officers last year. talked neither with Admiral Doenitz nor with you nor with Captain Hessler about his interpretation of the Lakonia order, even though he was repeatedly in your staff?
A That I know.. Whether from Moehle's affidavit of last year or from another source, that I cannot tell you at this point. you and Captain Hessler were against the Lakonia order, yet you state that you do not remember this contradiction. Do you consider it possible that Admiral Doenitz had overemphasized your objection to this order, in order to take the complete responsibility for himself?
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. I do not think you can ask him that question, Dr. Kranzbuehler, whether it is possible that the Admiral had over-emphasized what he said.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: If I am not permitted to put this question I have no further questions, Your Honor, to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Then with the permission of the High Tribunal I would like to call Captain Hessler as my next witness.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: the pure truth and will withhold and will add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER:
Q Captain Hessler, when did you enter the Navy?
Q You are related to Grand admiral Doenitz. Is that correct?
A Yes. In November of 1937 I married his only daughter.
Q When did you enter the U-boat service? according to the Prisenscheibe?
A Yes. I was instructed such at that time. to you?
A Yes. This Scheibe was submitted to me and I was instructed about it. is? mechanism, in the very shortest period of time possible we can determine how neutral and how other ships have to be dealt with. For instance, whether the neutral vessel has contraband, can be sunk; or whether it has to be passed -whether we have to let it pass. read on what paragraph of the prize law this case was to be found; and through that it was possible at the time of the investigation of a merchant ship to limit the time to the shortest possible time. Commander?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Now; I am submitting to the Tribunal this disc as Exhibit Doenitz Number 95. BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER: wrecked survivers?.
A Yes. The rescuing of survivors in the naval action is a matter of course and is to be carried through as fas as military measures permit. In U-boat warfare rescue of survivors, that is, the taking on board of the entire crew, is utterly impossible, for the space conditions of the U-boat do not permit any such action. The carrying through of other measures, such as, for instance, the approaching to life-boats, the picking up of those who are swimming and the taking of them into the life-boats, giving provisions and water, is, on general principle not possible, fo the endangering of the U-boat is in every part of an operational zone so great that you cannot carry out any of these measures without endangering your boat too much.
from when to when?
Q In what areas did you operate? Azores to Bergen, and the area West of Friedland.
Q What success did you have as against merchant shipping?
Q You have the knight's Order? by you?
A In most of the cases the situation was as follows: That I immediately left the place of sinking; that at the place of sinking I had to go away from this point of sinking, for my danger through hostile sea or air forces required me to do so. In two cases the danger was not quite as large. I could approach the life-boats and help them.
Q And what ships were concerned in this? These were the two ships.
Q How did you help the life boats? position and told them how they could reach land in their life boats. In the second place I gave them water, which is very, very important for survivors in tropical regions. Then in one case I rendered medical aid for the few who were wounded. sunk play a role too in how to surface while you were rescuing? justified suspicion toward every merchant-man and it's crew no matter how innocent they might appear. destruction. British ship, which I torpedoed North of Cape Byrd. The ship had stopped after it had been hit by the torpedo. The crew had left the ship and was in the life boats and it seemed to be sinking. I was thinking whether I should surface in order to Save the crew, tell them how to reach land, and ask them if they needed water. Then the feeling, I might say it was more or less unexplainable, kept me from doing so. I lifted the periscope and at the same moment when the periscope extended quite a good deal above the surface of the water, this steamer which seemed to have been abandoned from previous experiences, the sailors manned the guns, and the sailors who had kept themselves concealed underneath the guns and behind the railing, then at the closest possible range they opened fire on my periscope so that I had to take all necessary precautions. The hit close to the periscope but could not endanger me. Jones, which I torpedoed, that ship also seemed to be sinking. I wondered whether I should surface, when in one of the life boats I sew two British sailors who were in perfect uniform, spotless uniforms, and that, of course, made me suspicious.
I saw the ship at close range. I would judge 50 to 100 motors and I took a good look at the ship and I determined that it had not been abandoned, but in all possible spots of concealment sailors were still present. When I torpedoed the ship these concealments burst, and I saw that the ship had at least four to six guns of ten to fifteen millimeter strength, a large number of depth charges and installations, and anti-flack was there also behind the railing. Just on the strength of the coincidence that the depth charges had not been let go, that was the reason I escaped destruction. was less concerned with the crews and survivors than with endangering my own ship, and with something which was entirely clear to me in the future. U-boats? your task as Commander? You were to secure and instruct them as to all orders? instructions you gave and the instructions by the Chief of the Flotilla had to give, such as Moehle? bread outline about all questions as to their actions and demeanor at sea. The Chief of the Flotilla had the instructions or mission to ascertain that all Commandants shoul know of all recent orders of the Commander in Chief of the U-boats and would have them at hand. Therefore, I right say almost it was a limited instruction.
Commandants told about their action toward survivors of the ship-wrecked? instruction had been in the U-boat school at my training. after the Lakonia order of September, 1942? and told them: Now, you are no longer to decide whether the situation in the open sea will permit your rescue only. From now on in it is prohibited to carry through rescue measures. the war, that is, two and a half years, the Commandants were told about the Lakonia incident, or was it just immediately after this case?
A I would say at the most until January, 1943. After that time there was no more talk about that.
Q That means about the incident? That is about the Lakonia case? What about the orders issued as a result of it? longer. suggestion from you or from one of your crows to shoot at survivors? that captains and leading engineers, if possible, were to be taken along? to take place only when it could be done without endangering the ships?
which shot down some fliers in the Bay of Biscay? the Autumn of 1943? incident represent the opinion that the U-boat Command or should have shot at the fliers which were left?
A No, on the contrary he was put out about this; that the aircraft personnel had not been brought along by the U-boat crew. or was your opinion represented in the staff? the question that any member of the staff had a deviating opinion. to the significance of the Lakonia decree with Korvetten Kapitain Kupisch of your staff and then Kapitain Kupisch told him about the incident of the U-386, and told it in such a way that the Commanders of the U-boats demanded the shooting of the survivors?
Q Why not? U-boat and did not return from that mission. The incident with U-386 took place in the autumn of 1943, and that was later opinion or the possibility that this story about U-386 might have come from you, did you discuss this matter with him?
Q Can you say that with certainty?
Moehle gave to this Lakonia order? and then through a British Officer. officers who were instructed by Moehle, none discussed the interpretation of this order with the Commander in Chief of the Submarines? these officers considered the interpretation of Kapitain Moehle completely impossible, and that it did not agree with the interpretation or opinion of the Commander in Chief of the Submarines.
Q Therefore, they could not require a clarification?
Q. The Prosecution's accusations against Grand Admiral Doenitz are to a large part based on extracts from the War Diary of the SKL and of the commanders of the U-boats, documents which are in the possession of the British Admiralty. How is it possible that all of this date, is in the possession of the Admiralty and that is in toto? and of the commander-in-chief of the submarines, which were in the Navy archi ves should be saved and should not he destroyed.
Q Did he tell this to you?
A Yes, in this way; when I told him that our own data in the staff had been completely destroyed. destruction of the archives? Navy to carry on and that in its warfare it had nothing to conceal. expressed to you? as to the carrying out of the U-beat warfare and on those occasions the question was put to you as to the senior officers whether the submarine command was accused of criminal actions.
Q And what answer did you have?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any defendant's counsel wish to ask any questions?
The Prosecution?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: With the Tribunal 'spermission I would not propose to cross-examine and ask leave to adopt my cross-examination of the last witness because it is the same ground substantially.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Does any other Prosecutor wish to cross-examine?
Yes, Dr. Kranzbuehler?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I have no further questions of the witness, Mr. President.
BY THE PRESIDENT: Hessler, that is you, is it not?
Q -- told him:
"Don't make this wireless. You see, one day there can be a wrong appearance about it, there can be a misinterpretation of that."
Did you say that?
A I do not remember this. We very frequently, as consulting officers when orders were drafted we had to contradict and did contradict but I donot remember in this case whether Admiral Godt and I said that.
Q. Then later in his interrogation the defendant Doenitz said:
"I am completely and personally responsible for it (that is that order) because Captain Godt and Hessler both expressly stated that they considered the telegram as ambiguous or liable to be misinterpreted." misinterpreted?
A I do not remember that point. I do not believe that I considered this telegram to be ambiguous.
Q And lastly the defendant Doenitz said:
"I would like to emphasize once more that Captains Godt and Hessler both were violently opposed to the sending of the telegram."
Do you say you were not violently opposed to the sending of the telegram? did not consider it necessary once again to refer to it.
Q. Did you say anything to the defendant Doenitz about this telegram at all?
AAt the drafting of this telegram this was discussed. In the course of time many hundreds of wireless messages were drafted by us so that it is impossible to remember just what was said at each time.
Q You began your answer to that question:
"At the drafting of this telegram --."
Do you remember what happened at the drafting of this telegram?
A I can remember only that in the course of the so-called "Lakonia" incident we sent many wireless messages and received many in return; that many wireless messages were drafted; that beyond that the operation of U-boats was going on in the Atlantic so that I cannot recall details at the drafting of this wireless.
opposed to the sanding of this telegram. Is that your answer?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well Dr. Kranzbuehler, the witness can retire.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, this morning I had already advised the Prosecution that 1 will not wish to call the fourth witness and that is Admiral Eckhardt. Therefore, my examination of witnesses has been concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: And that concludes your case for the present?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: The conclusion of my case but with the permission of the Tribunal I would like to clarify one question which deals with documents. countermand, central ports and "Navicertsystem". These questions are of great significance for my case as I will present it later on. documents may not be used now as proof but that later on in my legal exposition I may have permission to use these?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Tribunal thinks that is a question which may be reserved until the time comes for you to make your speech,
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Thank you , Mr. President. Then I have concluded my case.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 15 May, 1946 at 1000 hours.)
Military Tribunal in the matter of: The MR DODD:
Mr. President we are prepared to have the witness Puhl. Perhaps I misunderstood -
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. fied as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: the pure truth and will withold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath) BY DR. SAUTER: Reichsbank? Directorate of the Reichsbank at the time when Dr. Schacht was there?
Q When Dr. Schacht left, you were, on of the few gentlemen who remained in the Reichsbank? made you the the acting vice president of the Reichsbank?
Q When was this?
I see, '39. You stated that you were acting vice president. I presume that this was due to the fact that the Defendant Funk wasn't a banking expert whereas you were, and that Defendant Funk, apart from that, was also in charge of the Reich Ministry for Economics? that was the separation of the powers who were handling the business and who were handling personnel. wasn't it? Thus the name of Acting Vice President?
A Yes, but may I make a few statements on that?
A Very well. The conducting of the business of the Directorate of the Reichsbank was divided up amongst a number of members of the Directorate. Every member had full responsibility for his sphere. The Vice President was only the figure head, whose, main job was to be in the chair during the meetings and to present the President on any important occasions; and also he had to deal with the economic and bank policy. has referred to you as one of his witnesses. You know that, don't you? And Accordingly, you were questioned at the camp where you are now residing, at Baden-Baden?
Q On the 1st of May?
Q And two days later you were again interrogated?
Q That was on the 3rd of May?
the 3rd of May weren't dealt with during the interrogation on the 1st of May?
Q That deals with these businesses with the SS, doesn't it?
A Yes. But I was also questioned on the 1st of May, but only very briefly. On the 3rd of May they came back to ask more thoroughly regarding this subject. the Reichsbank were not talked about, were they?
Q Did you mention them?
Q You mean during the interrogation of May the 1st?
A Yes. At any rate, during are interrogation on the 3rd of May a thorough record was prepared of matters which had briefly been touched on before.
Q I have got your interrogation of May the 1st before me. I read through it today and nothing is mentioned regarding the businesses with the SS. As far as I can see, there is nothing in it about that. The matter you are now mentioning must have been a further interrogation?
MR. DODD: Mr. President I think perhaps I can be helpful in this apparent confusion. The interrogatory which was authorized by the Tribunal was taken on the 1st of May, but on that same day, and independent of these interrogatories, a member of our staff also interviewed this witness. But it was a separate interview. It wasn't related to the interrogatory, and I think that is the source of the confusion.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q These businesses with the SS, were you interrogated about them twice? to your recollection?
Q That is the affidavit which deals with this business with the SS?
Q Is it true, what you have said in that affidavit? about this matter?
Q When was that?
Q I see. Today is Wednesday. When was this?
Q Regarding this very matter?
Q Has someone shown you a film yet?
Q Had you seen that film before? clearly?
Q The reason why I am asking you, Mr. Puhl, is because, as you know, the film takes place very quickly and it is a very short film, and for that reason the prosecution showed it twice in this Court room so that the pictures shown in this film could be recognized reliably. Did the single showing of that film make it possible for you to become clear about the subject of the film?
Q In that case will you tell me what you have seen? the film.
A Yes. The film was taken outside the steel safes of our bank at Frankfurton-Main. The other safes were shown behind the glass doors. They were the locked cases and containers which had been apparently found there. It was a usual picture which such strong-rooms would present. Before these safes there were several containers which were opened, of which one could see, roughly, what the contents were -- pearls, jewels, bank-notes and watches.
Q What sort of watches?
Q Didn't you see anything else in the film?
AApart front these things, you mean?
Q Well, apart from these valuables, didn't you see anything else that might have been kept there? coins, apparently silver coins, and also that amongst these valuables there were bank-notes, apparently American bank-notes. It was astonishing that these things were given to us for safe-keeping, because if they had been known to our original then no doubt there would have been a surrender of the bank-notes to the foreign currencies department since, as you Know, there was a general order to hand over foreign currency. But apart from that it was known to our officials that foreign bank-notes particularly were extremely rare and sought after. Something similar applies to the coins. They, too, really ought to have been handed over to the currency accounts, that is to say, they should have been purchased through the accounts of the Reich.
Q That is what you noticed, is it?
Q And didn't you notice anything else?
kept in the Reichsbank, valuables which had been given to the Reichsbank for safekeeping. And now I have been asking myself whether your Reichsbank might really deal with valuables and in safe-keeping by looking after them in such a manner as you have seen from that film. That is why I am interested in the question. Do you know, as the acting vice-president of the Reichsbank, how, for instance, in Berlin or how in Frankfurt where this film was taken, such, goods were meant to be kept in the strong-rooms and such valuables?
A Yes. the picture of the safe installments in Berlin were similar to that in Frankfurt as it would probably be in any large bank. These matters which we called closed deposits were kept in closed containers for which we made room, and that space was paid for in accordance with its size.
Q For instance, in Berlin, or let's say in Frankfurt, were these matters kept just as it was apparent from that film? things -- which we are now talking about had been put there particularly for the purpose of being photographed. which was shown which had the inscription, "Reichsbank, Frankfurt."
A I can say that I did see as sack which had the word, "Reichsbank", on it.
I am not sure whether it stated "Reichsbank" Frankfurt," on it, but I know it had "Reichsbank" on it, and that is why I thought the film was taken in Frankfurt, which is something the Prosecution had confirmed
MR. DODD: There have been two mistakes of some slight importance already. We didn't show the film twice before this Tribunal and what bag doesn't bear the legend, "Frankfurt." It simply says, "Reichsbank," And it was Schacht film that was shown twice here, because it moved rather quickly. My question is this: Did the Reichsbank have gold and such things in such sacks as this? with us then their things would be deposited in sacks, is that what you meant to ask?
Q I don't know how you handle them -
Of course, that can be a sack which is closed; that is perfectly possible. being deposited in an increased measure during the war were always kept in close boxes or cases so that generally the bank wouldn't know at all what might be contained in the cases or boxes. Its that different with you? it bears the word, "Reichsbank." Quite obviously that must be one of our sacks and not a sack belonging to a third party. after such closed deposits by keeping them in some closed container?
A The "or", Mr. Counsel, might be misleading. Closed containers went to the tresor, the safe room. There you found steel chambers where these containers or boxes were deposited. And quite independent from that arrangement, we had the arrangement of so-called "open deposits." They were such deposits where right from the beginning an administration of the goods had been arranged, and these safes were in quite a different part of the building from the so-called main safe
Q These open deposits don't apply to our case, do they?
Q Now, I shall come to the deposit of the SS. That deposit -- or these deposits weren't in Frankfurt but presumably in Berlin at the Central department. Funk had with you regarding the deposits of the SS and to give me information about it. Witness, I should like to ask you to think very carefully about every answer and to examine your recollection every time you give an answer. Of course, I shall give you necessary time. First of all, I shall ask you, what did you and the Defendant Funk discuss when for the first time you were talking about this deposit of the SS?
A I am referring to my affidavit of the 3rd of May in this connection. The talk I had with Mr. Funk was extremly simple. It dealt with the fact that the SS had asked that they might use the arrangements in our Bank regarding deposits of valuable articles for which -- as it was said, they hadn't sufficient space in the cellars of their houses.