Q. And I call your attention to Exhibit E.C. 4-5 (U.S.A. 781) minutes of a meeting of the working Committee of the Reich Defense Council, meeting No. 10.
A. I have already told the President that if I am to answer the question, afterwards I trust explain it in More detail; now that I have answered these questions as you want no, with a single notation or affirmation, I want now to make further explanation.
I want to explain that this was not a meeting of the closed Reich Defense Council but a general calling together of all Ministers, Secretaries of State and many other people. Roman numeral I, organization of the Reich Defense Council. The Reich Defense Council was already, by decision of the Cabinet, called into being. But it never met. Through the Reich Defens, Law of the 4th of September, 1939, it was re-established. The Chairman was Field Marshal Goering. In this Reich Defense Council, in which this speech took place, in which Schacht made a definitive speech, he, as I have stated in writing, this Council novae met. document. in advance.
Q How long? Working Committee of the Reich Defense Council, F.C. 405 (U.S.A. 781), 3575 P.S., toward the end of that document, the discussion on the 6th month, 26th day of 1935, which reads as follows: -
A May I ask what page?
A If you don't tell me what page, I will have to read the whole document. "Commitment to writing of directives for mobilization purposes is permissible only in so far as it is absolutely necessary to the smooth execution of the measure provided for the demilitarized zone and without exception such material must be kept in safes." Do you find that part? of various people. It is a different log. It seems to have no such last paragraph as you are quoting. Perhaps there is some difference between the German and English texts. The last paragraph here is altogether unimportant. Where, please, am I to read the document? document is correct -- have we got the same document?
A You must tell me who was speaking. Various people are speaking in this document.
(A member of the Prosecution indicated a place in the document for the witness.)
It has been shown, to now. I have to read through it first.
Q Do you find this: "The demilitarized zone requires special treatments. In his speech of 21.5.35 and other utterances, the Fuehrer and Reichschancellor has stated th t the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty and the Locarno Part regarding the demilitarized zone are being observed." Do you find that?
Q And do you find the next paragraph, "Since political intangible elements abroad must be avoided at present under all circumstances, only those preparatory measures that are urgently necessary may be carried out. The existence of such preparations, or the intentional expression of them must be kept in strictest secrecy in the zone itself, as well as in the rest of the Reich."
Do you find that?
Q You will also find, "These preparations include in particular the following." A and B are not important to my present question. "C. Preparation for the liberation of the Rhine."
A Oh, no, here you have made a great mistake. The original word in German is "C. Preparation for the Freimachung of the Rhineland, a purely technical matter that had nothing to do with the liberation of the Rhineland, first of all, mobilization of transports and, C, preparation for the Freimachung of the Rhineland. That has to do with transportation; the river had to be cleared for military measures. Then, "D, Preparation for local defense," and so on. These, in other words, are very small local preparations for mobilization -the demilitarized zone, general preparations for mobilization should be made, I mentioned the purchase of horses and so on. I wanted to point out the difference between Freimachung, which means clearing the Rhine, and liberation the Rhineland. occupation of the Rhineland, were they not?
A No, that is altogether wrong. If Germany had become involved in a war, no matter from what side, let us assume the East, then mobilization would have to be carried out for security reasons throughout the Whole Reich, also in this part of the Reich, even in the determined Rhineland, but not for the purpose of liberating it.
Q You mean the preparations were not military preparations? every land carries out, and not for the purpose of the occupation of the Rhineland.
Q But of a character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers?
preparations of the United States for mobilization.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I respectfully submit to the Tribunal that this witness is not being responsibe, and has not been in his examination, and that it is -
(The witness interposed a few words here)
It is perfectly futile to spend our time if we can't have responsive answers to our questions.
(The witness interposed slightly here) I don't want be spend time doing that, but this witness, it seems to me, is adopting, and has adopted in the witnessbox and in the dock, an arrogant and contemptuous attitude toward the Tribunal, which is giving him the trial which he never gave a living soul -nor the dead ones either. notes, if he wishes, of his explanations, but that he be required to answer my questions and reserve his explanations for his Counsel to bring cut.
THE PRESIDENT: I have already laid down thegeneral rule, which is binding upon this defendant as upon other witnesses. And perhaps we had better adjourn now at this stage.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 20 March 1946 at 1000 hours). Official transcript of the International
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON : If the Tribunal please, the last question which I asked last night referring to mobilazation preparations in the Rhineland, as shown in the official transcript, was this, " But of a character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers ? " The answer was, " I do not believe I can recall the publication of the preparations of the United states for mobilization." with these choices -- to ingnore that remark and to allow it to stand for people who do not understand our system, or to develop at considerable expense of time, its falsity, or to answer it in rebuttal. The diffeculty arises from this, Your Honor, that if the witness is permitted to volunteer statements in cross-examination there is not opportunity to make objection until they are placed on the record. Of course, if such an answer had been indicated by a question of Counsel, as I respectfully submit would be the orderly procedure, there would have been objection; the Tribunal would have been in a position to discharge its duty under the Charter and I would have been in a position to have shortened the case by not having that remark placed. rule out irrelevant issues of any kind whatsever. We are confronted with that question; we cannot descharge those duties if the Defendant is to volunteer these statements without question which bring them before them. I respectfully submit that if the ruling of the Tribunal that the Defendant may volunteer answers of this kind is to prevail, the control of these proceedings is put in the hands of this Defendant and the United States has been substantially denied its right of cross-examination cannot be effective under this kind of procedure. Since we cannot anticipate we cannot meet-
THE PRESIDENT: I quite agree with you that any reference to the United States' secrecy with reference to mobilization is entirely irrelevant, and that the answer ought not to have been made, but the only rule which the Tribunal can lay down generally is the rule -- already laid down -- that the witness must answer, if possible, yes or no, and that he may make such explanations as may be necessary after answering questions directly in that way, and that such explanations must be brief and not be speeches.
As far as this particular answer goes, I think it is entirely irrelevant.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON : I must, of course, bow to the ruling of the Tribunal, but it is the secon part. I quite recall the admonition of the Court that there shall be answers yes or no. This witness, of course, made not the slightest pretension of that, and I must say that I can't blame him : He is pursuing his interests. But we have not way of anticipating, and here we are confronted with this statement in the record, because when these statements are volunteered they are in the record before the Tribunal can rule upon them and I have not opportunity to make objections -- and the Tribunal have not opportunity to rule. And it puts, as I said before, the control of these proceedings in the hands of the Defendant, if he first makes the charges and then puts it up to us to ignore them, by long cross-examination or answer them in rebuttal; and I think the specifick charge made against the United States of America from the witness-stand presents that. answer, but it is in the record and we must deal with it. I respectfully submit that unless we have -
The PRESIDENT : What objection are you making ? Are you asking the Tribunal to strike the answer out of the record ?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON : Well, no; in a trial of this kind, where propaganda is one of the purposes, striking out does no good after the answer is made, and Goering knows that as well as I. The charge has been made against the United States and it is in the record. I am now moving that this witness be instruct that he maust answer my questions yes or no if they permit an answer, and that the explanation be brought out by his Counsel in a fashion that will permit us to make objections if they ere irrelevant and to obtain rulings of the Tribunal so that the Tribunal can discharge its functions of ruling out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever. We must not let the trial degenerate into a bickering contest between Counsel and the witness.
That is not what the United States expeckts.
I respectfully suggest that if he can draw any kind of challenge -
THE PRESIDENT : Are you submitting to the Tribunal that the witness has got to answer every question yes or no and wait until he is re-examined fort the purpose of making any explanations at all ?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON : I think that is the rule of crossexamination under ordinary circumstances. The witness, if the question permit s it, must answer, and that if there are relevant explanations they be reserved until later. here this morning. Here is an answer given which the Tribunal now rules is irrelevant. But we have not opportunity to objeckt to it. The Tribunal had no opportunity to rule upon it. The witness asks, " Did you ever hear of the United States publishing its plan of mobilization ? " Of course, we would have objected. The difficulty is that the Tribunal loses control of these proceedings if the Defendant in a case of this kind, where we all know propaganda is one of the purposes of the Defendant, is permitted to put his propaganda in, and then we ask to meet it afterwards. I really feel that the United States is deprived of the opportunity of the right of cross-examination if this is the procedure.
THE PRESIDENT : Surely it is making too much of a sentence of the witness's, whether the United States makes its orders for mobilization public or not. Surely that is not a matter of very great importance. Every country keeps certain things secret. Certainly it would be much wiser to ignore a statement of that sort. But as to the general rule, the Tribunal will now consider the matter. I have already laid down what I believe to be the rule and I think with the assent of the Tribunal, but I will ascertain -
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON : Let me say that I agree with Your Honor that as far as the United States is concerned we are not worried by anithing the witness can say about it-- and we expected plenty The point is, Do we answer these things or leave them,apart from the control of the trial ? And it does seem to me that this marks the beginning of this trial's getting out of hand, if I may say so, if we do not have control of this situation. I trust the Tribunal will pardon my earnestness in presenting this. I think it is a very vital thing.
The President : I have never heard it suggested that the Counsel for the Prosecution have to answer every irrelevant observation made in cross-examination.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON : That would be true in a private litigation, but I trust the Court is not unaware that outside of this courtroom is a great social question of the revival of Nazism and that one of the purposes of the Defendant Goering -- I think he would be the first to admit -- is to revive and perpetuate it by propaganda from this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Doctor Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: I just wanted explain the following: The accusation has been made as if we intended to make propaganda here for Naziism or in any other direction. I don't think this accusation is justified. Neither do I believe that the defendant intened to male an accusation against the United States. I believe we have to consider the question that was put to him. That is, it was pointed out to him by the Prosecution that this document which was submitted to him was designated " secret." Then he stated had he had never read or heard that a document of that kind would have been made public in the United States. If he would have just said any other nation, then this thing would have been considered harmless.
In my opinion the answer was quite justified. The witness should be given the possibility not only to answer by yes or no, but to give reasons for his answer, such as the Court has ruled.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal considers that the rule which it has laid down is the only possible rule and that the witness must be confined strictly to answering the question directly where the question admits of a direct answer, and that he must not make his explanation before he gives a direct answer, but after having given a direct answer to any question which admits to a direct answer, he may make a short explanation, and that he is not to be confined simply to making the direct answer yes or no not and leaving the explanation until his counsel puts it to him in indirect examination. ought not ot have referred to the United States, but it is a matter which I think you might well ignore.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I shall bow to the ruling, of course. At the conclusion of the session yesterday we were considering Document EC 405. The defendant Goering challenged the use of a word with he said should have been translated " clearance" rather than " liberation." We have since had he translation checked and find that the defendant is correct. This document was introduced under the number GB 160 on the 9th of January, at page 2396 of the Tribunals' records, and since it has already been received in evidence and it is before the Tribunal, we think it is incumbent upon the Prosecution to make that correction now for the record.
HERMANN GOERING, resumed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: with which you were presented were not minutes of a meeting of the Reichs Defense Counsel as such? take it, that the Reichs Defense Counsel never met? possession -- the minutes of the second session of the Reichs Defense Counsel. I should have siad just come to our translation. We haven't had it translated; we just discovered it among our great collection of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Could Doctor Stahmer have a copy in English or not?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We haven't even had a chance to get it into English. I don't know what it says except that it is the minutes of their meeting. BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Counsel held on the 23rd of June 1939? President General Fieldmarshal Goering. You will find that on page 1.
A I have never disputed that. It was never disputed. It was fixed by law. This deals with the second Reichs Defense Counsel, not the first one. Besides, I did't take part in this meeting; and I point out that on the left the offices are listed and which represent tives took part, and in my case it says "Minister President Fieldmarshal Goering", and as participant for him, on the right, "State Secretary Koerner and State Secretary Neumann." But it may be I have to read the document first in order to find out whether I took part personally.
Q Does it not say on page 1, directly under the place of meeting, "Chair man: Minister President Goering"?
Q Do you deny the authenticity of those minutes?
A I haven't read through it yet.
It seems to be an absolutely authentic copy of the minutes. I admit that. But here again we are dealing with a meeting not, such as I expressed myself in answering my counsel, of the Reichs Defense Counsel but a larger meeting in which any other officials participated, and the second council after 1938, the second Reichsvereteidigungs Council, not the secret one, which dated from 1933 to 1938.
Q In other words, in interpreting your testimony, we must under-
stand that when you say there was no meeting of the Reich Defense Council, you only mean that there were no meetings in which no other people were present?
A No, that is not correct. There were two Reich Defense Laws concerning Reich Defense Councils, which I tried to explain in my statements. The secret one, which had not been publicized, of 1933 to 1938, and the Reich Defense Council which later was created in 1938 and was transferred into the Ministerial Council in 1939, and that one held meetings anway beyond the number of its own remembers, the ban of secrecy? or No. It is hardt answer this question with Yes or No. I assert that the secret defense council. which had not been publicized, which consisted of ministers from 1933to 1938, never met. After 1938 a new Reich Defense Law created a new one. At that time it was clear that re-armament had already been publicized. This first one, which was called the secret one here, ha s never met, and the document of yesterday proved that. whether one of the very things that this meeting concerned itself with was not be lifting of the secrecy ban from the Reich Defense Law?
A No, that is not the way it reads here. If I may translate it, the last point of the discussion -- consequences resulting from the lifting of the secret protection of the Reich Defense Law, protection od secrecy, and measures to facilitate the working have already been taken care of on the 26th. The consequences resulting from the lifting of the secrecy ban. of the government were more radical than you, and would you state who those were? was in the beginning to remove them from political positions and other leading positions in the state,.THE PRESIDENT:
That is not a direct answer to the question. The question was that you said some members of the government were more radical towards Jews than you were, and would you tell us which of the members of the government were more radical then you were. A Excuse me, I did not understand the question to mean who, but wherein that more radical attitude was manifested. If you ask who, then I want to point out that these are Minister Goebbels and Himmler, primarily. Q Do you also include your co-defendant, Streicher; as more radical than you? A Yes, but he was not a member of the government. Q He was a gauleiter, was he not, for this very territory in which we sit? A That is correct, but he had hardly any or no influence at a in measures of the government. Q What about Heydrich? A Heydrich is then included in the list of the more radical ones to whom you refer? A That is right, yes. Q What about Bormann? A Bormann's activities in the more radical direction I could observe only during the later years. I do not know anything of his attitude in the beginning. Q Now, I want to review with you briefly what the Prosecution understands to be public acts taken by you in reference to the Jewish question. From the very beginning you regarded the elimination of the Jew from the economic life of Germany as one phase of the Four Year Plan under your jurisdiction, did you n A The elimination, yes, that is right in part, The eliminati as far as the large concerns were concerned because there continually disturbances were created by pointing out that the were large industries, also armament industries, still under Jewish directors or with Jewish shareholders,and that caused serious distrubances about the industries.
Q Now, do I understand that you want the Tribunal to believe t that all you were concerned about was the big Jewish enterprises. That is the way you want to be understood? A I was not at first disturbed by the small stores. Q When did you become disturbed with the small stores? A When trade had to be limited, then it was pointed out that this vould be done first by closing the Jewish stores. Q Now, let us go through the public acts which you performed on the Jewish question. First, di you proclaim the Nurnberglaws? A As President of the Reichstag, yes, I have already stated that. Q What date was that? A 1935, I believe, in Nurnberg in September. Q That was thebeginning of the legal measured taken against the Jews, was it not? A That was a legal measure. Q That was the first of the legal measures taken by your government against the Jews, was it not? A No, I believe that the elimination from various phases of civil employment was before. Q When was that? A I could not state the exact date, but I believe that happene in 1933. Q Then on the first day of December 1936, you promulgated an a making a death penal-ty for Germans to transfer property abroad or leave it abroad; the property of a culprit to be forteited to the state, and the People's Court given jurisdiction to prosecut did qou not? A That is correct, the act to protect foreign currency. That i to say, whoever without the permission of the government established an account in a foreign country without permission of the government. Q The, your third public act was on 22 April 1939 when you published penalties for veiling the character of a jewish enterprise within the Reich was it not?
A Yes.
Q Then on 28 July 1939, you Hermann Goering, published certain prescriptions on the competence of the courts to handle those matters by the decree, did you not? A Prease, would you kindly read the law to me? I do not know i Q I will not take time reading it. Do you deny that you published Reichsgesetzblatt Law, 1939, found on page 1370, referring to the competence of the courts to handle penalties against the law? If you do not remember, say so. A Yet, I say that I can not remember the law. If it was in the Reichsgesetzblatt and has my name under it, of course, it is so, but I do not remember the contents. Q Now, on 26 April 1938 you, under the Four Year Plan, publish a decree providing for the registration of Jewish property and provided that Jews inside and outside Germany must register their property, did younot? A I assume so. I do not remember it any more, but if you have the decree there and if it is signed by me, there can not be any doubt. Q On 26 April 1938 you published a decree under the Four Year Plan, did you not, that alle acts of disposal of Jewish enterpris required the permission of the authoritiers? A That I remember. Q Then you published on 12 November 1938 a decree also under the Four Year Plan, imposind a fine of a billion marks for statement on all Jews? A I have already axplained that, that all the decrees of that time were signed by me, and I assumed responsibility for them. Q Well I am asking you if you did not sign that decree. I am going to ask you some further questions about it later. A Yes.
Q Then on the 12th of November, 1938, you also signed a decree that, under the Four Year Plan, all damage caused to Jewish property by the riots of 1938 must be repaired immediately by the Jews, and at their own expense, and their insurance claims were forfeited to the Reich.
Did you personally sign that law? A A similar law I signed. Whether it was exactly the same as you have just read, I could not say. Q You don't disagree that that was the substance of the law, do you? A Yes. Q And on the 12th of November 1938, did you not also personally sign a decree, also under the Four Year Plan, that Jews may not own retail stores or engage indpendently in handicrafts or offer goods or services for sale at markets, fairs, or exhibitions, or the leaders of enterprises or members of cooperatives. Do you recall all of that? A Yes. Those are all parts of the decrees for the elimination of Jewry from economic life. Q Then, on the 21 st of February, 1939, you personally signed decree, did you not, that the Jews must surrender all objects of precious metals and jewels purchased to the public office within two weeks? A I do not remember that, but I am sure, without doubt, that that is correct. Q I refer to Volume I of the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1939, page 282. You have no recollection of that? A I do not have the Reichsgesetzblatt in front om now, but if there is a decree there in the Reichsgesetzblatt or a law signed by my name, then I have signed that law and decreed it. Q Did you not also, on the 3rd of March, 1939, sign a further decree concerning the period within which items of jewellery must be surrendered by Jews-- Reichsgesetzblat, Volume I, 1939, page 387?
A I assume taht was the decree of execution concerning the decree mentioned before.
A law sometimes requires regulations of execution as a consequence of the law. Seen together, this is just one measure. Q Did you not also sign personally a decree under the Four Year Plan of the 17th of September, 1940, odering the sequestrat of Jewish property in Poland.? A Yes. I stated that once before. In that part of Poland, if I may point that out, which had been previously a old German province. It was to return to Germany. Q Did you not also, on the 30 th day of November 1940, personal sign a decree which provided that the Jews should receive no compensation for damages caused by enemy attacks or by German forces, and did you not sign that in the capacity of President of the Reich Defense Council? I refer to Reichsgesetzblatt, Volume I, 1940, page 1517. A If you have it there before you, then it must be correct. Q You have no recollection of that.? A Not concerning all details of law and decrees. That is impossible. Q Then, it was you, was it not, who signed, on the 31st day of July, 1941, a decree asking Himmler and the chief of security police and the SS Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich to make the plans for the complete solution of the Jewish question? A No, that is not correct. This decree I know very well. Q I ask to have you shown document 710, US-509. THE PRESIDENT: Is that 710-PS? MR JUSTICE JACKSON: 710-OS, your Honor.
(A document was handed to the witness.) That document is signed by you, is it not? A That is correct. Q And it is addressed to the chief of the security Police and the security service and to SS gruppenfuehrer Heydrich, isn't it?
A That is also correct.
difficulty about the translation of this, you correct me if am wrong:
"Completing the task that was assigned to you on the 24th of January, 1939" -
A That is a mistake already. It says, "In completion of the task with has been transferred to you," not as it was translated to
Q Very well, I will accept that. " Which dealt with arriving Jewish question in the German Sphere of influence in Europe.
" Am I correct so far?
Q Give us your translation of it?
A May I read it as it is written here? " In completion of the in the way of organization and material matters."
Now comes the decisive word which had been mistranslated:
"For a collective solution," not" for a final solution."
"For an entire, a collective solution of the Jewish question within the area of German influence in Europe.
As far as here the "That is to say, a t a time when no war had started or was to be expected.
