A Yes. The Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler was there, and as far as I remember that happened once or twice. Then he was there because of his Waffen SS. seven occasions, and that Fegelein, who was his representative at the Fuehrer's headquarters, is shown as being present on five occasions. What did Himmler discuss about the Waffen SS, the doings of the Totenkopf division?
A That can't be right. Fegelein was always present during these briefings, always permanently, because he was a member of the Staff, and he was a permanent representative. If the Reich Fuehrer was present during these discussions, he only reporter on the Waffen SS, and only with reference to these divisions of the Waffen SS which were being used somewhere under the Army. Just how these individual divisions were being called is something I don't knew; I don't think they were called the Totenkopf or Death Head Division. camps, and you say that Himmler never mentioned that? something I learned herein Nurnberg, but it wasn't mentioned there in the discussions. I have already said that during the military discussions only military matters were being discussed.
once, on the 26th of February, 1945, when there was quite a considerable gathering of SS notabilities. What were you discussing with him then?
A It is not correct that Kaltenbrunner was there only once. As far as I remember, he was there two, three, or four times; at any rate, during the last month of the war, I saw him two, three, or four times during the briefing. However, Kaltenbrunner never said a word, so far as I remember, he just listened.
Q What I want you to tell the Tribunal is: What was the subject of conversation when you had not only the defendant Kaltenbrunner there, but you had the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Steiner, your own Captain in attendance, and Lieutenant-General Winter. What were these gentlemen there for, and what were you hearing from them?
A Who is that captain and who is the general?
Q Captain von Assmann; I took it he was the captain in attendance on you, though I may have been wrong -- Captain Serge von Assmann. Then there was Lieutenant-General Winter, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Steiner, and SS Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner.
What were you discussing on the 26th of February 1945?
A There is one thing I must tell you on that point. First of all, Captain Assmann was present during all these meetings.
Q Just a moment. You can tell us something afterwards, but first of all listen to my question. What were you discussing with these people from the SS on the 26th of February, 1945?
A I can't remember that now. I do remember, however, that Steiner received the order that the Army Group in Pommerania should be making the putsch to the North, and that they should be relieved from Berlin. I think Steiner was present when this question was discussed, but it did not concern me. there were present Keitel and Jodl, at not quite so many Goering, who would give you the army and air situation in Germany; there was present the defendant Speer, who would give you the production pro ram; there was present Himmler, or his representative Fegelein, who would give you the security position; and you yourself were present, who would give the naval position.
At all meetings there was present the Fuehrer, who would trice the decisions. government of Germany during these years as anyone, apart from Adolf Hitler himself.
A In my opinion that description is not correct. During these briefings neither Speer nor anybody else supplied a complete survey of their sphere of activities. On the contrary, only the acute questions of the day were being discussed. The last 24 hours were discussed, and what should be done. That was quite out of the question; that is not at all how it was. The only one who had a complete picture of the situation was the Fuehrer. During these discussions and briefings the period of the last 24 hours, I should like to say, was almost always discussed, and the measures which were to be adopted in connection with it. That is the fact. picture. Every one of them clearly understood his own sphere for which he was responsible, but a total picture in the mind of any of the participants is out of the question. You can't say that, because only the Fuehrer had that.
Q Well, I won't argue with you but I suppose, defendant, that you say -- as we have heard from so many other defendants -- that you knew nothing about the slave labor program, you knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews, and you knew nothing about any of the bad conditions in concentration camps. I suppose you are going to tell us you knew nothing about them at all, are you? were kept secret, and when one has become aware of the fact that everyone in the war was pursuing his own tasks with the maximum of energy.
I will give you an example. The conditions in concentration camps -and that is the order for the shooting of commandos, which was issued by the Fuehrer on the 18th of October, 1942. You have told us that you got it when you were Flag Officer, U-boats. Now, do you remember the document by which the naval warfare staff distributed it? Do you remember that it said this?
"This order must not be distributed in writing by flotilla leaders, section commanders, or officers of this rank. After verbal distribution to subordinate sections, the above authorities must have this order over to the next highest authority, or next highest section which is responsible for its confiscation and destruction.
Do you remember that?
A Yes, I read that again when I saw the order here. But, on the other hand, it also says in that order that the measure had already been communicated to the armed forces department.
Q What I want to know from you is: Why was there this tremendous secrecy about this order in the naval distribution?
A I did net understand that question. I don't know whether tremendous secrecy was being observed at all. I am of the opinion that in 1942 all naval departments had been informed about it; that is, those which were informed. issued. I am not going to quarrel with you about adjectives, defendant. Let me put it this way: Why did the naval distribution require that degree of secrecy?
A I don't know. I didn't make up the distribution chart. I just received it when I was at the front, and I don't know how it was made up.
Q Within three months you were Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. Did you never make any inquiries then?.
A Please?
Q Did you never make any inquiries?
A No, I did not. I have told you that I saw the order when I was Flag Officer, U-beats, and that as far as my sphere of influence was concerned the order was not affecting me in the least.
Secondly, these people captured during naval battles were excepted; so, as far as that goes, there was no actual effectiveness so far as that order was concerned. to deal with when I became Supreme Commander of the Navy, it was quite natural that it did not occur to me that I should take up the matter of that order. I didn't think of the order at all.
the Naval Staff showing that was put before you. Don't you remember that?
Q What I want to ask you before the Tribunal adjourns is: Did you approve of this order or did you not?
Q No, you haven't. I want you to tell the Tribunal now, and you can answer it either "I approved" or "I did not approve." Did you or did you not approve of this order to your Commanders? not sound. German Navy at the beginning of 1943? Did you approve of it then? ered the order a reprisal order and it was not up to re now to start investigating or justifying this order, to take it up with the department who issued the order to find out whether the basis was correct or not. And it is quite clear from the order that the order was based on the conviction -- murdering of prisoners was mentioned and it was stated that we would even have to take reprisals. justified by the conditions, that is something I do not know.
Q This is the last question. I want you to try and answer it with a straight answer if you can. At the beginning of 1943 did you or did you not approve of this order? not think of the order, I was not confronting myself with it. So I cannot say how that order affected me at that particular time. I can only tell you how it affected me when I received it as Commander of Submarines; and I can also tell you today that I dislike the order, now that I learn that the basis on which it was put was not sound. And I further tell you that I personally would not tolerate any type of reprisals during naval warfare actions, and I refuse any proposals of that kind. (The Tribunal adjourned until May 10, 1946 at 1000 hours) Official transcript of the International
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I understand there are some supplementary applications for witnesses and documents, which would probably not take very long to discuss. Is that so?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have not actually received the final instructions. I can find out in a very short time. I will get Major Barrington up. I am told that is so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, therefore, propose to sit in open session tomorrow until a quarter to twelve, dealing with the trial in the ordinary course, and then to take the supplementary applications at a quarter to twelve and then to adjourn into closed session.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we shall be ready for them at a quarter to twelve tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: the Fuehrer commando order of the 18th of October, 1942, is on page 65 of the English document book and on page 98 of the German document book. It is document C-178, US Exhibit 544. You will see that that document is dated the 11th of February, 1943, That is some twelve days after you took over as commander in chief. You will see from the reference that it went to one SKL, little one. That is the international law and prize division of your operations staff, isn't it -- Admiral Eckhard's division?
A No. It is addressed to the first division of the naval command staff, that is, the operational division.
Q Yes. But it is -chief of that department.
you -- one SKL, big once, little once -- that is Admiral Eckhard's department. That is the reference for Admiral Eckhard's international law department?
A No, no, no. It is the department in which Admiral Eckhard was also one of the officials. Admiral Eckhard was an official in that department. said, isn't it?
A No. The third department of the SKL was collecting information which was sent in for the navy, and they reported on it.
Q I note it was intelligence and press. Is that right or not?
A Yes. It was counter-intelligence and press. document. You remember I asked you yesterday about the secrecy standard of the original Fuehrer order of the 18th of October. If you will look at the second paragraph you will see that it says:
"The first Fuehrer order of 18 October was given the protection of top secret merely because it is stated therein (1) that sabotage organizatio may have portentous consequences, and (2) that the shooting of uniformed prisoners acting on military orders must be carried out even after they have surrendered voluntarily and asked for pardon.
Do you see that? top secrecy? department wasn't put before me. One thing which becomes quite clear from the initials which are in the book -
Q Is that the reason for you not answering my question? Do you agree that that is the reason for giving top secrecy to this document?
A But I don't know. I can't tell you that, because I didn't issue this commando order. It says in the commando order that these people had one time destroyed or killed prisoners. That is the way I had read it as the chief of the submarines, and on the other side -
You were commander in chief of the German Navy. Do you say that you are net able to answer this question: Is the reason stated in paragraph 2 of this document a correct reason for attaching top secrecy to the Fuehrer order of the 18th of October? You have this final opportunity of answering that question. Will you answer it or won't you?
A Yes. I want to. I consider it possible, particularly since the legal expert is of the opinion in this connection whether it is correct, because I haven't issued the order, and on the other hand it says in that order that these things were to be published in the army orders.
Q That was the next point. The next paragraph says that what is to be published in the army orders is the annihilation of sabotage units in battle, not, of course, if they are shot -- as I would say, murdered -quietly, by the SD after battle. I want you to note the next paragraph. The next paragraph raises the difficulty as to how many saboteurs were to be considered as a sabotage unit and suggests that up to ten would certain! be a sabotage unit. slowly:
"It is to be assumed that security three is acquainted with the Fuehrer order and will therefore reply accordingly to the objections of the army general staff and the air force operations staff. As far as the navy is concerned, it remains to be seen whether or not this case should be used to make sure" -- note the next words -- "after a conference with the commander in chief of the navy that all departments concerned have an entirely clear conception regarding the treatment of members of commando units." Eckhard's department, which was to be shown to one SKL, your chief of Staff's department, that you were never consulted uponit?
A. Yes, I will say that, and will prove it with a witness, because he was responsible for the distribution chart and the passing on of this document, and he will state quite clearly that I did not receive a report on it.
Q. Admiral Wagner was your chief of staff?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, we will not occupy further time.
A. He was not my chief of staff; he was chief of this very department. He was chief of Department, S.K.L., to which this order was directed. He will state quite clearly that no report was made to me. Very clear conditions these.
Q. Well, I will leave that, if you say that you have not seen it, and I will ask you to look at document PS-551.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I will pass the Tribunal a copy. This is Exhibit 551, and it was put in by General Taylor on 7 January.
Q. Now, that is a document which is dated 26 June 1944, and it deals win the Fuehrer order, and it says how will apply after the landing of Allied forces in France, and if you will look at the distribution, you will see that Number Four is to the OKM, 1, S.K.L. That is the department on which you were good enough to correct me a moment ago. Now, did you, were you shown that document, which says that the Fuehrer order is to apply to commando units operating outside the immediate area in Normandy? Were you shown that document?
A. No, that was not shown to re under any circumstances; that was quite right. The navy was not in any way concerned with the matter.
Q. You told me yesterday that you were concerned with the matter and the you had small boats operating in the Normandy operations. That is what you are told me yesterday afternoon. You have changed your recollections since yesterday afternoon?
A. No, not at all. Submarines were floating on the water, but they had nothing to do with commandos at the front ashore. This document -- and I do know if it is the original of the 1, S.K.L. because I can not see the initial but anyway it shows, and I am convinced, that it was not put before me because it was not a matter for the navy.
Q. I see. Will you just look at document 537-PS, which is dated 30 July 1944.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is US Exhibit 553, also put in by General Taylor on 7 January.
Q. The Sergeant-Major will point to the place. That is the document applying the commando order to military missions, and you will see again that the distribution includes OKM, Department S.K.L. Did you see that order?
A. Yes, I can see it.
Q. Did you see if at the time that it was distributed, at the end of July 1944?
A. It is quite certain that this order was not put before me because again the navy was not at all concerned with it. The Navy had nothing to do with combatting bandits.
Q. I want you now just to look very quickly, because I do not want to spend too much time on it, at 512 PS.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is US Exhibit 546, which was also put in by General Taylor on 7 January.
Q. Now, that is a report dealing with the question of whether members of commandos should not be murdered for a short time in order that they could be interrogated, and the question is whether that is covered by the last sentence of the Fuehrer order, and I call your attention to the fact that it refers, with regard to interrogations, in the second sentence:
"The importance of this measure, was proven in the case of Glomfjord, two men torpedoes at Trendheim, and glider planes at Stravenko."
A. I can not find it just now.
Q. It is 512-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, perhaps you ought to read the first sentence.
SIR DAVID MAX WELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please.
A. This document is of 1942. At that time I was an officer of submarine on the atlantic Coast in the Bay of Biscay. I do not know this paper at all.
Q. That is an answer, but it is 14 December 1942, and the point is put up, which is raised in the first sentence which My Lord has just directed me to read, "Top Secret:
According to the last sentence of the Fuehrer order of 18 October, individual saboteurs can be spared for the time being in order to keep them for interrogation." Then follows the sentence I have read. That was the point that was raised, and what I was going to ask you was, Did that point come up to you when you took over the commandership in chief of the navy in January 1943? Just look at the last sentence.
"The Red Cross and the BDS protested against the immediate carrying out of the Fuehrer order."
A. I beg your pardon, but I still can not find the place where this is supposed to be. I have not found that last sentence. Where is it?
THE PRESIDENT: Our translation says "after the immediate carrying out..".
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: "After", My Lord: I am so sorry. It is my fault. I am greatly obliged to Your Lordship. "Protested after the immediate --" I beg Your Lordship's pardon. I read it wrong.
A. That is of December 1942.
Q. It is only six weeks before you took over.
A. Yes, that is right, but I do not know this teleprint, and it may not be Red Cross. It probably is Reiko See. BDS is probably the SS leader for Norway.
Q. But the point that I thought might have had some interest for you was the two-man torpedoes. I thought that might have been referred to you as a matter of navy interest. However, if it was not I will come to a document that is after you took over. Give the defendant 526-PS, on 10 May 1943.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is US 502, and was put in by my friend Colonel Storey on 2 January.
Q. You see that that is an account -- it is from the defendant Jodl's department, and it is annotated for the defendant Jodl's department, about an enemy cutter which carried out an operation in the Shetlands, a cutter of the Norwegian navy, and it gives its armament, and it says that it was an organization for sabotaging strong points, battery positions, staff and troop billets, and bridges, and that the Fuehrer order was executed by the SD. That was a cutter which was blown up by the Norwegian navy, I suppose after they were attacked, and ten prisoners were murdered.
Was that brought to your attention?
A. This was put before me during an interrogation, and on that occasion I was asked whether I had not had a telephone conversation with Field Marshal Keitel. It was later on ascertained that it was the army commander who got in touch with the OKW. It was a matter for the army commander and the SD, not for the Navy.
Q. If you deny that you ever heard about that, will you turn to page 100 of the document book.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is page 67 of the British document book.
Q. That is a summary, a summary of the trial of the SD-
A. Where is it? I can not find it.
Q. Page 100, I have told you. If you will look for it, I think you will find it. It is page 67 of the English, if you prefer to follow it in that Now I will explain to you; I think you have read it before because you have referred to it.
That is a summary by the Judge Advocate at the Trial of the SS men of the evidence that was given, and I just want to see that you have it in mind. Verreck, in the Shetlands on the naval operation for the purpose of making torpedo attacks on German shipping off the Norwegian coasts and for the purpose of laying mines.
Paragraph 5: "The defense did not challenge that each member of the crew was wearing uniform at the time of capture, and there was abundant evidence from many persons, several of whom were German, that they were wearing uniforms at all times after their capture."
Now, you mentioned this yesterday. You see that in Paragraph 5 that:
"Deponent states that the whole of the crew was captured and taken on board a German naval vessel which was under the command of Admiral von Schrader, the Admiral of the West Coast. The crew were taken to Bergen, and there they were interrogated by Lieutenant H.P.K.W.Fanger, a naval lieutenant of the reserve, on the order of Oberkapitan Egon Drascher, both of the Naval Intelligence Service, and this interrogation was carried out upon the orders of the staff of the Admiral of the West Coast.
Lieutenant Fanger reported to the officer in charge of the Intelligence Branch at Bergen that, in his opinion, all members of the crew were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and that officer in turn reported both orally and in writing to the Sea Commander Bergen and in writing to Admiral of the West Coast," and that is Admiral von Schrader. not think you will think is taken out of context of the evidence given by Lieutenant Fanger at this trial.
He was asked:
"Have you any idea at all why these people were handed over to the S. D.?" for their being handed over. This was your Officers, your outfit; that was the General in Command of the Norwegian Coast, admiral von Schrader in command of this section, and whose people captured the crew. That is your own officers. Is it true what you told the Court yesterday that the crew were captured by the S. D? Havy you any reason to believe It. Fanger is not telling the truth?
THE PRESIDENT: What is that you were quoting from then?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is the shorthand notes taken on the trial of the S. S.
THE PRESIDENT: Has it been admitted?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord, it has not been, but it was within Article 19.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I don't know the document which has been used, and may I please have it. Shorthand notes are being used which are unknown to me and according to the decisions of the Tribunal regarding cross examinations they must be given to me when the cross examination is carried out.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Lord, it is with great respect, but this point arose yesterday when the defendant made certain statements with regard to Admiral von Schrader. I am questioning these statements and the only way I can do it is by the use of documents which I did not 'otherwise intend to use. I shall, of course, let Dr. Kranzbuehler see them in due course.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you a copy of the German? That was to have been given the Germans, that evidence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have only the English transcript and I am willing to let Dr. Kranzbuehler see it, but it is all I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any other copy you can hand him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I only was sent one copy.
THE PRESIDENT: After you are through with it, will you please hand that copy to Dr. Kranzbuehler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Lieutenant Fanger, is not telling the truth when he says that these men were captured by Admiral von Schrader. is completely unknown to me. I have already, stated that neither I, the Supreme Commander of the Navy had reports on the whole story and yesterday I told you I could only question that it happened, and it says here in paragraph 6 they were captured on an Island; that they were not captured by the Navy, that that they were captured by a Section of the Police -- and if you will let me finish -- that consequently admiral Von Schrader, since they were not Navy prisoners but police prisoners, handed them back to the police, and that is why I did not receive a report. I certainly can't furnish the details of this story, because, as I have stated, I wasn't given a report of it at the time.
Q That is the point I will get to in a moment. It nowhere states in this document that they were captured by the police, but in fact that they were captured by the forces under Admiral von Schrader, who attacked this island to which this boat was moored.
A But I don't know that. It says here in the document the police raided the island but it was not clear for what purpose they raided it, and it is also quite clear that afterwards they reached the boat and that is quite clear, but they remained police prisoners as the police or police guard; had captured them there, and that is how I imagine the story should be. were captured by Admiral von Schrader's troups, and you say if Lieutenant Fanger says that you have no reason to believe his is not telling the truth, is that right?
A Yesterday I accepted that, considering von Schrader's personality and Lieutenant Fanger said this, then it has been different, but, of course, I don't know.
Q Will you look at the end of paragraph 8, the last sentence:
"There was an interview between Blomberg of the S.S. and Admiral von Schrader", and then the sent sentence:
"Admiral von Schrader told Blomberg that the crew of this torpedo boat were to be handed over in accordance with the Fuehrer's orders to the S.D.", and that they were handed over, and the Officers of the S.D., who carried out this interrogation order at the trial; that after the interrogation he was of the opinion that the members of the crew were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and he so informed his Superior Officer." crew were dealt with under the Fuehrer's order and executed, and it describes how they were shot and their be dies secretly disposed of. Do you say you never heard about that?
A I did not. I will state and I can prove it with my witnesses, that if the officers of the S. D. imprisoned these people then they ought to have reported it to a Superior Officer and his authority would, have been final. gated them; the Navy Intelligence said they should be treated as prisoners of war, and Admiral von Schrader said they should be handed over to the S.S. and that the SS examined them and said they should be treated as prisoners of war, and despite that, they were murdered. And you say you knew nothing about it? Did your Kapitaen Zur See Wildemann say anything to you concerning this? (Spelling) W-i-l-d-e-m-a-n-n. Let me try to bring him to your recollection. At this time he was an officer on the staff of Admiral von Schrader and dealt with this matter. Now, Kapitaen Wildemann, and I suppose we should assume, unless you know anything to the contrary, he is a trustworthy officer, he says: "I know that von Schrader made a written report on this action, and I know of no reason why the handing over of the prisoners to the S. D. should not have been reported on."
Do you still say you never got any report from von Schrader?
A Yes, I do say that; that I did not receive any report and I am equally convinced that the Supreme Command of the Navy, and I have witnesses who will prove it, did not receive it either, and where the report went I don't know. Admiral von Schrader was of the Navy and maybe it went to the Army Command, if a report was made at all.
At any rate the Supreme Command of the Navy did not receive a report on this particular matter, and that is why, that these people right from the beginning were apprehended and prisoners of the S.D. Otherwise, I think Admiral von Schrader would have reported it.
have in mind something further that Kapitaen Wildmann said; which you know probably quite well: "After the capitulation Admiral von Schrader many times said the English would hold him responsible for handing over the prisoners to the S. D.", and Admiral von Schrader was under orders proceeding to England as a prisoner when he shot himself. Did you knew Admiral von Schrader shot himself? this order?
A No, I did not know the least thing about that. I only heard about it here. no report to you?
Do you remember a few days after the capture of this M. T. B. Admiral von Schrader received a Ritterkreuz?
A Yes, but that is not connected with this matter at all. He did not furnish a report about this matter and he did not go to Berlin to get his Ritterkrauz either, as I remember. Boehm were decorated, and in the recommendations and citations, the capture of this M. T. B. was given as the reason for this decoration. You say you knew nothing about it?
A I knew nothing about it and I couldn't have known about it, because the decorating of these people would have been carried out by their Superiors and not me. The Supreme Command of the Navy did not receive a report in connection with this affair. I have that much confidence in my Supreme Command and my witnesses will prove it. Yes, they failed to receive it, because I ought to have received it in the Supreme Command.
Q My final question, and I leave this subject: Admiral von Schrader was your junior officer, and according to you, a very giant officer. Do you want the Tribunal to understand that the responsibility which broke and made Admiral von Schrader commit suicide was his responsibility, that he never consulted you and you were taking no responsibility for his acts? Is that what you want the Tribunal to understand? Schrader committed suicide because of this event, then he made a mistake, because naval personnel were not to be treated this way. He must have acted the wrong way. I did not receive the least indication of that affair.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, Will you ask the witness what he meant when he said that von Schrader was not directly under the Navy? He was under Admiral Celiax, wasn't he, who was on leave at this time?
THE WITNESS: I had said that he was net directly under the Supreme Command of the Navy in Berlin. If any reports went out -- if von Schrader made a report, then that did not go directly to me but to his superior who was in Norway. but omit the leave for the moment: His immediate superior was Admiral Celiax?
Q I want to put it perfectly fairly: Do you remember that for operations in Norway Admiral Celiax was acting under the Commander -- correct me if I am wrong -- was it General von Falkenhorst. Perhaps you can help me. Do you remember that this Admiral was acting under the Commander-in-Chief in Norway so that you will tell the Tribunal-under the Supreme Command of the Navy. Admiral Celiax, he was under the Army Commander for Norway, General von Falkenhorst, but I can only state that if these are the circumstances under which Schrader committed suicide because of this affair, then, a mistake was made when these people who were naval personnel and had been sent into a naval action were not treated as prisoners, but as I said, I don't knew. Then there was a local error.
for this action you as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy knew nothing about it at all. That is what you say?
A The Knight's Cross was given to Schrader for something quite different. I awarded it. And as far as the awards to these other people are concerned, I don't know anything about that, and it has nothing to do with me, because it was done by their immediate superior. Whether these awards were in fact connected with the story, that is something I don't know -or whether there weren't other reasons for it. I still cannot imagine and don't believe it that a man like Admiral Schrader should have treated naval personnel in this manner and it doesn't say in the document either that they were being killed during a naval action but captured on an island. And it seems peculiar that the Supreme Command of the Navy should not have received a report about it, namely, that being an order and that the Army report had mentioned the story of this Commando order -- all these matters are against your version. I can't personally form an opinion of this affair and don't know it.
Q Defendant, I am not going into details. You may take it from me that the evidence at the trial has been that this cutter was attacked by two naval task forces. If Dr. Kranzbuehler finds I an wrong I will be happy to admit it. But we will pass on to another subject. Time is going.
Would you turn to page 105 of the Document Book? clear-cut violation of an order in this case, something of which the Supreme Command of the Navy was not informed. the English Document Book. Now we needn't have any trouble about this document because it is signed by you and it is a memorandum about the question of more labor for shipbuilding; and you are probably very familiar with it. But will you look at the first sentence?
A I beg your pardon, but what page is it?
A What is the number in the English?