A. I can only pass judgment regarding the two cases which occurred in my Navy, I received information that those two officers had participated. I had questions put to them, and they confirmed it. Subsequently, these officers were dismissed from the Navy. The interrogation, of course, was then not carried out by the Navy, but I know that my Navy judges were still taking care of the officers and the interrogation.
Q. Who dismissed these men?
A. The Navy.
Q. That is you.
A. Yes.
Q. And, do you know, Witness, that in the course of the investigation regarding the 20th of July a committee was set up consisting of generals, which was headed by Fieldmarshal Rundstedt?
A. Yes, I heard about that.
Q. And that this committee, on the basis of the records of the SD, decided whether the person in question, the officer in question, was to be dismissed from the Army or had to leave the Army, so that, following that, he could come before the civil court, which in this case was the People's Court?
A. That is now known to me.
Q. May I put it to you that I am of the opinion that the statement regarding the decree which you had stated before -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, you are bound by his answer. He said he didn't know anything about it. You can't then put to him what you say happened. If he says he doesn't know anything about it, you must accept his answer.
DR. DIX: What I intended was to put to him that the order to which he had referred earlier, and which, in fact, exists, and which does say that a decision will be made as to whether someone is to be dismissed from the Army or not, and is to be surrendered to the civil authorities, that this order is connected with this committee, the president of which was General Fieldmarshal von Rundstedt; and that they had to decide whether the officer in question would have to be dismissed, as not coming under military justice any more but under the People's Court.
It is a question which, therefore, refers -
THE PRESIDENT: I understood the witness to say he didn't know anything about it. I think you are bound by that answer.
DR. DIX: May I add something?
THE PRESIDENT: Who are you offering these questions for? You are counsel for the defendant Schacht.
DR. DIX: The questions of my colleague for Keitel were put regarding the credibility of witness Gesivius. Schacht's defense rests on the credibility of Gesivius, and he is very interested in it. I was putting these three questions to defend Gesivius' credibility. That is, of course, for Schacht. And may I add something, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. DIX: The question to which your Lordship is objecting was merely put because I expected the possibility that the answer of the witness might have been based on a mistake, namely, that the general instructions which he was referring to, according to which the soldier in question would first of all have to be dismissed before the SD could take hold of him, that he was mixing that order up with the decree stating that Rundstedt's committee would have to decide whether the officer in question was to be dismissed from the armed forces and would then come before the People's Court, not the SD. The SD was only carrying out the investigation, but the People's Court would then take hold of the person in question.
THE PRESIDENT: What is it you want to ask him now? BY DR. DIX:
Q. Well, then, Grand Admiral, I think you have understood my question, or do you want me to repeat it?
A. I can't tell you any more than I already have done.
DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius, counsel for Sauckel. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, as the Commander of submarines, you did have some official contact with Sauckel, didn't you?
A. No, it wasn't official contact; it was private.
Q. What was the cause?
A. A submarine which was to go into the Atlantic for eight weeks had reported to me that it had been found after it had left port that Gauleiter Sauckel had crept aboard. I immediately sent a wireless message giving the order for the submarine to turn about, and that he was to be put upon the first steamer.
Q. That was Sauckel's motive?
A. No doubt a belligerent. He wonted to go to sea again.
Q. But then he was Gauleiter, Didn't he have particularly special reasons for which he wanted to show that he was ready to fight in the war; that he didn't want to sit behind the front?
A. It surprised me that he could afford that as a Gauleiter, that is to go to sea, but, at any rate, I believed that this was a man who had his heart in the right spot.
Q. You believe that they were idealistic motives?
A. But most certainly, yes. Nothing much could be got out of traveling on a submarine.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Steinbauer, counsel for Seyss-Inquart: BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q. Grand Admiral, do you remember that in your capacity as the head of the State on the 1st of May 1945, you ordered the commissioner for the occupied territories to come to Flensburg to report to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you also remember that on that occasion my client had asked you that the order originally sent to the commander in the Netherlands regarding which all locks should be blown up in the event of an attack, that this order should be canceled; and that he also asked that the order should be given that the detonation point should be discharged?
A. Yes, he did do that. It was in accordance with my own principles, because when I had become head of the State I had given the order that all destruction -- and that included occupied territories as, for instance, Czechoslovakia -- should cease forthwith.
to his station in the Netherlands instead of remaining in Germany?
A Yes, he did so repeatedly. He tried to get back, but the travel situation was difficult, and he could not be taken back by "E" boat quickly to the Netherlands.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you very much. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: your record after becoming commander in chief of the navy on the 30th of January, 1943. As commander in chief of the navy you had the equivalent rank of a minister of the Reich; is that not so? cabinet, had any such meetings taken place? was ordered by the Fuehrer. That is the way it was worded. In that connection I must say that no meeting of any kind between the Reich Government and me at the time I was supreme commander, in 1943, took place at all. That is to say, this participation by order of the Fuehrer did in no way take place. government of the Reich was in a sense carried from Hitler's headquarters; isn't that so? people that he wanted at his military headquarters; that is right, is it not?
A You cannot say "military dictatorship." It was not a dictatorship at all. There was a military sector and a civilian sector, and the Fuehrer had both components in his hand, united.
Q I see. I will take the last part of your answer, and we will not argue about the first.
Now, you saw him on 119 days in just over two years; do you agree with that?
A Yes. But in that connection, it must be stated that beginning on the 30th of January 1943 -- that is to say, when I was supreme commander of the navy -- and until the end of January, 19145 -- that is to say approximately two years -- the number was, I think, 57.
The larger figure arises out of the fact that at the last months of the war I was preparing the midday briefing, which took place at the First Street in Berlin.
Q I want to ask you about certain of these. At a number of these meetings, the defendant Speer was present, was he not? briefings. Actually Minister Speer as a civilian had nothing to do with the military situation. But it is possible that he was there on sonic occasions when production questions were concerned. But those were matters which were directly connected with military considerations of the Fuehrer. when the Defendant Speer were present were when you were going into matters of supply; that is, supply for the various services, including supply for the navy. with these military situation discussions. I discussed those with the Fuehrer alone, as I said. I discussed them with him personally, usually in the presence of Jodl and Keitel. And I put the matters before the Fuehrer there after I had previously clarified the position with Minister Speer. armament question of the navy to him. That, in general, was the position. about priorities and the allocation of materials and labor. You would want to know how labor was going to be allocated during the next period, would you not? Speer would be given the order that as many U-boats as possible should be built with the modern improvements I was putting in at the time. But I was trying to draw the line where the distribution of supplies was very unfortunate as far as I was concerned.
figure of manpower for labor for naval supplies, and for the other supplies, to see that you were getting your fair share, would you not? I never knew it, and I do not know it today; that is to say, how many workers Speer was using for the armament supply to the navy. And I do not even know whether Minister Speer can give you the answer, because construction of submarines, for instance, was taking place all over the German Reich and was being carried out by industry. Parts were assembled in the shipyards, and therefore I do not know what the capacity of output for the navy was. of Europe in his hand? That was on the 17% of December, 1943. I shall put the document to you in a little time. But do you remember describing him as that?
A Yes; I know that quite well.
Q And don't you knew quite well also that Speer was getting his labor from foreign labor brought into the Reich? I knew, as a matter of course, that I as supreme commander of the navy, would not bother about finding out how those workers were recruited. That was none of my business.
Q Didn't Gauleiter Sauckel tell you on the occasion of this trip that he got, 5,000,000 foreign workers into the Reich, of whom only 200,000 had come voluntarily?
A I did not have a single conflict with Gauleiter Sauckel. I did not talk about questions referring to workers with a single person in this world. and sixth years of the war. Wasn't Germany, like every other country, searching around to scrape the bottom of the barrel for labor for all its requirements? Weren't you in urgent need of labor, like every other country in the war?
A I should think yes. I think we needed workers. conferences with Hitler and with Speer that you were getting this labor by forcing foreign labor to come into the Reich and be used? these workers was never mentioned at all. The method was not of any interest. During those conferences, no labor questions were discussed in any way. It was interesting to me only to know how many submarines were being constructed for me; that is to say, considering the number of boats which were being constructed, what was the capacity which I could expect. told you where he was getting his labor? Is that your answer on this point?
A Yes, that is try answers; and it is true. that at certain meetings the representatives for coal and transport and Gauleite Kaufmann, the Reichskommissar for Shipping, were present at meetings which you had with the Fuehrer? these meetings.
Were you dealing with general problems of shipping and transport?
A Never. As far as sea transport is concerned, that is true. I was thinking of matters referring to the shore. I have already stated that at the end of the war I had the greatest interest in the tonnage of merchant vessels. That tonnage which was not under my jurisdiction but under Gauleiter Kaufmann's, the Reichskommissar for naval matters, was needed by me; so that military transport from Norway and from the East and to the East, and refugee transport could be carried out as a military matter. So at meetings and discussions which were dealing with the naval transport situation, I of course participated.
Q Let us take another subject of these 119 days. At 39 of these, the Defendant Keitel was also present at the headquarters, and at about the same number, the defendant Jodl.
A I an sorry; I did not understand the date.
Q I will give it again. At 39 of these meetings between January. 1943, and April, 1945, the defendant Keitel was present, and at about the same number, the defendant Jodl. New, is it light that you discussed or listened to the discussion in their presence of the general strategical position?
A May I say that the word meeting doesn't quits describe the matter.
Q Wall now, you choose the word; you give us the word. and briefings, and of course I listened in; I listened when the situation of the navy was referred to. That I explained before. every opportunity of using and appreciating the military strategical position; that is so, isn't it?
Q Well now, on twenty of these occasions the defendant' Goering was present. The defendant Goering has put himself forward in two capacities; as commander in chief of the Luftwaffe and as a politician. What was he doing on these twenty occasions? when the military situation was discussed. appreciation of the air situation and the position of the Luftwaffe during this period? during these briefings where only excerpts were being given and never a general picture being drawn. That is as far as I can make up my mind, and that was the reason why I never concerned myself with the military Matters outside of the Navy. I can only make up my mind in part.
Q Let me ask you just one further question on this point. Following up what Dr. Laternser asked, on the 29th of June of 1944, apart from Keitel and Jodl and Goering, these defendants, Marshal von Runstedt and Marshal Rommel were also present; and may I remind you that that was three we after the allies had invaded in the west. You were being given the opportunity, were you not, of getting the appreciation of the strategical position after the allied invasion of Normandy; isn't that so? right after the opponents had set foot on shore. I was in a position to report to the Fuehrer which of my small vessels could be used to attack in that sector. On a number of occasions the Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler was present at these conferences -- shall I call them -- isn't that so?
A Yes. The Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler was there, and as far as I remember that happened once or twice. Then he was there because of his Waffen SS. seven occasions, and that Fegelein, who was his representative at the Fuehrer's headquarters, is shown as being present on five occasions. What did Himmler discuss about the Waffen SS, the doings of the Totenkopf division?
A That can't be right. Fegelein was always present during these briefings, always permanently, because he was a member of the Staff, and he was a permanent representative. If the Reich Fuehrer was present during these discussions, he only reporter on the Waffen SS, and only with reference to these divisions of the Waffen SS which were being used somewhere under the Army. Just how these individual divisions were being called is something I don't knew; I don't think they were called the Totenkopf or Death Head Division. camps, and you say that Himmler never mentioned that? something I learned herein Nurnberg, but it wasn't mentioned there in the discussions. I have already said that during the military discussions only military matters were being discussed.
once, on the 26th of February, 1945, when there was quite a considerable gathering of SS notabilities. What were you discussing with him then?
A It is not correct that Kaltenbrunner was there only once. As far as I remember, he was there two, three, or four times; at any rate, during the last month of the war, I saw him two, three, or four times during the briefing. However, Kaltenbrunner never said a word, so far as I remember, he just listened.
Q What I want you to tell the Tribunal is: What was the subject of conversation when you had not only the defendant Kaltenbrunner there, but you had the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Steiner, your own Captain in attendance, and Lieutenant-General Winter. What were these gentlemen there for, and what were you hearing from them?
A Who is that captain and who is the general?
Q Captain von Assmann; I took it he was the captain in attendance on you, though I may have been wrong -- Captain Serge von Assmann. Then there was Lieutenant-General Winter, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Steiner, and SS Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner.
What were you discussing on the 26th of February 1945?
A There is one thing I must tell you on that point. First of all, Captain Assmann was present during all these meetings.
Q Just a moment. You can tell us something afterwards, but first of all listen to my question. What were you discussing with these people from the SS on the 26th of February, 1945?
A I can't remember that now. I do remember, however, that Steiner received the order that the Army Group in Pommerania should be making the putsch to the North, and that they should be relieved from Berlin. I think Steiner was present when this question was discussed, but it did not concern me. there were present Keitel and Jodl, at not quite so many Goering, who would give you the army and air situation in Germany; there was present the defendant Speer, who would give you the production pro ram; there was present Himmler, or his representative Fegelein, who would give you the security position; and you yourself were present, who would give the naval position.
At all meetings there was present the Fuehrer, who would trice the decisions. government of Germany during these years as anyone, apart from Adolf Hitler himself.
A In my opinion that description is not correct. During these briefings neither Speer nor anybody else supplied a complete survey of their sphere of activities. On the contrary, only the acute questions of the day were being discussed. The last 24 hours were discussed, and what should be done. That was quite out of the question; that is not at all how it was. The only one who had a complete picture of the situation was the Fuehrer. During these discussions and briefings the period of the last 24 hours, I should like to say, was almost always discussed, and the measures which were to be adopted in connection with it. That is the fact. picture. Every one of them clearly understood his own sphere for which he was responsible, but a total picture in the mind of any of the participants is out of the question. You can't say that, because only the Fuehrer had that.
Q Well, I won't argue with you but I suppose, defendant, that you say -- as we have heard from so many other defendants -- that you knew nothing about the slave labor program, you knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews, and you knew nothing about any of the bad conditions in concentration camps. I suppose you are going to tell us you knew nothing about them at all, are you? were kept secret, and when one has become aware of the fact that everyone in the war was pursuing his own tasks with the maximum of energy.
I will give you an example. The conditions in concentration camps -and that is the order for the shooting of commandos, which was issued by the Fuehrer on the 18th of October, 1942. You have told us that you got it when you were Flag Officer, U-boats. Now, do you remember the document by which the naval warfare staff distributed it? Do you remember that it said this?
"This order must not be distributed in writing by flotilla leaders, section commanders, or officers of this rank. After verbal distribution to subordinate sections, the above authorities must have this order over to the next highest authority, or next highest section which is responsible for its confiscation and destruction.
Do you remember that?
A Yes, I read that again when I saw the order here. But, on the other hand, it also says in that order that the measure had already been communicated to the armed forces department.
Q What I want to know from you is: Why was there this tremendous secrecy about this order in the naval distribution?
A I did net understand that question. I don't know whether tremendous secrecy was being observed at all. I am of the opinion that in 1942 all naval departments had been informed about it; that is, those which were informed. issued. I am not going to quarrel with you about adjectives, defendant. Let me put it this way: Why did the naval distribution require that degree of secrecy?
A I don't know. I didn't make up the distribution chart. I just received it when I was at the front, and I don't know how it was made up.
Q Within three months you were Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. Did you never make any inquiries then?.
A Please?
Q Did you never make any inquiries?
A No, I did not. I have told you that I saw the order when I was Flag Officer, U-beats, and that as far as my sphere of influence was concerned the order was not affecting me in the least.
Secondly, these people captured during naval battles were excepted; so, as far as that goes, there was no actual effectiveness so far as that order was concerned. to deal with when I became Supreme Commander of the Navy, it was quite natural that it did not occur to me that I should take up the matter of that order. I didn't think of the order at all.
the Naval Staff showing that was put before you. Don't you remember that?
Q What I want to ask you before the Tribunal adjourns is: Did you approve of this order or did you not?
Q No, you haven't. I want you to tell the Tribunal now, and you can answer it either "I approved" or "I did not approve." Did you or did you not approve of this order to your Commanders? not sound. German Navy at the beginning of 1943? Did you approve of it then? ered the order a reprisal order and it was not up to re now to start investigating or justifying this order, to take it up with the department who issued the order to find out whether the basis was correct or not. And it is quite clear from the order that the order was based on the conviction -- murdering of prisoners was mentioned and it was stated that we would even have to take reprisals. justified by the conditions, that is something I do not know.
Q This is the last question. I want you to try and answer it with a straight answer if you can. At the beginning of 1943 did you or did you not approve of this order? not think of the order, I was not confronting myself with it. So I cannot say how that order affected me at that particular time. I can only tell you how it affected me when I received it as Commander of Submarines; and I can also tell you today that I dislike the order, now that I learn that the basis on which it was put was not sound. And I further tell you that I personally would not tolerate any type of reprisals during naval warfare actions, and I refuse any proposals of that kind. (The Tribunal adjourned until May 10, 1946 at 1000 hours) Official transcript of the International
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I understand there are some supplementary applications for witnesses and documents, which would probably not take very long to discuss. Is that so?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have not actually received the final instructions. I can find out in a very short time. I will get Major Barrington up. I am told that is so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, therefore, propose to sit in open session tomorrow until a quarter to twelve, dealing with the trial in the ordinary course, and then to take the supplementary applications at a quarter to twelve and then to adjourn into closed session.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we shall be ready for them at a quarter to twelve tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: the Fuehrer commando order of the 18th of October, 1942, is on page 65 of the English document book and on page 98 of the German document book. It is document C-178, US Exhibit 544. You will see that that document is dated the 11th of February, 1943, That is some twelve days after you took over as commander in chief. You will see from the reference that it went to one SKL, little one. That is the international law and prize division of your operations staff, isn't it -- Admiral Eckhard's division?
A No. It is addressed to the first division of the naval command staff, that is, the operational division.
Q Yes. But it is -chief of that department.
you -- one SKL, big once, little once -- that is Admiral Eckhard's department. That is the reference for Admiral Eckhard's international law department?
A No, no, no. It is the department in which Admiral Eckhard was also one of the officials. Admiral Eckhard was an official in that department. said, isn't it?
A No. The third department of the SKL was collecting information which was sent in for the navy, and they reported on it.
Q I note it was intelligence and press. Is that right or not?
A Yes. It was counter-intelligence and press. document. You remember I asked you yesterday about the secrecy standard of the original Fuehrer order of the 18th of October. If you will look at the second paragraph you will see that it says:
"The first Fuehrer order of 18 October was given the protection of top secret merely because it is stated therein (1) that sabotage organizatio may have portentous consequences, and (2) that the shooting of uniformed prisoners acting on military orders must be carried out even after they have surrendered voluntarily and asked for pardon.
Do you see that? top secrecy? department wasn't put before me. One thing which becomes quite clear from the initials which are in the book -
Q Is that the reason for you not answering my question? Do you agree that that is the reason for giving top secrecy to this document?
A But I don't know. I can't tell you that, because I didn't issue this commando order. It says in the commando order that these people had one time destroyed or killed prisoners. That is the way I had read it as the chief of the submarines, and on the other side -
You were commander in chief of the German Navy. Do you say that you are net able to answer this question: Is the reason stated in paragraph 2 of this document a correct reason for attaching top secrecy to the Fuehrer order of the 18th of October? You have this final opportunity of answering that question. Will you answer it or won't you?
A Yes. I want to. I consider it possible, particularly since the legal expert is of the opinion in this connection whether it is correct, because I haven't issued the order, and on the other hand it says in that order that these things were to be published in the army orders.
Q That was the next point. The next paragraph says that what is to be published in the army orders is the annihilation of sabotage units in battle, not, of course, if they are shot -- as I would say, murdered -quietly, by the SD after battle. I want you to note the next paragraph. The next paragraph raises the difficulty as to how many saboteurs were to be considered as a sabotage unit and suggests that up to ten would certain! be a sabotage unit. slowly:
"It is to be assumed that security three is acquainted with the Fuehrer order and will therefore reply accordingly to the objections of the army general staff and the air force operations staff. As far as the navy is concerned, it remains to be seen whether or not this case should be used to make sure" -- note the next words -- "after a conference with the commander in chief of the navy that all departments concerned have an entirely clear conception regarding the treatment of members of commando units." Eckhard's department, which was to be shown to one SKL, your chief of Staff's department, that you were never consulted uponit?
A. Yes, I will say that, and will prove it with a witness, because he was responsible for the distribution chart and the passing on of this document, and he will state quite clearly that I did not receive a report on it.
Q. Admiral Wagner was your chief of staff?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, we will not occupy further time.
A. He was not my chief of staff; he was chief of this very department. He was chief of Department, S.K.L., to which this order was directed. He will state quite clearly that no report was made to me. Very clear conditions these.
Q. Well, I will leave that, if you say that you have not seen it, and I will ask you to look at document PS-551.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I will pass the Tribunal a copy. This is Exhibit 551, and it was put in by General Taylor on 7 January.
Q. Now, that is a document which is dated 26 June 1944, and it deals win the Fuehrer order, and it says how will apply after the landing of Allied forces in France, and if you will look at the distribution, you will see that Number Four is to the OKM, 1, S.K.L. That is the department on which you were good enough to correct me a moment ago. Now, did you, were you shown that document, which says that the Fuehrer order is to apply to commando units operating outside the immediate area in Normandy? Were you shown that document?
A. No, that was not shown to re under any circumstances; that was quite right. The navy was not in any way concerned with the matter.
Q. You told me yesterday that you were concerned with the matter and the you had small boats operating in the Normandy operations. That is what you are told me yesterday afternoon. You have changed your recollections since yesterday afternoon?
A. No, not at all. Submarines were floating on the water, but they had nothing to do with commandos at the front ashore. This document -- and I do know if it is the original of the 1, S.K.L. because I can not see the initial but anyway it shows, and I am convinced, that it was not put before me because it was not a matter for the navy.