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."
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 DAVID MAXWELL-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."
THE PRESIDENT: What is the exact reference to the document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-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 DAVID MAXWELL-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: "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?
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: 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:
Q May 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. 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." soldiers should? 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.
way guilty.
DR. SIEMERS: I have no further questions.
DR. LATERNSER: I have a few questions concerning the Commando Order. BY DR. LATERNSER: garding 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? investigated by the superior department, 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? material, that conception of mine was considerably influenced. ing over of a man to the SD meant certain death? 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?
Q Didn't you see some pictures?
AAt the moment I can't remember that I have.
Q Did 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.
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: 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?
Q what were they needed for mostly?
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.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
Tribunal intthe matter of: The United States of ting at Nurnberg, Germany on 14.
May, 1946, 1400
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
EBERHARD GODT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the path) BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER:
Q Admiral Godt, when did you enter the Navy as an officer cadet? which positions?
A Since 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.
Q Chief of the operations department attached to the head of submarines? submarines through the staff of the commander of submarines?
Q How many officers did that staff consist of? four officers. There was one military officer and two administrative officers.
Q I 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) 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.
for the use of the German Navy? 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:
Q That 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?
Q The first question is, what place in Norway can be considered as bases?
THE PRESIDENT: witness, will you make a pause between the question and your answer so that the interpreters can deal with it. BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER:
Which places in Norway can be considered as Bases? is, whether the question was answered and where it is answered?
A The question was answered under number 1 (c).
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? Officer Submarines?
Q The third question is: "What are the possibilities of defense after the occupation?" Was that question put to you?
Q Is it replied to in the letter? you now: "Will the harbors have to be developed completely as bases or have they already advantages suitable for supply positions?"
Q Was that fourth question put to you?
Q Was it answered?
Q What are the figures Roman II and III, what do they mean? they can be used as supply points now. extend these bases?
Q Please 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?
A Yes; I had overlooked that sentence.
question had been put to you and that you had answered them, whereas question 2 and 3 were not put nor answered? 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? of the Operations Department. just then and did they come to you for the first time?
A No. 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. whether one ought to start a war against the country concerned? 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? come out?
Q You 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?
A No. That paragraph appears under the heading about our own. combat forces.
Q And what is the meaning of this statement?