THE PRESIDENT: I have three announcements to make. to the Prosecution the exact passages in all documents which they propose to use, in order that the Prosecution may have an opportunity to object to irrelevant passages. In the event of disagreement between the Prosecution and the Defense as to relevancy of any particular passage, the Tribunal will decide what passages are sufficiently relevant to be translated. Only the cited passages need be translated, unless the Prosecution require translation of the entire document.
Second, the Tribunal has received an application from Dr. Nelte, Counsel for the defendant Keitel, inquiring whether a defendant, in order to support his memory, may make use of written notes while giving oral evidence. The Tribunal sanctions the use of written notes by the defendant in those circumstances, unless in special cases the Tribunal orders otherwise. administer interrogatories to or obtain an affidavit from a witness who will be called to give oral evidence on behalf of another defendant. If the witness gives his oral evidence before the case is heard in which the interrogatory or affidavit is to be offered, Counsel in the latter case must elicit the evidence by oral examination, instead of using the interrogatory or affidavit.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for defendant Keitel): Mr. President, in yesterday afternoon's session, we mentioned the testimony application nuber two, which I had submitted, was not explained orally. Is that so? I would like to put the question whether that was correct. I was not present in the afternoon's session and would like to be informed.
We are interested in the subsequent clarification regarding the witnesses Westhoff and Wielen.
Both of these witnesses had already been granted me in open Tribunal session. I only submitted these names again so that my application for proof might be complete and comprehensive. already been granted me by the High Tribunal, and I believe, therefore, that I do not need to clarify my request for the addition of these witnesses, and that the Prosecution may not see fit to object.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Nelte, General Westhoff and Wielen haveaalready been granted to you, and there is no need for any further application.
DR. NELTE: Is Stuckhart also granted me, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Westhoff and Wielen have been granted to you, and there is no need for any further application. I am afraid it is difficult to carry all of these names in one's memory. I think that Stuckhart has been granted to you.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told he has been.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, at yesterday afternoon's session, my name was also mentioned in the following connection. I had submitted written motions and I was to present them orally as well. I assume that we are concerned with the Written request or motion which I covered in my document and witness list, and in a rather lengthy written application, I requested that I might have permission to quote rather lengthy quotations from philosophical works, as far as Rosenberg is concerned, and to use them as evidence for my client, and I beg Your Honor whether this written request was the one that was covered in yesterday afternoon's session.
I would like to repeat, MR. President, I was asked yesterday that I was to submit an oral request in addition to the one that I had made in writing, and I would like to know whether it was the written request that I put in with my request for witnesses and documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, so far as the Tribunal knows, everything will be covered by the written order which the Tribunal will make upon your application. It is not convenient, really, to deal with these matters now by way of oral requests, but everything that is in your written application will be covered by a written order of the Tribunal.
It will be subject of course, to the order which I have renounced this morning, in order to secure that there will be no more translation than in absolutely necessary.
DR. STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): Mr. President and gentlemen of the bench, before I will start with my presentation, I beg to request two more probative value materials. I am fully cognizant of the fact that any such request should be put in writing, but I would like to have your decision whether I should put these motions now or whether the High Tribunal wishes a written request on my part.
THE PRESIDENT: You may put your request now verbally, but we would prefer to have them in writing afterwards as soon as possible.
DR. STAHMER: I would like to call Major Buetz, who is interned at Nurnberg as a witness for the following facts: Reichsmarshall Goering has repeatedly stated in the summer of 1945 that he opposed the measures which Hitler was taking against aviators and these terror attacks. He knows that neither from the Luftwaffe nor from the Wehrmacht any orders had come which would cover Hitler's orders regarding the treatment of terror aviators.
Now at last we can prove the following points: An officer of the Luftwaffe in May of 1944 at Munich protected a flyer which had been shot down, protected him against lynching which masses of people wanted to do to him. Hitler, who had knowledge of this incident, demanded of Goering the name of this officer and his punishment. Goering knew the name of this officer and on repeated questioning on the part of Hitler, Goering did not give the name of this officer and protected him in that manner, and this motion regarding the witness Buetz is concerned with this case. cerned with the following: showed that a German military formation called "Stab 537" Pioneer Battalion shot many, many Polish prisoners of war in the forests hear Katyn. The responsible leaders of this formation were mentioned as Arenz, Rex, and Hott, all of them lieutenants. And as proof the Prosecution referred to Document USSR 64. It is an official report of the Extraordinary Commission which was concerned with the investigation of the well-known facts of the matter Katyn.
The document itself has not been received by me. On the basis of the publication of this speech by the Prosecution in the press, members of the staff of the Heeresgruppe Mitte announced that they knew of this, and Staff 537 was connected with Heeresgruppe Mitte and was stationed or situated not far from this camp. This is about forty-five kilometers away. These people stated that the information upon which the Prosecution made the foregoing statement was not ture and the following witnesses are mentioned: Chief of Armament and Leader of the Auxilliary Forces; First Lieutenant Rex, probably taken prisoner of war at Stalingrad; then, third, Lieutenant Hott, who probably became a prisoner of war at or near Koenigsberg, that is, a Russian prisoner of war; General Major of Intelligence Troops, Eugen Oberhauser, probably an American prisoner of war; General Graf Berg, later Ordnance Officer with Field Marshal Kluge, as an English prisoner of war in Canada. Other members of the accused formation are to be mentioned later. I wish to call these witnesses so that the conclusion drawn by the Prosecution from the above-mentioned statements covering guilt or coguilt by the defendant Goering is not justified. to put another request for evidence, Professor Nahwiel at the University of Geneva, a professor and medical man. At that time he worked with an international commission at Smolensk, performed autopsies, and could tell from the remains in the pockets of these corpses and from other things about these bodies that the measures had already been performed in the year 1940.
THE PRESIDENT: If you will put in those requests in writing, the Tribunal will consider them.
DR. STAHMER: And now will I begin.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one minute. Dr. Stahmer, if you would communicate your written application to the Prosecution, they would then be able to make a written statement if they have any objection to it. You will do that as soon as possible.
Let us have both your written application and the Prosecution's answer to it.
DR. STAHMER: The Tribunal has ordered in its decision of December 11, 1945, that the defense is entitled to be heard only once. This shall take place only after the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence. The Tribunal decided some time later that explanatory words may be permitted at the present part of the trial in connection with the presentation of documents by the defense. The witnesses have already been named by me. A decision has been made concerning their admission and they will be called in the course of the proceedings. I wish to call a witness shortly but before I do that, I wish to make the following comments to the documents to which I shall refer during my final speech:
The Prosection has charged the defendant repeatedly with the violation of the Treaty of Versailles, but this charge is not justified in the opinion of the defense.
Detailed statements on this question belong to the concluding speech of the defense and will therefore be dealt with there. documents which will be used to prove the contention that the Tready of Versailles was not violated by Germany but that Germany was no longer bound by it. basis of that treaty, are commonly known, and therefore do not need further proof, according to Paragraph 21 of the Charter.
The Treaty of Versailles has already been submitted to the Tribunal. It was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt 1919, Page 687. Out of this Treaty of Versailles, Article 8 and Part V of this treaty are important for its interpretation. These provisions are reproduced in the Document book. I quote the first four paragraphs of Article 8:
"The members of the League profess the principle that the maintenance of peace requires a decrease of national armaments to a minimum which is compatible with national security and with the enforcement of international obligations by joint actions.
"The Council will draw up the plans for disarmament under consideration of the geographical location and the particular conditions of each state and will submit them to the various governments for examination and decision.
"Every ten years these plans are to be subjected to a re-examination and possibly a revision.
"The limits of armaments decided upon in such a manner must not be exceeded without the consent of the Council after their acceptance by the various governments."
"In order to render possible a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany agrees to comply strictly with the regulations for the ground, naval and air forces as set forth." signatories of the pact were bound to disarm likewise. However, Germany was committed to start disarmament first.
Germany completely fulfilled this commitment.
On the 17th of February 1927, Marshall Foch stated: "I can assure you that Germany has actually disarmed." to disarm. As they did not disarm, Germany was no longer bound by the pact according to general principles of law, and she was justified in renouncing her obligation. by French as well as by English statesmen. Therefore, I should like to refer to the speech made by Paul Boncour on April 8, 1937, in which Boncour stated as follows: I quote from Document Book 1, Page 28.
"It is correct that the introduction to Part V of the Treaty of Versailles concerns the limitation of armaments, which was imposed on Germany as a prerequisite and as the forerunner of a general limitation of armaments. This brings out very clearly the difference between the armament restrictions of Germany and other similar armament restrictions, which in the course of history have been imposed after the conclusion of wars. This time these regulations and in this lies their entire value - have been imposed not only on one of the signatories to the treaty, but they are rather a duty, a moral and legal responsibility for the other signatories to proceed with a general limitation of armaments." on the 7th of November 1927, in which he points out the memorandum to the skeleton note of June 1919. I quote from the document book 1, Page 26:
"A document which we handed Germany as a solemn pledge on the part of Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, and 20 other nations to follow Germany's example after she was disarmed." bitter injustice, but there were numerous voices in foreign countries that called the treaty exceedingly unfair for Germany. I am quoting the following from Rothermere's "Warnings and Prophecies," Document Book 1, Page 30:
"Germany was justified in feeling that she had been betrayed in Versailles under the pretext -
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: (Interposing) I just call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the documents which are now being read into the record are documents which, as I understand it, were excluded as irrelevant by the Tribunal when that matter was before it before.
They are matters of a good deal of public notoriety and would not be secret if they were not in evidence; but I think the reading of them into the record is in violation of the Tribunal's own determination.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal had suspected that these documents had been excluded, and they have sent for the original record of their orders. But I must say now that the Tribunal expects the defendants' counsel to conform to their orders and not to read documents which they have been ordered not to read.
DR. STAHMER: Shall I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. STAHMER: Thank you. Germany was disarmed for a period of five years. From that day on which the various peace treaties were signed, encouraged a number of small States to helping the rearmament and the result was that Germany five years after this day was surrounded by a much Tighter ring of iron than five years before the world war, and it was inevitable that a German regime, which had renounced Versailles, at the first opportunity would rearm heavily, and it was evident that its weapons, diplomatically, if in the true sense of the word, were to be directed against the powers of Versailles, and in the sam way is disputed the Pact of Locarno, a breach of which the defendant is also charged with, and as far as the defense is concerned, unjustifiably. and Russia had signed a Military Assistance Pact, although the Locarno Pact provided a guarantee of the French Eastern Border, This act by France, in the opinion of Germany, was in sharp contrast to the legal situation created by the Locarno Pact. Nations on the 19th of March 1936, this opinion was expressed in the following words. I quote from document book 1, page 32. "....But it is also clear that if a world power ---"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, I have before me know the order of the Tribunal of the 26th of February 1946, and paragraph 4 of that order is in the following terms: "The following documents are denied as irrelevant", and then the heading "Goering", and the fourth of the document is the speech by Paul Boncour on the 8th of April 1927, and the sixth is the speech by Lloyd George on the 7th of November 1927, which you have not read but which you have put in your trial brief. I would again call your attention, and the attention of all the defense counsel, to the fact that they will not be allowed to read any document which has been denied by the Tribunal. Go on.
DR. STAHMER: This quotation is as follows:
"...But it is also clear that if a world power by virtue of her sovereignty can decide upon concluding military alliances of such vast proportions without having misgivings on account of existing treaties, another world power like Germany has at least the right to safeguard the protection of the entire Reich territory by re-establishing within her own borders the natural rights of a sovereign power which are granted all peoples." intention, if I have the permission of the high Tribunal, to call as the first witness General of the Airforce von Bodenschatz.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
(KARL VON BODENSCHATZ, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows): BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What is your name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me. I swear by God, the Almighty Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth, and will withhold and add nothing (The witness repeated the oath). BY DR. STAHMER: Goering?
Q In what capacity did you get to know him? Richthofen. I was the adjutant of Freiherr von Richthofen who had just died, who had been killed in action. Reichswehr, at the end of the first world war?
AAt the end of the first world war? I was taken into the Reichswehr as a professional officer and remained from the year 1919 until April 1933. connection with Goering: did you mean in November 1918?
A I came together with Goering again. I was at Aschaffenburg, at a demobilization of Squadron Richthofen. I was with Goering at the time and later in the spring of 1919 for several weeks, I was together with him at Berlin. There our paths separated. Then I met Goering for the first time once more at his first wedding and I believe that was in the year 1919 or 1920, I cannot remember exactly. Up to 1929 there was no connection between him and me. In the year 1929, up until the year 1933, I met Hermann Goering here in Nurnberg several times. At that time, I was the Kompaniechef of Infantry Regiment 21 and was stationed at Nurnberg. My meetings with Goering were meant for purposes of old friendship.
Q And then in the year 1939, you entered the Luftwaffe?
A 1933, I volunteered with Goering at Berlin. At that time, Goering was Reich Commissar of the Luftwaffe and I reported to him as his military adjutant. I remained up until the year 1938; then I was the Chief of the Ministerial Bureau.
Q And what position did you have curing the war? of the Luftwaffe and the Fuehrer Headquarters.
Q Were you at the headquarters, or where? headquarters of the commanding chief of the Luftwaffe.
Q When did you leave this position? wounded on that day, seriously wounded on that day.
Q And what was the cause of your being wounded?
Q You were present?
Q And what were your tasks at the Fuehrer Headquarters? of the Reichsmarshal, to bring them to the Fuehrer Headquarters in the absence of the Reichsmarshal and to see that these requests were forwarded, and then questions from the Fuehrer Headquarters to be forwarded to Goering direct.
Then all proceedings at the Fuehrer Headquarters, as far as they concerned him in his capacity as Reichsmarshal, I had to inform him in plenty of time, that is, not necessarily through official channels,I had to forward this information to him
Q Did you take part in the conferences? with Hitler? Goering, since the spring of 1933, Goering lost influence with Hitler.
Q And what were the reasons? and since that time between Hitler and Goering were differences of opinion which, in a separate period of time were increased, in a subsequent period of time.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation came through, as far as we were able to hear it, that the Defendant Goering, since the spring of 1933, lost his influence with Hitler.
DR. STAHMER: In 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
DR. STAHMER: May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Even though Goering made tremendous efforts, he could not recapture his influence upon the Fuehrer as he had had it prior to that time, and the outward signs and symptoms of the decreased influence were the following:
First, the Fuehrer criticized Goering mere severely. Secondly, the prior conversations between Hitler and Goering, which had been of large duration, now were markedly shorter, less frequent, and finally ceased altogether. Thirdly, as far as important conferences were concerned, the Reichsmarshal was not called in. Fourthly, in the last months and weeks, there was an increasing tension between Hitler and Goering, and to such a decree that he was arrested.
Q Do you knew about this arrest, and what was the cause?
A I am not exactly informed on this. I can just tell you what I heard. I was at that time at Reichenhall at the hospital. I just heard that Reichsmarshal Goering had sent a telegram to the Fuehrer, and in this telegram, to a measure at least, Goering requested that since he, that is Goering, did not have freedom of action any more, that he might act himself. After a reply to this wire, which was sent by wireless, was sent back to Berlin, there was by Hitler an arrest. I wouldlike to emphasize and inform that that was just his say. I have no proof of any of these statements.
Q And who made the arrest? I heard that a commando of the SS from Obersalzberg made this arrest. the proceedings against him, which had been made on the 9 and 10 November 1938
Q How can you tell that? towards me. And he acted in the following manner: When he heard of these things which were made, he could not justify these proceedings, and, further, afterwards, is when he went over to the Fuehrer and complained about the people who had instigated those incidents. Captain Wiedmann, the Adjutant of the Fuehrer, can give you the particulars and the details. Several weeks after this, Goering called in the Gauleiters to Berlin at that time, as he wanted to make clear his attitude as to the incident of on the 9th and 10th; he opposed these wild single actions. He stated them as unjust, as economically unreasonable, and the diminution of prestige in foreign countries, and, former Gauleiter Dr. Veberreiter, who took part in this conference, has already given written testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait one moment. Go on Dr. Stahmer. You can go on. BY DR. STAHMER:
Q Have you completed your statement?
of August 1939 at Sonke Nissen Koog in Husum, which took place at that time and place?
Q Who was present or assembled there?
A So far as I recall the following were present: Hermann Goering, Herr Dahlerus, Stockholm, six to eight English, a Ministerialrat in the Government, whose name I don't recall, I was present, and there was an interpreter, Dr. Boecker, who was present.
Q Can you tell us about the contents of this conference? you Goering made the following statement:
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, did the witness say where this conference took place? BY DR. STAHMER: that was. BY DR. STAHMER: First, Sonke Nissen Koog, that is sort of a bse, Sonke Nissen Koog in Husum.
Q Please continue. You were going to tell us about the contents, or substance of this conference?
A In substance, Goering made the following statement: Between English and Germany military connections the relations are very tense. Under no circumstances may this tension be increased, or be intensified, that may, or may not endanger the peace. That welfare, and the economic welfare of both countries can only bloom and function in peace. Germany and Europe are interested to the greatest extent so that the British Empire will continue to exist. Goering emphasized that he himself would use his entire influence for the maintenance of peace. He asked and requested the British business leaders after their return home to use their influence with the vital personalities; that they use their influence for that purpose and for the aims just outlined.
foreign policy of the Reich should be carried out according to this opinion, when on the occasions these conversations took place? These conversations took place in the years of 1938 and 1939, especially in that time or period after the Munich Agreement. These conversations took place perhaps in connection with the speech, or perhaps on a special train. Hermann Goering was only of the opinion that the policy of the Reich would have to be conducted in such a way that the possibility of war was not even to be thought of. Hermann Goering was especially interested in elaborating on this topic in a conference with the Gauleiters in the Summer of 1938 at Carinhall. I just recently did mention that Dr. Ueberreiter had testified under oath, especially, and particularly in this connection. did he speak to you prior to that departure? everything within -- he would do everything in order to effect a peaceful settlement. We cannot have war, and in this sense and substance he tried to effect and influence the Fuehrer, and, accordingly, during the proceedings at Munich he worked for the preservation, and also, decisively for peace.
Q Have you finished?
A I have not quite finished yet. When after this conference at Munich he met the Fuehrer, and he said to us spontaneously, "that is peace I want." I have concluded. a war, and what was the occasion for his making this statement?
A We talked about this topic very frequently. He always said to me, "I was in the first World War in the infantry, and as an aviation officer, and was at the front. I know the horrors of a war, and, therefore, my attitude is so far as possible to prevent the horrors of war to come to the German people. Again my ambition is to solve the conflicts peacefully."
I would like to add that Hermann Goering, according to his inner thoughts and character, was never for war. Everything was further from him than the thought of a war. about rearmament which Germany had taken? What were the utterances then and there? Wehrfreiheit had been known, and he said that, after several attempts to limit armament, the rearmament of Germany was to be similar to the armament of ether countries, and the aim was to have the same rights as the other great powers and to be able to participate in the politics and policies of the great powers.
Q Did these conversations take place after 1935 also?
A Yes. Now and then we referred to the same topic, and he spoke in the same manner. Plan was to serve? and that was after the Four Year Plan had been announced. He told me the following: that in this plan he saw a means to secure for Germany these raw materials which she could not import in peace because of the lack of foreign exchange, or whose import in an emergency would be cut off. Russian campaign? campaign, Goering talked with me about the situation and the fighting in the East. He said at that time Adolf Hitler foresaw a very hard battle in the East, but the reverses, as we have just had them, he did not foresee and did not count on. Before the beginning of this campaign I tried in vain to dissuade Hitler from his plan of attacking Russia. I reminded him that he himself, in his book "Mein Kampf", was opposed to a war on two fronts simultaneously, and, in addition, I pointed out that the mass or the scope of the German Luftwaffe was to be in the East, and England, whose air industry had been hurt, would have a chance to recover and convalesce.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off for ten minutes?
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has observed that the witness is using notes while giving his evidence.
The ruling which I announced this morning was confined to the defendants and did not extend to witnesses. Nevertheless, the Tribunal will allow the same rule to be applied to witnesses. The evidence must not be read, the crux of the rule being merely to assist the recollection in giving evidence.
Yes, Dr. Stahmer. (Direct-Examination continued) BY DR. STAHMER request that their relatives should be freed from concentration camps and to help them in their difficulties with the Gestapo? who can answer that question. I myself only heard that such requests had been directed to the Reichmarshal.
Q Didn't you personally have to do with these things? toward the Luftwaffe. But they were only requests regarding the imprisonment of German citizens and these were requests that the reason for this imprisonment be given. Otherwise also applications regarding misunderstandings of arrests and also regarding arrests of Jews. Those requests came to me only from the field of activity of the Luftwaffe or from my immediate circle of acquaintances.
Q How were such requests treated?
A Such requests were treated as follows: and were submitted to the Staff of the Reichmarshal. There requests that came from the Luftwaffe fell into my sphere of activity and requests that came from the Reichsmarshal's relatives or friends he himself handled. The Reichsmarshal did not withdraw his help in these cases. In individual cases he asked the Fuehrer personally for a decision.
Q Did you also turn to Goering with requests for help for Jews?
Q How were these requests handled?
A T he Reichsmarshal did not deny his help and he gave instructions whenever possible that they should be helped.
Q That was Goering's general social attitude?
A Goering's social attitude was as follows: fueling that he should help those he could. He was always ready to help those who were in need, for instance sick people, wounded, the relatives of those who had been killed in the war, prisoners of war. Here is an example of this: The introduction of miners' compensation for twenty-five years of steady work -- those who had worked that long should receive twenty thousand marks in compensation. This is one of his most important social works.