Do you say that you don't remember the two-man torpedo attack on the Tirpitz in Drontheim Fjord?
A No, No, I'm not asserting that I do not remember. I do remember it.
Q Yes, Didn't you see in the Wehrmacht communique after that attack what had happened to the man who was captured?
AAt this moment I can't recall.
Q Let me just remind you. One man was captured, Robert Paul Evans, just as he was getting across the Swedish border, and he was -- that action took place in October, 1942 -- he was executed in January, 1943, on the 19th of January, 1943. UK-57 which was put in as GB-64.
THE PRESIDENT: UK-57?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: UK-57, My Lord. BY COLONEL PHILLIMORE:
Q (Continuing) Do you say that you don't remember seeing any report of his capture or of his shooting or of his interrogation?
Q You now tell us you do remember. Just tell us what you remember. Do you remember seeing his capture reported?
A That I do not remember exactly; but I do remember that there was a report to the effect that such a man, a considerable time after the attack on Tirpitz, had been captured, to my knowledge, but this did not take place through the navy.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, through same error I am afraid I haven't got it here. May I just put the facts, and if necessary put the document if I can produce it in time. BY COLONEL PHILLIMORE:
Q I suggest to you that Robert Paul Evans., after his capture, was personally interrogated by the Commander-in-Chief Navy of the Norwegian North Coast. Do you say you know nothing of that?
THE PRESIDENT: Can't you hear?
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't hear a thing. There was a disturbance on my earphones. BY COLONEL PHILLIMORE:
Q I will put it again. Do you say that you are not aware that Robert Paul Evans was personally interrogated after his capture by the Admiral, Norwegian North Coast? British Navy against German Naval forces, wasn't it? That is so, isn't it?
Q No, but you must know that, don't you? You were Chief of Staff Operations at the time. were not reported to you in the Naval War Staff? Commanding Admiral in Norway did actually carry through this interrogation.
Q Did you see a report by that Admiral?
Q Was it clear to you that that report was based on interrogation?
Q And you say you didn't know that this man Evans, some two months after his capture, was taken out and Shot under the Fuehrer order?
Q I will put you another instance. Do you remember the Bordeaux: incident in December 1942 ?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: That if 626-PS, My Lord. That is also in the bundle. In was originally put in as United States Exhibit 502. BY COLONEL PHILLIMORE:
Q I'm sorry; it is the Toft Fjord incident I am putting to you, 462-PS. Do you remember this incident in Toft Fjord in March 1943? in that fhord, yes.
Q Yes. And did you not see in the Wehrmacht Comminique "Fuehrer Order executed"? must have read it. that attack were shot, and that you knew it at the time? captured.
Q If you will look at the document:
"An enemy cutter was sighted, Cutter was blown up by the enemy. Crew, two dead men, ten prisoners."
Then look down:
"Fuehrer Order executed by SD."
That means those ten men were shot, doesn't it?
A Just a moment please. It mustmean that.
Q Yes. Now, I just put to you the document that I referred to on the Trondheim episode, D-864. This is an affidavit by a man who was in charge of the SD at Bergen and later at Trobdheim, and it is the second paragraphs:
"I received the order to transfer Evans from Trondheim Missionshotel to the BDS, Oslo. This order I received by telegram or telephone from the Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei and the Sd, Oslo. I cannot tell who signed the telegram or the telephone call from Oslo. I cannot say for certain to whom I passed the order, but I think it was to Hauptsturmfuehrer Hollack.
I know that the commander in Chief Navy of the Norwegian Northern Coast had interrogated Evans himself."
And then he goes on to deal with Evans' clothing.
I put it to you once again: Do you say that you did not know from trio Admiral Norton Coast himself that he had interrogated this man? knew about, as is shown by your own war diary.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: By Lord, this document was put in as GB-229. BY COLONEL PHILLIMORE:
Q. New, that is an contract from the SKL War Diary, isn' it? the Naval commander west France, but I think that was a mistake wasn't it? War Diary yesterday.
Q Just read the first sentence. I think it shows clearly it was the SKL War Diary.
"9 December 1943. The Naval Commander, West France, reports..." and then it sets out the incident. Then, the third sentence, "The Naval Commander, West France, has ordere that both soldiers be shot immediately for attempted sabotage if their interrogation which has been begun, confirms what hat so far been discovered; their execution has, however, been postponed in order to obt in more information.
"According to a Wehrmacht report" -- I think that is a mistranslation -- "According to the Wehrmacht communique, both soldiers have meanwhile been shot. The measure would b in accordance with the Fuehrer's special order, but is nevertheless something new in international law, since the soldiers were in uniform."
That is from the SKL War Diary, isn't it? the War Diary of the SKL. matter up later, but I suggest to you that this is the SKL War Diary, which at the time -
A (interposing): I cannot recognize the assertion unless I have the original. Staff Operations at the time, must have been fully aware of that incident. Do you deny that? matter. reported to you? people was transferred from the SD and received from the Headquarters direct. capture of seven seamen, six of the Norwegian Navy and one of the Royal Navy, at Ulven, near Bergen in July 1943. That is Document D-649 in the prosecution Document Book, GB-208.
Do you remember this incident? Do you remember the capture of those seven men by Admiral von Schrader with his two task forces? how I happen to remember.
Q But do you remember the incident?
THE PRESIDENT: Which page?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, it is page 67 of the English document book, page 100 in the German.
BY COLONEL PHILLIMORE: don't remember any of those incidents? about this.
Q Didn't your commanders report when they captured an enemy commando? about those incidents now? that which I personally remember.
Q Do you know what happened to these non? You know they were captured in uniform, don't you? There was a naval officer with gold braid around his am. That is a badge you use in the German Navy, isn't it?
A. I have already said that I do not recall this matter.
Q. Well, let me just tell you and remind you. After interrogation by naval officers and officers of the SD, both of whom recommended prisoner of war treatment, these men were handed over by the Navy to the SD for shooting. They were taken to a concentration camp, and at 4 o'clock in the morning they were and out one by one, blindfolded, fettered, not told they were going to be shot, and shot one by one on the rifle range.
Don't you know that?
A. No.
Q. Didn't you know that is what handing over to the SD meant?
A. I have already stated that the giving over to the SD might have brought with it several possibilities.
Q. Do you know that then their bodies were sunk in the fjord with charges attached, and destroyed, as it says in the document, "in the usual way"? Paragraph 10 of the affidavit. And their belongings in the concentration camp were burned.
A. No, I know nothing about that.
Q. Very well. A further point; Do you remember that in March or April 1945, at the very end of the war, this order, the Fuehrer Order, was canceled by Keitel.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: That is paragraph 11 of the affidavit, My Lord.
Q. Do you remember that? Just read it.
A. Yes, I have heard of that.
Q. Yes. You thought you were losing the war by then, and you had better cancel the Commando Order, isn't that the fact?
A. I do not knew just what reasons were given by the OKW for rescinding this order.
Q. Isn't this right: You didn't worry about this order in 1942 when you thought you were winning the war, but when you found you were losing it, you began to worry about international law. Isn't that what happened.
A. No. I would like to refer to No. 1 of the Commando Order. It says clearly and unequivocally that they had orders that these commandos were made up of criminal elements of the occupied territories, that they had orders to kill prisoners whom they found detrimental, that other commandos had orders to kill captives, and that orders to this effect had fallen into our hands.
Q. Did you ever make any inquiries to see whether that was true?
A. It is absolutely impossible for me to investigate official notices which I receive from my superiors.
Q. You were Chief of Staff Operations; you received every report on the commando raids, didn't you?
A. In each case I was interrogated and I testified, but I cannot remember the details.
Q. When you were Chief of Staff Operations, did you not receive a full report every time there was a British commando raid?
A. I have already said that I believe that even such reports were made to the SKL in the course of routine conferences.
wanted to. Here you were a senior staff officer, commando raids, Are you saying you didn't personally see and read a full report of evety one? I remember about it. trial, without telling then they were going to be shot, without seeing a priest do you say that --
AAbout the navy?
Q Do you say that wasn't murder?
A I do not wish to maintain that at all. I do maintain and assert that those cases in which men were shot by the navy, I most likely did receive know ledge of those cases, and I am of the opinion that these people which were captured as saboteurs were not soldiers but they were criminals and -
Q Let us get it perfectly clear. Are you saying that the action taken in shooting these commandos on all those occasions, are you saying that was perfectly proper and justified? I thought you agreed with me it was murder, just on which is it? time. Do you say that men captured in uniform should be taken out and shot with out trial? cannot consider then as soldiers and soldiers within international law.
Q Are you saying that this action was perfectly proper -- are you?
A Yes; in toto, yes,
Q Shoot helpless prisoners without trial, and bully neutrals who can't complain? That is your policy, is it? in a two-man torpedo? belonged to a sabotage group and that besides the regular navy attack on the shi other aspects were present which marked him as a saboteur.
Q You said just now that you didn't remember the incident? by the SD was murder, you and Admiral Doenitz and Admiral Raeder, who signed then orders under which this was done, are just as guilty as the, men who shot them?
Q And that person who passed it on approved it; isn't that right?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Your Lordship, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, D-658 was an old exhibit, was it not?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes my Lord.
THE PHILLIMORE: Have you given now exhibit numbers to all the now document
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: I am very much obliged, your Lordship. I did omit to give a now exhibit number to the affidavit by Flesch.
THE PRESIDENT: D-864.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: D-864. It should be GB 457 Lord, I am very sorry I wasn't advised, but I get it.
THE PRESIDENT: And all the others, yon have given numbers to?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Is there any other cross examination? Then, does Dr. Kranzbuehler wish to re-examine? Dr. Kranzbuehler, I see it is nearly halfpast eleven so I think we better adjourn for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Before Dr. Kranzbuehler goes on with his re-examination, I shall announce the Tribunal's decisions with reference to the applications which were made recently in court. witness Hans Marsaleck to be produced for cress-examination, and that application is granted. cuments; and as to that, the Tribunal Orders that two of the documents applied for under heads B and D in Dr. seidl's application have already been published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, and on of them is already in evidence. They will, therefore, be admitted. Dr. Seidl's application are unsatisfactory and have no evidencial value; and sing it does not appear from Dr. Seidl's application and the matters referred to there in that the alleged copies are copies of any original documents, the application is denied in respect there of. But leave is granted to Dr. Seidl to file a further affidavit by Gauss covering his recollection of what was in the alleged agreement ness called Kallus is granted. The applications on behalf of the defendant Sauckel, firstly for a witness named Biedemann is granted, and secondly for 4 documents, is also granted. to Dr. Stuepart is granted. gatory to a witness, Dr. Conrad. witnesses is granted, in the sense that the witness are to be alerted. formation from the Department of war of the United States of America is denied.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Admiral Wagner, I want to put another question to you regarding the Commando Order. out of that order? before or when the order was drafted to investigate whether the basis on which it was put was correct? Those details, I mean which are used on page 2 of the order? who had attacked the battleship Tirpitz with a two-man torpedo. This happened in October, 1942. Did you know that one year later, in the autumn of 1943 there was a renewed attack by means of a two man torpedo on the battleship Tirpitz, and that the British sailors who were captured on that occasion were treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention by the Navy who had captured them?
A The second attack on the Tirpitz is known to me. The treatment afforded the prisoners is something I don't recollect. received reports regarding the statements made by crews participating in Commando actions. In connection with these reports, what exactly were the Naval Command Staff interested in, the question of coperations or questions relating to the fate of these people personally? A Naturally we were interested in the tactical and operational Problems so that we could collect experiences and draw our conclusions from them. a report? treatment given the Commando troop/captured in the Fjord in Norway. It is No. 526 PS. Have you still got that document there?
A Some document is still here. It is quite possible.
Q Please, will you have alook at that document?
A May I ask you to give me the number again?
Q It's number is 526 PS, and on the 4th page of the Book which the Prosecution has given me you will find the passage which I am referring to? Have you got the document now?
A No, not yet. Did you say 526?
Q Yes, 526 PS. I am sending it up to you.
A No, I haven't got it. were carrying one thousand kilograms of explosives, is that correct?
Q Did you understand my question?
A I answered "yes".
Q I am sorry. I didn't hear you. In the fifth paragraph you will find that the Commando party had Sabotage directions against naval, bases, troup accommodations and bridges, and that organization for further sabotage should be created, is that correct?
Q Did these have anything to do with the Navy? that the Navy had anything to do with the composition of this party or its treatment later on? Order of a court martial against the Commander was referred to and the Supreme Commander of the Navy, Admiral Raeder, had at that time sent a wireless message to the Commander. That message is in Document Doenitz 78, in Document Book 4, on page 230. I shall read that wireless message to you:
"The Supreme Commander has personally and expressly renewed his article to ships. All U-boat Commanders must adhere strictly to the treatment regarding neutral ships. Any infringement of these Orders would have considerable political effect.
The order is to be communicated to all Commanders immediately."
Can you see in that order any limitation to Spanish ships?
A No, because it isn't contained in it. This deals with notes to the Norwegian Government regarding the sinking of several steamers. Please, will you tell me whether there are any indications at all in this document showing that the letters drafted in the Supreme Command of the Navy were in fact sent, or whether they were merely drafts of letters, of which you cannot ascertain whether in fact they were ever sent these may be drafts. Proof that they were actually sent is not at any rate contained in this letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you give us the page number?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: It was submitted yesterday, Mr. President. It isn't in any document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I now read to you the first sentence from yet another document which was put to you yesterday. Its number is D-846. It deals with a conference between the German Ambassador to Denmark and the King, on the 26 December, 1939. I shall read the first sentence to you:
"Sinking of British and Finnish ships by our submarines have caused considerable concern here because of the Danish food transport to Great Britain." sinkings without warning, or were these sinkings in accordance with the apprised ordinance, that is to say, if they were stopped and searched? indication, doesn't show in which area these ships were sunk. As far as I remember the document from yesterday, the whole document does not contain anything regarding the type of sinkings, so that it must be assumed as a matter of course that the ships were sunk in accordance with the apprised ordinance.
24 November 1943, I think, and whether you considered it a fair warning for the endangered sea areas, and you answered the question in the affirmative, isn't that right?
Q. And then you were asked whether the neutrals were being deceived by us and you answered that question by saying no. This answer of yours, this no, did that apply to the previous question regarding the warning applying to certain areas of the sea, or did it refer to all those political measures used by the German Government against neutral states so as to deceive them about our Own political intentions?
A. The answer, because of the entire context of the questioning, applied to the previous questions which had been asked about the timely warning of neutrals and particularly warnings against our measures which we adopted on the seas.
Q. I want to clarify this point very accurately, Do you have any doubt whatever that the pretext of mines in the operational zones around the British Coast was not only serving the purpose of serving the enemy defense but that it was also serving political purposes so that England tried to deceive the neutrals about the means we were applying?
A. Yes, I emphatically confirm this double purpose.
Q. Do you have any doubt whatever that the German Government denied before neutral governments that certain ships had been subk by submarines, although they had in fact been sunk by submarines?
A. Yes. Or rather, no. I have no doubt that such measures were adopted. In the form of a denenti in the general political type of measure which would be employed according to its suitability.
Q. Yesterday you admitted the possibility that Admiral Doenitz as the Chief of Submarines may have heard from the Naval Command Staff on the matter of political measures that were being dealt with which had been caused by submarines. After you have carefully examined your own recollection, can you name a single case where he has in fact received such information from the Naval Command Staff regarding the political measures adopted?
A. No. No such case I can remember.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER:
DR. WALTER SIEMERS: Dr. Siemers, for Grand Admiral Raeder.
BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q. Admiral, you have talked about the purpose for this commando order as far as the Naval Command Staff is concerned and you clarified it by drawing to attention Hitler's clear statements; Hitler who had said that he had orders at his disposal according to which prisoners were to be killed. These were enemy orders. In connection with this commando order Colonel Phillimore in great detail dealt with the case of the British sailor Evans. In my opinion that case has not up to now been clarified. Colonel Phillimore was talking about the murder of a soldier. I think that in spite of the excellence of the documents, the Prosecution are making mistakes about the facts and about the legal situation and I am asking you therefore once more to look at Document D-864.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, that is GB-457 submitted by Colonel Phillimorr
THE WITNESS: I have no more documents here. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q. This is an affidavit from Gerhard Flesch. The Prosecution read a sentence to you saying that the commanding Admiral on the Norther Coast of Norway had interrogated Evans personally. Admiral .Wagner, does that sentence show that Evans was a prisoner of the Navy?
A. No.
Q. What was the situation? After you have read the Flesch affidavit, please, will you clarify that?
A. According to the second paragraph of that affidavit, Evans must be in the hands of the SD.
Q. That is right.
DR. SIEMERS: And Mr. President, I supplement that by saying that at the beginning of the affidavit Flesch is stating that he is the Commander of the Security Police. The Security Police had captured Evans and Evans was a prisoner of the SD. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q. Is it correct, therefore, that the British sailor Evans was merely brought before the Admiral in Norway for the sole purpose of being interrogated?
A. No doubt that is the case.
was because this was an attack on the Tirpitz; he was therefore interested in hearing the facts regarding how this attempt was made. Is that correct? Do I see that right?
Q May I please ask you to look at D. 864, this affidavit, and look at the following paragraph. There it says regarding Evans' clothes, and I quote:
"It is not known to me that Evans were a uniform. As far as I can remember, he was wearing blue over-alls."
Does this mean that Evans was not recognizable as a soldier? the number of which is U.K. 57.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I have the X G.B. Number 164 before me. Apparently it is in the original document book but I think it has been newly submitted today.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the number?
DR. SIEMERS: U.K. 57, G.B.164. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q You have a photostat copy, haven't you?
Q Please, will you look at the fourth page. just get the question; Is it possible that this document was known to the Naval Command Staff? Does the document show that it was sent to the Naval Command Staff?
A This is an internee billets of the OK. as far as I can see, apparently it was not sent to the Naval Command Staff. gence of the OKW, isn't it?
A Yes. That is right.
Q Under Figure 2 it says "attempted attack on the Tirpitz," and the first part was read by Colonel Phillimore:
"Three Englishmen and two Norwegians were captured on the Swedish frontier." police?
A Not the armed force. Presumably that, but it isn't certain. They were certainly not apprehended by the Navy but probably by the police who were looking after the frontier, so far as I know.
Q Don't you think, Admiral, it is certain, not only probable, if you think back, that the Commander of the Security Police brought Evans from the frontier to Oslo? yes. And I don't think there is any doubt of it, either.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, that is under Figure 2 and it is the last sentence in the first paragraph. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q I quote; "It was only possible to arrest the British sailor Evans who was in civilian clothes. The others escaped into Sweden."
Can't we assume with certainty that Evans was not recognizable as a soldier
A Yes. No doubt.
Q Then, please, will you look at the following sentence, "witness. There it says, and I quote:
"Evans had a pistol holster as it is used in carrying weapons under the shoulder, and he had a knuckle duster."