered in the concentration camp at Papenburg. Another friend of mine, the chairman of the Miners Union, Fritz Husemann, supposedly was murdered shortly after his being committed to the concentration camp, Camp Oranienburg, according to the reports received by his family.
Another friend of mine, Ernst Heimann, was beaten to death. Dachau was known even in the north of Germany as a concentration camp. Some Jewish inmate returned from Buchentwald in the spring of 1939, and in that way I learned of this camp. Columbia House at Berlin was considered as a concentration camp by me also.
This was up until the period of time after which the London radio report about concentration camps. I received knowledge of these camps and atrocities. I received knowledge of these camps and atrocities. I perhaps night mention this as one case. In the year 1944 a freind of mine, who had been a member of the Reichstag, Herr von Meier, who had served three years in the penitentiary, was put into a concentration camp near Berlin. After a brief stay there, according to the report received by his family, he was murdered at this camp.
QMr. Minister, you just heard of these and similar cases?
AYes.
QYou were not familiar with the fact that thousands were murdered every day in gas chambers or otherwise were murdered in the east?
AI believe I should tell the High Tribunal only of those cases which seen to me to be authentic according to my reports. Everything I learned of later was from reports, and these were indirect reports, also, of my friend Feger or from the book of the now General Langhof. All of these things I was told about, but it was not in my sphere.
QMr. Minister, did you and your Party friends have the possibility
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Siemers, are you going to finish this examination, or are you going on ? Do you see the clock?
DR. SIEMERS:Yes, I should like to leave the decision up to the High Tribunal as to whether we shall have a recess now.
THE PRESIDENT:Presumably you know what questions you are going to ask; I don't.
DR. SIEMERS:I cannot say exactly. It might take perhaps another ten minutes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. We will adjourn now till a quarter past 2:00 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1415 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1415 hours, 21 May 1946.)
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will not sit on Saturday morning.
Now, Mr. Dodd, could you tell us what the position is with reference to the documents of the defendants von Schirach, Sauckel, and Jodl?
MR. DODD:As far as von Schirach is concerned, we are waiting for a ruling on those documents concerning which we were heard on Saturday. I'm sorry, those were on Seyss-Inquart. I wasn't sure the documents were ready.
These documents are all ready; they are all translated and in book form.
THE PRESIDENT:Will it be necessary to have any further discussion of the
MR. DODD:I believe not, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, then, we can take it that we needn't have another argument about those documents.
MR. DODD:No, sir, I comprehend no need for any further argument on von Schirach's documents.
With reference to Sauckel, I have asked our French colleagues what the situation is, since they have the primary responsibility as far as the Prosecution is concerned. I am told that Mr. Herzog of the French Prosecution staff is on his way here and he will be able to report more accurately.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, we can mention that at a later stage then. Schirach at any rate then, is ready to go on?
MR. DODD:He is ready to go on.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR. DODD:Sir David has the information about the defendant Jodl.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:Mr. Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, the position with regard to Jodl's documents is that Dr. Jahrreiss produced to me a draft book, just before Easter, which had a certain number of documents, all except four of which had already been exhibited, and therefore no objection could betaken to them.
My Lord, theother four were all short. Two, I thought, were objectionable on the ground that they referred to alleged war crimes by one of the Allies. But, my Lord, they were so short that I thought the best course would be for them to be translated -- they were only a page or so, each of them, --so that when the books had been translated any objection could be taken, and then the Tribunal could shortly decide the matter.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, as there are only four of them and only two which might be objected to, that can be dealt with when we come to hoar the ease.
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, there are only two.
THE PRESIDENT:We needn't have any special hearing for it.
MR. ROBERTS:No, my Lord, certainly not. It can be disposed of in a very few minutes.
DR.EXNER (Counsel for defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I should like to say one word about these Jodl documents.
We are having difficulty, you see, about one document.
It is the affidavit of Dr. Lehmann, which we submitted in the German, but which was not translated into the English for us because it was said only such documents could be translated which the Prosecution had already accepted. The Prosecution expressed the view that they couldn't define their attitude on that document because it wasn't translated into English.
I have mentioned that in a brief application to the Tribunal, and I hope that the Tribunal will be good enough to deal with it.
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, Lehmann's affidavit is very short -it goes principally to character -- and it really is not objectionable, but I had to point out that it hadn't actually been allowed by the Tribunal in their order.
THE PRESIDENT:If it is accepted in the translation, that is all that is necessary.
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, I entirely agree, and it is all on one page.
THEPRESIDENT:Yes, very well. Let it be translated.
MR. ELWYN JONES:May it please the Tribunal, it may be convenient for me to indicate to the Tribunal at this stage of Raeder's case that with regard to the witness, Lehmann, theProsecution does not now desire to cross examine the witness in view of the documents which are before the Court, and because of the fact that the matters his affidavit dealt with were dealt with yesterday by my learned friend Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, in his cross examination of Raeder, and finally, in view of the passage of time.
THE PRESIDENT:Do any other members if the prosecution want to cross examine Lehmann?
MR. ELWYN JONES:No, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT:Do any of the defendants' counsel want to ask any questions of Lehmann?
Very well, I understand that the witness Lehmann is being kept here and perhaps a message could be given to the Marshal that he needn't remain.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, I just wish to say in the name of theFrench Prosecution that I agree with the translation of the documents which have been prepared for the defense of Sauckel.
I have no objection to the presentation of these documents, but the Court will be able to rule on than when they are presented. We have no objection to the documents being translated and presented.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you think it is necessary or desirable for there to be a special hearing with reference to the admissiblity or can that be done in the course of the defendant Sauckel's case? At the moment I apprehend that the documents have been locked at for the purpose oftranslation. They have now been translated. If you think it necessary that there should be any special hearing before the case beings, as to admissibility, we should like to know. Otherwise, they would be dealt with in the course of Sauckel's case.
MR. HERZOG: I do think, Mr. President, that will be sufficient if the Tribunal wants these documents during the presentation of the case of the defendant.
I do not think it is necessary to have a special hearing.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
KARLSEVERING -- resumed:
DIRECTEXAMINATION --- continued: BY DR. SIEMERS:
QMr. Severing,as far as I have been able to ascertain, you have not quite clearly answered one of my questions. It referred to concentration camps and you said that you had heard of certain cases and that you have heard of individual cases. So that there isn't any misunderstanding, I just rant to ask you in conclusion, did you hear of the mass murders which have been mentioned in this trial, whereby at Auschwitz an average of from two thousand persons a day were killed in gas chambers. Did you have that knowledge before the collapse or did you not know nothing about that either.
AThese mass murders which didn't become known in Germany until the collapse of the Hitler regime, partly through the press and partly through the trial, I knew nothing of them.
Q minister Severing, what could you and your friends in your party do when the Nazis were in power, against the National Socialist terror, which you have mentioned, and did anyone support you in any way in this connection?
AIf I can define your question, the question of what my political friend and I could do after the 30th of January to fight against the Hitler regime, then I must say little. If there was a question of resistance against the Hitler regime, then that resistance wasn't any centrally organized resistance; it was confirmed to an action whereby in certain towns the opponents of the Nazis united to seek out ways and means whereby it night at least by means of propaganda fight against the National Socialist terror but an open resistance wasn't possible; but perhaps I may draw your attention to this at this point: On the 30th of January, I myself, made an attempt which, in my opinion, night have been decisive, to fight against the Hitler regime. In the autumn of 1931, I had a conference with the chief of the army staff, von Hammerstein, during which he told me that the Reichsfuehrer of the armed forces wouldn't allow it; that Hitler would occupy the chair of the Reichspresident.
I remember that conference and on the 30th of January 1933, I had the question put to von Hammerstein, Whether he would be willing to have a talk with me.
I wanted to ask him during that talk whether he was still of the opinion that the armed forces would not only talk against Hitler's regime but would in fact fight against it and in not much time had the reply given to me, that principly he would be prepared to have such a conference with me but that the moment wasn't suitable, so that conference never took place. If you ask no if my political friends made efforts to fight at least with propaganda against this regime and whether they had any support from foreign personalities which one night have regarded as anti-Fascist, then I must oblige you unfortunately not -- to the contrary, with great grief, we auite often noticed that members of the British Labor Party, not officials but private persons, were Hitler's guests and that they returned to England to praise Chancellor Hitler as a friend of peace. I Mention Phillips Newton in that connection, and the Senior Chief of the Labor Party, Flensbury. May I perhaps draw your attention in this connection to the following facts?
THE PRESIDENT:I don't see what this has to do with the attitude of political parties. The attitude of political parties in other countries has nothing to do with any question we have to decide, absolutely nothing.
DR. SIEMERS:I believe that this will do and I have no further questions to this witness, Mr. President.
DR. LATERNSER:Dr. Laternser, Counsel for the General Staff and the OK . BY DR, LATERNSER:
QMinister Severing, during the time you were in office, was there a case when the1100,000-men army which was granted by the Versaille Treaty was exceeded?
A I have no official knowledge of ot but i would assume that this is not the case.
QDo you now whether at the end of 1932, the League of Nations made a promise or actually gave permission that this army of 100,000 mencould be increased to 300,000 men?
AI can't give you any official information on that either but I can give you the following explanation: In 1932, I received a letter from my party friend Dr. Rudolf Breitscheid, who was a number of the League of Nations Delegation and in which he mentioned rumors of that type. This information, he added ---
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Laternser, we don't think that rumors are relevant in the trial. He says he can't give us any official information. He then begins to give us rumors. e don't want to hear rumors.
DR. LATERNSER:Mr. President, the statement the witness is about to make will be something more than a rumor and I think you will probably be able to judge it when he has answered the question completely.
THE PRESIDENT:He is speaking of rumors. If you have any fresh question ask him, you can ask it. BY DR. LATERNSER:
QDid the enlargement, the increase of the army from 100, 00 to 300,000 men, did it ever reach any concrete shape, did it ever go beyond discussion?
AI just told you that Dr. Breitsheid was a member of the League of National Delegation and that his information to me wasn't invented. That information said that an enlargement of the army was proposed but that this enlargement would probably happen at the expense of the police; that is why Dr. Breitscheid informed me of the matter.
DR. LATERNSER:Mr. President, I have no further questions.
DR. KARL HAENSEL:Karl Haensel, counsel for the SS. BY DR. HAENSEL:
QMinister, you have just mentioned that you have no knowledge of the murdering of Jews in Auschwitz before the collapse. Do you have any knowledge any other murders and perpetrations against Jews which you would describe as being criminal?
AI have experienced such cases personally. In 1944, a friend of mine Bielefeld was arrested and transferred to a labor camp at Imden and he was shown on the third day.
Q Do you know who arrested him, which type of authority?
AHe was arrested by the Gestapo at Bielefeld.
QWas that in connection with large-scale action or an individual case?
AIt Seemed to me to be an individual case.
QDo you know of more such individual cases at that time in 1944?
AIn 1944, I did not hear of any individual murders but I heard of transports from Westphalian towns.
QWhich authority, which official body dealt with these transports?
AI can't tell you for certain but I assume the secret state police.
QIs it your opinion that considerable sections of the population would have had knowledge of such occurrences?
AYou mean transports?
QYes.
AThey usually happened quite publicly.
Q and are you of the opinion that the same people night have had knowledge just like the members of the organizations, let us say, for instance, the SS men, or would you say that the ordinary SS man would have had no more knowledge than the population?
AYes, because he knew where these transports were going to.
QBut the way I understood you, I thought that you didn't describe the transports as being carried out by the SS; you said "Gestapo."
AYes, I told you that I assumed that the Gestapo carried out the arrests and the collections of these people but I didn't talk about the transports and I didn't say that I was assured of the certainty of my assumption that it was exclusively done by the Gestapo.
Q What measures, apart from such transports, were there? Was there a local pogrom, for instance?
If I understand you rightly, you didn't hear of that frequently.
ALocal pogroms happened in November 1938.
QDid you, during such measures which we have discussed quite frequently, make observations of your own, or were you at home?
AI was at homes. I only saw the effect of these pogroms afterwards. I saw the destroyed Jewish businesses. I saw the wreckages of the synagogue
QAnd to which organization or group would you attribute the events of November 1938?
AThat would be my own judgment, but I will tellyou quite openly: the SA and the SS.
QAnd why did you just draw that conclusion, that these two groups did it?
ABecause the members of these two groups in Bielefeld -- that is my home town -- were regarded as the originators of the fire of the synagogue.
QBy whom?
AThe population in General. They were named.
QYou knew about the concentration camps. Can you still remember when for the first time -- and it is important that I know at least the year they were talked about?
ANo. I cannot it the moment tell you that. I can only reply to that in connection with the various dates. The first murder in a concentration camp became known to me when I heard that in the concentration camp at Papenburg the former member of the German Reichstag and police president of Altenau was shot. That may have been either 1935 or 1936, I am not sure.
QAnd later did you hear of numerous such cases, or did you have personal knowledge ?
AMy own knowledge, that means that I would be so certain that I could submit it to this Tribunal as material, are those cases which I have mentioned this morning.
QWere you told that concentration camps were Places where the political opponents of the regime were to be accommodated without anything further happening to them except deprivation of their liberty?
AWhether I was told that?
QWere you told that?
ANo. To the contrary, I have heard that concentration camps meant to the population the very incarnation of all the terrible.
QWhat do you mean by "population"? Do you mean those sections of the population who had some official connections to the Party too, small men, members of the Party, the smaller SA and SS men?
AI can't say anything about that, because I dealt exclusively with the opponents of the regime, you see.
QDo you believe that these opponents to whom you talked were united in a front against anything, anyone who would carry the Party emblem?
AOn that question which you are now touching upon you are talking about large sections of the population and their humane feelings. Their humane feelings had already become known.
QBut, you see, my question was this: Wasn't that discussed in the cases of people who were bearing the Party eagle?
AWell, I assume so, but I can't submit that to the Tribunal as a fact
QThese people, did they find themselves under that pressure which you have mentioned?
AThey probably felt that through being members of the Party they were somewhat immune.
QDo you believe that a lot of people became members to come into that more favorable and immune position?
AI believe so, yes.
QI heard that you yourself were a member of the N.S.V.; is that true?
ANo.
QIs it true that you were arrested after the 20th of July 1944?
AI have already answered that question this morning. I was not arrested.
QYou weren't arrested at all?
ANo, with the exception of the case which I have also told you this morning.
Q Did you at any time say that the things which were being done in the social sector in Germany were to a considerable extent the ideal form of government?
AYes, but the way I expressed it was this: What was new wasn't goo, and what was good wasn't new.
QDo you believe that a German, no matter whether a Party member or a member of the SS or not, would have known of the events at Auschwitz of which you yourself didn't have any knowledge? Would he have to have knowledge
AHe wouldn't have had to know. No, I wouldn't go as far as that. I sawhe could have.
QAnd how do you think he could have had that knowledge?
AThrough the members of the transport guards, who weren't always in the concentration camps. They came back.
QBut if they were sworn to secrecy -
AThen they couldn't tell anything.
QDo you know of cases where people were sentenced who had told such stories?
ANo.
QDo you know of the activities of special courts? Have you heard of them?
ANo, at least not in connection with this particular thing.
QBut it was in the papers. There were sentences against people who listened to false statements, or against people who were spreading such rumors Haven't you heard of that? Didn't you read of them?
ANo.
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Steinbauer, for the defendant Seyss-Inquart.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
QWitness, I have only got one question which I want to put to you. You told us this morning that in 1919 you were a member of the National Assembly at Weimar. May I ask you which position that National Assembly had, and in particular that faction of the Social Democrats which you had led, and what their attitude was toward the Austrian Anschluss.
ADuring the time when the National Assembly met at Weimar, I was the Reich and State Commissioner in the Rhineland and Westphalia. I was only rarely present during the negotiations of that assembly. I do not know in detail, therefore, how these matters were formulated or expressed. But one thing I do know, and that is that it was the almost united wish of the National Assembly that a paragraph or article should be included in the Constitution which would carry out the Anschluss of Austria, which would carry out that Anschluss to Germany.
DR. STEINBAUER:I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Does the Prosecution wish to cross examine? BY MR. ELWYN JONES:
QHerr Minister, you have told the Tribunal that in 1928 the defendant Raeder assured you solemnly where would be no further violations of the Treaty of Versailles without the knowledge of the Reich Cabinet. Did Raeder fulfil that assurance?
AI have already stated this morning that in that positive manner I can't answer that. I can only say that violations of the agreement of the 18th of October 1928, as far as the Navy is concerned, are not known to so.
QDid you know, for Instance, of the construction in Cadis in Spain of a 750-ton U-beat under German direction between the years 1927 and 1931?
ANo, no.
MR. ELWYN JONES:My Lard, the authority for that statement of fact is the Document D-854. BY MR. ELWYN JONES:
QAnd, Herr Minister, did you know that after its completion in 1931 that U-boat carried out trial runs under German direction and with German personnel?