QYou said just now that you didn't remember the incident?
AYes, I assume that.
QWill you agree on this, will you agree with me, that if this shooting 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?
AResponsible for the order is that person who issued the order.
QAnd that person who passed it on approved it; isn't that right?
AI assume the full responsibility for the transmission of this order.
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.
The first application on behalf of the defendant von Schirach was for a witness Hans Marsaleck to be produced for cress-examination, and that application is granted.
The next matter was an application on behalf of the defendant Hess for 5 documents; 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.
The Tribunal considers that the documents applied for under heads C and E of 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 The application of behalf of the defendant Funk for an affidavit by a witness called Kallus is granted.
The application on behalf of the defendant Streicher is denied. The applications on behalf of the defendant Sauckel, firstly for a witness named Biedemann is granted, and secondly for 4 documents, is also granted.
The application on behalf of the defendant Seyss-Inquart for an interrogati to Dr. Stuepart is granted.
The application on behalf of the defendant Frick is granted for an interrogatory to a witness, Dr. Conrad.
The application on behalf of the defendant Goering with reference to two witnesses is granted, in the sense that the witness are to be alerted.
The application on behalf of the defendant Hess and Frank for official information from the Department of war of the United States of America is denied.
That is all.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Admiral Wagner, I want to put another question to you regarding the Commando Order.
Were the Navy Command Staff in any way participating in the carrying out of that order?
ANo, in no way.
QDid you in the Naval Command staff have the possibilities either 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?
ANo, such a possibility did not exist.
QThe document of a man has just been introduced in this court room, 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?
AThe second attack on the Tirpitz is known to me. The treatment afforded the prisoners is something I don't recollect.
QYou had mentioned that possibly the Naval Command Staff had 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.
QCan you remember any concrete example where you might have seen such a report?
ANo.
QJust now a document is being shown to you which deals with the 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.
QPlease, will you have alook at that document?
AMay I ask you to give me the number again?
QIt'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?
ANo, not yet. Did you say 526?
QYes, 526 PS. I am sending it up to you.
ANo, I haven't got it.
QIn the third paragraph you will find an indication that this party were carrying one thousand kilograms of explosives, is that correct?
AYes sir.
QDid you understand my question?
AI answered "yes".
QI 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?
AYes.
QDid these have anything to do with the Navy?
ANo.
QCan you see any clue in the whole document regarding the fact that the Navy had anything to do with the composition of this party or its treatment later on?
ANo, this matter does not contain any such clue.
QYou were asked this morning about the case of the Monte Garbea, an 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?
ANo, because it isn't contained in it.
QI shall now hand you a document which was used yesterday, D-807. 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
ASince there are no initials or signatures on both of these letters, 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."
Does this report give any indication to the effect that these were sinkings without warning, or were these sinkings in accordance with the apprised ordinance, that is to say, if they were stopped and searched?
AThe sentence which you have just read does not show any such 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.
QYou were asked yesterday whether you knew the German note of 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?
AYes.
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:
I have no further questions.
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.
Q And the only reason why the Admiral was interested in that interrogation 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?
AYes.
QMay 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?
AWell, apparently not so, no.
QPlease, will you pass on to the document X submited by Colonel phillimor 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:
QYou have a photostat copy, haven't you?
AYes
QPlease, 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?
AThis is an internee billets of the OK. as far as I can see, apparently it was not sent to the Naval Command Staff.
QSo if I understand it correctly then, this is the document of intelligence of the OKW, isn't it?
AYes. That is right.
QUnder 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."
Can you assume on the strength of that that they were apprehended by the 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.
QDon'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?
AIf you compare the two, then it seems, in my opinion, to be Certain, yes. And I don't think there is any doubt of it, either.
QPlease, will you then look at the following sentence.
DR. SIEMERS:Mr. President, that is under Figure 2 and it is the last sentence in the first paragraph. BY DR. SIEMERS:
QI 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
AYes. No doubt.
QThen, 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."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is nothing about civilian clothes in the English copy.
I don't want to make a had point, but it is not in my copy.
THE PRESIDENT:I am afraid I haven't got the document before me.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the English copy that I have simply says, "However, only the British seaman, Robert Paul Evans, born 14 January 1922, at London, could be arrested. The ethers escaped into Sweden."
My Lord, it canbe checked afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT:What is the exact reference to the document?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that was document UK-57, and it is a report of the OKW, Office for Auslands Abwehr, of the 4th of January, 1944.
TEE PRESIDENT:Did Colonel Phillimore put it in this morning?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: I put it in, My Lord, certainly, in cross examining the defendant Keitel. It has been in before, My Lord,
THE PRESIDENT:I see, it has already been put in with thislot.
DR. SIEMERS:I should be must grateful to the Tribunal if themistake could be rectified in the English translation. The German photostatic copy of the original is available, and I presume that its wording must be the correct one. BY DR. SIEMERS:
QWitness, we were just talking about the sentence, and I quote, "Evans was in possession of a revolver holster as issued for wearing arms under the shoulder, and he had a knuckle-duster." What does this showin connection with the fact that he was wearing civilian clothes?
AIt shows -
DR. SIEMERS:Sir David has just asked me to read the next sentence too: "Acts of force against international law could not be proved against him. Evans made detailed Statements regarding the action and, on the 19th of January, 1943, in accordance with the Fuehrer order, he was short." BY DR. SIEMERS:
QWhat does this show to you, considering the fact that Evans was wearing civilian clothes? Does it show that he did not act as a soldier would act and should act in enemy territory?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. The Tribunal considers that that is a question of law which the Tribunal has got to decide, and not a question for the witness.
DR. SIEMERS:Very well, in that case I shall forego having it answered. BY DR. SIEMERS:
QMay I ask you to look at the following page of the document? That is a similar case, and I want you to look at it.
You have already clarified the case which happened at Bordeaux, by saying that the Naval Command Staff were not informed about it. I now draw your attention to the sentence which you will find at the bottom of page 3, and I quote:
"After the explosives were used, the boats were sunk and the men tried to escape into Spain, with the help of the French civilian population."
The men concerned there too -- did they not act differently from the way soldiers should?
AThat, in accordance with this document, is perfectly clear.
QAnd now, one last question.
At the end of his cross-examination Colonel Phillimore asked you whether Grand Admiral Raeder and Grand Admiral Doenitz were considered by you to be guilty in this case, as he called it, of murder. How that we have clarified the cases further, I should like you to answer the question again.
A I consider that neither of the two Grand Admirals are in any way guilty.
DR. SIEMERS: I have no further questions.
DR. LATERNSER: I have a few questions concerning the Commando Order. BY DR. LATERNSER:
QAdmiral, during cross-examination you explained your views regarding this Commando Order. I wanted to ask you concerning your views regarding this Commando Order. Did you base your attitude on the assumption that as far as the international justification of the order was concerned--that is, whether or not it was investigated by the department concerned?
AYes, and I assumed that the justification for the order was investigated by the superior department,
QFurthermore, during cross-examination you had stated what your conceptions were regarding the handing over of a man to the SD. I wanted to ask you, did you have that conception at that time, or is this something which has only now arisen, now, when you have a certain amount of material at your disposal?
AThere is no doubt that after having seen a great deal of material, that conception of mine was considerably influenced.
QDid you have the certain conception at that time that the handing over of a man to the SD meant certain death?
ANo, I certainly did not have that conception at the time.
QNow a few questions regarding the equipment of the commando troops.
Don't you know that in the case of some of the members of these troops, when the case was investigated, it was found that they had automatic arms and that, in particular, they were carrying pistols in such a manner that if the man would raise his arms in the event of capture, why that movement would automatically fire a shot, which would then hit the man who was standing opposite the man who was raising his hands? Do you know anything about that?
A Yes, I have heard about it.
QDidn't you see some pictures?
AAt the moment I can't remember that I have.
QDid Germany also organize sabotage actions in enemy countries?
THE PRESIDENT: What has that got to do with it, Dr. Laternser?
DR. LATERNSER: I wanted to ascertain by this question whether the witness had knowledge of our own sabotage actions, and then I wanted to ask him whether he had seen reports about the treatment of our own sabotage troops.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the very thing which we have already ruled cannot be put.
You aren't suggesting that these actions were taken by way of reprisal for the way in which German sabotage units were treated? We are not trying whether any other powers have committed breaches of international law, or crimes against humanity, or war crimes; we are trying whether these defendants have.
The Tribunal has ruled that such questions cannot be put.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I don't know which answer the witness is going to give, and since I don't know it--THE PRESIDENT: We wanted to know why you were putting the question. You said you were putting the question in order to ascertain whether German sabotage units had been treated in a way which was contrary to international law, or words to that effect. That is a matter which is irrelevant.
DR. LATERNSER: But Mr. President, it would show, at least, that the international law point of view applicable to such commando troops may have been in doubt, and that would have had a certain influence on the legislation being referred to and employed.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal rules that the question is inadmissible. BY DR. LATERNSER:
QWitness, you have stated, during your cross-examination, that until 1944 you were the chief of the operations department of the Naval Command Staff. Can you tell me anything regarding whether there weren't considerable German naval forces in the Black Sea, or whether there were transport ships?
AThere were very few transports and naval ships in the Black Sea.
Q what were they needed for mostly?
AFor our own replacements and their safety.
THE PRESIDENT:How does this arise out of the cross-examination? You are re-examining now, and you are only entitled to ask questions which arise out of the cross-examination. There have been no questions put with Referencing the Black Sea.
DR. LATERNSER:Mr. President, during the examination I have discovered that for some considerable time the witness was to keep up the operational staff. I have gathered from that fact that he is one of the few sitnesses who can give me information regarding the possibility of a very severe and serious accusation raised by the British prosecution, and that is the accusation that 144,000 people had been transferred to German ships, and that at Sevastopol those ships had gone to sea and were blown up, whereby the prisoners of war in the ships were drowned To some extent this witness could clarify this question for me.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Laternser, you know directly this witness began his evidence, what his position was, and you, therefore, could have cross-examined him yourself at the proper time. You are now re-examining, and because we cannot have the time of the Court wasted, you are only entitled to ask him questions which arise out of the cross-examination. In the opinion of the Tribunal, this question does not arise out of the cross-examination.
DR. LATERNSER:Dr. President, please, would you, as an exception permit met
THE PRESIDENT:No, Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal has given you great latitude and we cannot continue to do so.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal intthe matter of:
The United States of America, the French Republic, the United King dom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, against Herman wilhlem Goering et al, Defendants, sit ting at Nurnberg, Germany on 14.
May, 1946, 1400 1700, Lord Justice Lawrence presiding.
THE PRESIDENT:You have finished, have you not, Dr. Kranzbuehler, with this witness?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:The witness can retire.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER:And now I should like to call by next witness, Eberhard Godt
EBERHARDGODT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWill you state your full name?
AMy name is Eberhard Godt.
QWill you repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the path)
QYou may sit down.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER:
QAdmiral Godt, when did you enter the Navy as an officer cadet?
AOn the first of July 1918.
QSince when have you been working together with Admiral Doenitz and in which positions?
ASince January 1938; first of all a first general staff officer attache to the chief of the submarines and shortly after the beginning of the war as chi of the operations department.
QChief of the operations department attached to the head of submarines?
AYes, attached to the head of submarines and later the commander of submarines
QWere you since 1938 participating in all operations orders issued through the staff of the commander of submarines?
AYes.
QHow many officers did that staff consist of?
AAt the beginning of the War that staff was increased from three to four officers. There was one military officer and two administrative officers.
QI shall now show you document GB 83. It is contained in the document book of the Prosecution on page 16 and it is a letter from the commander of submarines, dated the first of October 1939. It refers to bases in Norway and the date is 9 October How did this letter come about?
(witness handed document)
AAt that time I had visited the naval command staff in Berlin on some other matter. On the occasion of that visit I was asked whether the flag officer of submarines was interested in bases in Norway and which demands he night be making in that connection.
QWere you informed in which manner those bases in Norway should be secured for the use of the German Navy?
ANo.
QThe Prosecution have quoted an extract from a Naval War Diary of the Naval Command staff which originates from the same period.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER:I am thinking of the extract, Mr. President, which is contained on page 15 of the document book. BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER:
QThat extract contains four questions and the questions (a) and (d) deal with technical details regarding these bases in Norway whereas (b) and (c) deal with the possibility as to whether such bases can under circumstances be obtained against the will of the Norwegians and how they might be defended. Which of these questions were put to you?
AMay I ask you to repeat the questions in detail first of all.
QThe first question is, what place in Norway can be considered as bases?
AThat question was not put to me.
THEPRESIDENT: witness, will you make a pause between the question and your answer so that the interpreters can deal with it. BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER:
QI shall repeat the question.
Which places in Norway can be considered as Bases?
AThat question was put.
QWill you show me in the letter of the flag officer of submarines -- that is, whether the question was answered and where it is answered?
AThe question was answered under number 1 (c).
Q There it says the places in question are Trontheim and Narvik.
AYes, that is right.
QQuestion No. 2 is: "Can bases be gained by military force against Norway's will if it is impossible to carry this out without fighting?" Was that question put to you?
ANo.
QCan you tell me whether the reply was in the letter from the Flag Officer Submarines?
ANo, that question was not answered.
QThe third question is: "What are the possibilities of defense after the occupation?" Was that question put to you?
ANo, that question was not put.
QIs it replied to in the letter?
AUnder 3-D the necessity to adopt defense measures is referred to.
QIs that connected with the fourth question which will be put to you now: "Will the harbors have to be developed completely as bases or have they already advantages suitable for supply positions?"
AThese two questions are not connected.
QWas that fourth question put to you?
AYes.
QWas it answered?
ANo, not in this letter.
QWhat are the figures Roman II and III, what do they mean?
Answer the question whether these ports should be extended or whether they can be used as supply points now.
AAnswer the question regarding what measures would be necessary to extend these bases?
QPlease will you read the last sentence of the document? There it says: "Establishment of the possibility of supplying fuel in Narvik as an alternative." Isn't that the answer to the question whether a supply point is enough?
AYes; I had overlooked that sentence.
QCan I summarize, therefore, by saying that the first and fourth question had been put to you and that you had answered them, whereas question 2 and 3 were not put nor answered?
AYes.
QIn the War Diary of the Naval Command Staff there is a remark which says: "Flag Officer Submarines considers such ports suitable for temporary harbors and for supplying purposes and considers them vary valuable for Atlantic submarines." Is the meaning of that remark that Admiral Doenitz had dealt with this question before your visit to Berlin or what is the cause for that remark?
AThat was my own opinion which I had stated in my capacity as Chief of the Operations Department.
QWere considerations regarding bases appearing for the first time just then and did they come to you for the first time?
ANo. We had dealt with the question of whether, in Iceland, for instance, an improvement of the supply position for U-boats might be brought about.
QWere these considerations in any way connected with the question whether one ought to start a war against the country concerned?
ANo.
QI shall now show you the document GB-91, This appears on page 18 of the Document Book of the prosecution. It is the operations order of the Flag Officer of U-boats dated the 30th of March, 1940, and it deals with the action against Norway. Is that true, that this is your operations order?
AYes.
QHow many days before the beginning of the action did that order come out?
AApproximately ten days.
QYou can see under Roman I Volume 4, there is a sentence which says: "Thenaval forces, when going into harbor and until the landing of troops, will probably meet the British fleet off Norway." That is Roman II, isn't it I beg your pardon. "They will fly the British flag until the troops have landed except presumably at Narvik," Are we here concerned with an order from the Flag Officer for U-boats to the vessels under his command?
ANo. That paragraph appears under the heading about our own. combat forces.
QAnd what is the meaning of this statement?
AIt means that submarines had been informed that under certain circumstances our own ships might be flying other flags.