Chapter XI: Part I: , Page 1203; Reichsgesetzblatt 1934, Part I, Page 295; and (4)

BLAHA: I believe they saw how the people worked, what they looked like and what was produced there. For instance, I can remember one example of what they saw quite well. At that time I was working in the fields. We were pulling a heavy street roller, 16 men, and a group of girls passed who were on an excursion. When they passed, their leader said very loudly, so that we all could hear it, “Look, those people are so lazy that rather than harness up a team of horses they pull it themselves.” That was supposed to be a joke.

DR. THOMA: Witness, when did you first have occasion, after your liberation from the concentration camp, to tell outside people about those horrible atrocities which you related to us today?

BLAHA: I did not understand that; please repeat.

DR. THOMA: When did you first have an opportunity, after your discharge or liberation from the concentration camp, of telling an outsider about these horrible atrocities?

BLAHA: Immediately after the liberation. I was at that time, as chief physician of the concentration camp, interrogated by the American investigating corps; and it was to this corps that I told this story for the first time, and I also gave them various proofs—diagrams, and the medical records which I had saved from being burnt.

DR. THOMA: That prosecutor believed the information you gave without further ado?

BLAHA: Yes.

DR. THOMA: Witness, you said that the Defendant Rosenberg was pointed out to you in the Concentration Camp Dachau shortly after you arrived there.

BLAHA: Yes.

DR. THOMA: When was that?

BLAHA: In the year 1941; first half of 1941.

DR. THOMA: First half?

BLAHA: I believe so, yes.

DR. THOMA: Can you perhaps remember the month?

BLAHA: I cannot remember. I arrived in April; I believe it was between April and July or something like that.

DR. THOMA: From April to July 1941?

BLAHA: I believe so.

DR. THOMA: Was Rosenberg at that time in uniform?

BLAHA: He was in uniform.

DR. THOMA: In what uniform?

BLAHA: I believe it was an SS uniform.

DR. THOMA: SS uniform?

BLAHA: It was a—I cannot say that very precisely—but he was in uniform.

DR. THOMA: All right, you remember _prima facie_ that it was an SS uniform, that is, a black uniform?

BLAHA: No, at that time the SS no longer wore the black uniform, because after the beginning of the war they wore field uniforms and other similar uniforms.

DR. THOMA: Then, you assume it was a gray uniform?

BLAHA: Something like that; whether it was gray or yellow or brown I don’t remember any more.

DR. THOMA: That is just the point: whether it was gray, brown, or yellow. Was it a field uniform?

BLAHA: I do not know because from 1939 I was in the concentration camp, and I am not at all familiar with the various German uniforms, ranks, and branches of the Army, and so forth.

DR. THOMA: But you just said that during the war they changed the uniform.

BLAHA: Yes, the men in the Gestapo also changed theirs. When I was arrested in 1939, all Gestapo personnel wore this black uniform. Then, after the war broke out most of them wore either green or gray uniforms.

DR. THOMA: May I ask you again: Did Rosenberg wear a wartime uniform or a peacetime uniform?

BLAHA: I believe it was a wartime uniform.

DR. THOMA: Wartime uniform? The Defendant Rosenberg was pointed out to you by another comrade, wasn’t he?

BLAHA: Yes.

DR. THOMA: At what distance?

BLAHA: Well, he was just going down the camp street. That was perhaps 30 or 40 degrees.

DR. THOMA: Thirty or forty metres you mean?

BLAHA: Well, 30 metres; 30 paces I wanted to say, 30 or 40 paces.

DR. THOMA: And had you previously seen photographs of Rosenberg? Did you already have an idea of what Rosenberg looked like?

BLAHA: Yes.

DR. THOMA: And when this comrade showed you Rosenberg, was it then necessary for him to say, “This is Rosenberg”? Didn’t you recognize him already from having seen him in the photographs which you had previously. . .

BLAHA: I cannot remember that. But when he showed him to me I remembered that I knew him already from the various pictures in the newspapers.

DR. THOMA: May I ask you to describe the incident precisely? How it happened; where you were standing; where Rosenberg came from; and who was in his company.

BLAHA: Who was in his company? I knew only the camp commander.

DR. THOMA: Who was the camp commander at that time?

BLAHA: Pierkowski was camp commander, Sturmbannführer Pierkowski.

DR. THOMA: Do you know whether he is still alive?

BLAHA: No, I don’t.

DR. THOMA: The camp commander?

BLAHA: Pierkowski. Then the Lagerführer Ziel and Hoffmann, I knew them.

DR. THOMA: Now were you in your room and looking out of the window?

BLAHA: No, we were in one of the so-called “block” streets. This led into another street along which the visitors passed.

DR. THOMA: And what was said to you?

BLAHA: “Look, there goes Rosenberg.”

DR. THOMA: Was Rosenberg alone?

BLAHA: No, he was with the other persons.

DR. THOMA: That is to say, only with the camp commander?

BLAHA: No, there were many other people with him.

DR. THOMA: That is to say, he had an escort, a staff?

BLAHA: Yes.

DR. THOMA: Members of Rosenberg’s staff?

BLAHA: I don’t know whether that was Rosenberg’s staff, but there were a number of persons.

DR. THOMA: A number of persons? Witness, the Defendant Rosenberg assures me most definitely that he has never been to the concentration camp at Dachau. Is it possible that there has been a mistake?

BLAHA: I believe I am not mistaken. Besides the German in question knew Rosenberg very well, I believe.

DR. THOMA: How do you know that?

BLAHA: Because he told me so definitely. Otherwise, I have no way of knowing that.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma.

DR. THOMA: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You will forgive me if I point out to you that this is intended to be an expeditious trial and that it is not right to take up too much time upon small points like this.

DR. THOMA: My Lord, I ask your permission to remark that the question of whether or not Rosenberg was in the concentration camp is of decisive importance. I thank you.

DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): The Defendant Frick states that he has never been in Dachau Camp. Therefore, in order to clarify the facts I should like to ask the following questions:

Witness, at what distance do you believe you saw Frick?

BLAHA: I saw him from the window as he passed with a number of people.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you know Frick before?

BLAHA: Yes, from pictures.

DR. PANNENBECKER: From pictures? Did you recognize him yourself or did some friend tell you that it was Frick?

BLAHA: A number of us saw him and I looked at him particularly, because at that time he was already Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. For that reason I had a personal interest in recognizing him.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Did Frick wear a uniform?

BLAHA: I do not believe so.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you recognize anybody who was with him, anyone from his staff or from the camp command?

BLAHA: I did not know his staff. From the camp command there was Camp Commander Weiter. Camp Commander Weiter, and his adjutant, Otto.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Could you name anyone of your comrades who also recognized him?

BLAHA: There were many comrades of mine who at that time were standing at the window. Unfortunately, I cannot say who they were, because, as you will understand, life in the concentration camp was so full of incidents that one could not record these things accurately in one’s memory. One remembers only the more important events.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you recognize him at once of your own accord when he passed by, or had it been mentioned previously that Frick was expected?

BLAHA: No, it was not mentioned then. We simply heard that a high-ranking visitor was expected, and we were waiting for this high-ranking visitor. We were not told beforehand who it would be.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you recognize Frick immediately when you came into the courtroom, or did you know beforehand that he was sitting in the fourth seat here?

BLAHA: No, I recognized him easily, because I have already seen him many times in various pictures, and because he is a well-known person in Bohemia and Moravia.

DR. PANNENBECKER: You believe then that there can be no question of any error.

BLAHA: I don’t think so.

DR. PANNENBECKER: May I then ask the Court whether Frick himself may take the stand to testify that he has never seen Dachau Camp? I want to make this motion now so that, if necessary, the witness might be confronted with Frick.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendants will understand that they will have the opportunity, when it comes to their time to present their cases, to call all the defendants, but they will not have an opportunity of calling them now. They will have to wait until the case for the Prosecution is over and they will then have an opportunity, each of them, to call the defendant for whom they appear, if they wish to.

DR. PANNENBECKER: I simply thought, that as the witness is available now. . .

[_Dr. Kubuschok approached the lectern._]

THE PRESIDENT: It is now 5:00 o’clock and unless you are going to be very short . . . are you going to be very short?

DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the Reich Cabinet): Yes, Sir.

[_Turning to the witness._] Witness, you said that when prominent visitors came to the camp, for instance, Reich ministers, extensive preparations were made beforehand. You also said that undesirable persons were removed. Maybe you could supplement that statement. I am interested to know what the purpose of these preparations was.

BLAHA: I meant that everything had to be in order. In our infirmary all the patients had to lie in bed quietly, everything was washed and prepared; the instruments were polished, as is usually the case for high-ranking visitors. We were not allowed to do anything—no operations; no bandages nor food were given out before the visit had terminated.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Could you perhaps tell me which undesirable persons were to be removed, as you said before?

BLAHA: Well, the Russians especially were always kept strictly in their blocks. It was said that they were afraid of possible demonstrations, assassinations, _et cetera_.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were prisoners kept out of sight because they showed outward signs of ill-treatment?

BLAHA: It goes without saying that before the visitors nobody was struck, beaten, hanged, or executed.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: To sum up, the purpose of these preparations was to prevent the guests from seeing the concentration camp as it really was.

BLAHA: From seeing the cruelties.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Court will not sit in open session tomorrow, Saturday, and will only sit in the morning on Monday, because there is work to be done in the closed session tomorrow and on Monday afternoon. I thought it would be convenient for counsel to know that.

The Court will now adjourn.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 14 January 1946 at 1000 hours._]

THIRTY-THIRD DAY
Monday, 14 January 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: Would you have the witness brought in? I think one of the defendants’ counsel was about to cross-examine him.

[_The witness, Blaha, took the stand._]

HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and SD): I would like to put to the witness a few practical questions which I think necessary both for a better understanding of the earlier testimony of the witness and for my own information.

The witness was in the concentration camp from 1941 to 1945 and should be well informed on conditions as they were. His memory, as is evident from his previous statements, seems to be excellent.

[_Turning to the witness._]

Do you know how the proportion of political and criminal inmates changed during the various periods? What were the approximate figures of political and criminal inmates in Dachau?

BLAHA: In Dachau it varied. There were political prisoners, professional criminals, and the so-called black or asocial elements. I am, of course, speaking only of the German prisoners; the inmates of other nations were all political prisoners. Only the German inmates were divided into red, green, and black prisoners. The great majority of Germans were political prisoners.

HERR BABEL: Can you indicate the approximate proportion? A quarter, a half, or three-quarters?

BLAHA: I am sorry, I didn’t hear you.

HERR BABEL: Can you give figures? How many were political prisoners—half, three-quarters, or how many? Can you give an approximate number?

BLAHA: I would say that of 5,000 German prisoners, 3,000 were political and 2,000 were green and black prisoners.

HERR BABEL: Was that the proportion during the whole 4- or 5-year period?

BLAHA: It changed; because many died, some Germans left, many were drafted, and there were many new arrivals. In the last years there were more and more political prisoners, because many of the green prisoners were drafted to the front.

HERR BABEL: What approximately was the total number in 1941, 1943, and 1945?

BLAHA: Do you mean the total number of prisoners?

HERR BABEL: Yes, the total number.

BLAHA: We had 8,000 to 9,000 in 1941; in 1943 there were 15,000 to 20,000; and between the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945 we had more than 70,000 or 80,000.

HERR BABEL: Another question: You mentioned that at first you worked in the plantations. What did you mean by plantations?

BLAHA: The plantations were a large estate of the SS, in which spices, medical herbs, and things of that sort were raised.

HERR BABEL: Was this plantation inside the camp?

BLAHA: No, it was in the near vicinity of the camp, not a part of it.

HERR BABEL: You also mentioned work in armament factories. I gathered from your testimony that these armament factories were partially within and partially outside the camp. Is that correct?

BLAHA: Yes, at first these so-called German armament works were only outside the camp. Then, as a result of the bombings, some sections were moved into the interior of the concentration camp.

HERR BABEL: What was the number of camp guards in 1941?

BLAHA: For actual guard duty usually three SS companies were in the camp, but at Dachau there were in addition a large garrison of SS and a Kommandantur. Guards were taken from other SS formations from time to time, when it was necessary. It varied and depended on how many guards were needed. For regular duty there were usually three companies.

HERR BABEL: Were the prisoners in the armament factories guarded during working hours?

BLAHA: Yes. Every labor detachment had a commander selected from the guard companies and, in addition, these so-called guards, who went with the detachment to their place of work and then brought the prisoners back to the camp.

HERR BABEL: While you were at the camp, did you witness any ill-treatment on the part of these guards in the course of their daily activities?

BLAHA: Yes; a great deal.

HERR BABEL: Often?

BLAHA: Yes.

HERR BABEL: For what reasons?

BLAHA: The reasons varied, depending on the nature of the guards or the commanders.

HERR BABEL: But you said you were occupied, indeed according to your statements, very much occupied.

BLAHA: Yes.

HERR BABEL: How then did you have an opportunity of observing such ill-treatment?

BLAHA: I performed many autopsies on people either shot or beaten to death at their work, and made official reports on the cause of death.

HERR BABEL: You said they were shot. Did you see such incidents yourself?

BLAHA: No.

HERR BABEL: Then, how do you know that?

BLAHA: The bodies were brought to me from the place of work, and it was my duty to ascertain the cause of death; that the men had been beaten to death, for example, that the skull or ribs had been fractured, that the man had died of internal hemorrhage, or that he had been shot; I had to make an official report on the cause of death. Sometimes, but this was rare, when an investigation was conducted, I was called in as witness.

HERR BABEL: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, do you wish to re-examine the witness?

MR. DODD: I have no further questions to ask the witness at this time.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the prosecuting staff want to re-examine? Colonel Pokrovsky?

COLONEL POKROVSKY: At this stage of the Trial I have no further questions to ask the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can go.

[_The witness left the stand._]

MR. DODD: I should like to ask the Tribunal at this time to take judicial notice of the findings and the sentences imposed by the Military Court at Dachau, Germany, on the 13th day of December 1945. The findings were dated the 12th and the sentences on the 13th. I have here a certified copy of the findings and the sentences, Document Number 3590-PS, which I should like to offer as Exhibit Number USA-664.

THE PRESIDENT: Have copies of this been given to the defendants?

MR. DODD: Yes. They have been sent to the defendants’ counsel information room.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

MR. DODD: I have one other matter that I should like to take up very briefly before the Tribunal this morning. It is concerned with a matter that arose after I had left the courtroom to return to the United States.

On the 13th of December we offered in evidence Document Number 3421-PS, and Exhibit Numbers USA-252 and 254. They were, respectively, the Court will recall, sections of human skin taken from human bodies and preserved; and a human head, the head of a human being, which had been preserved. On the 14th day of December, according to the Record, counsel for the Defendant Kaltenbrunner addressed the Tribunal and complained that the affidavit, which was offered, of one Pfaffenberger, failed to state that the camp commandant at Buchenwald, one Koch, along with his wife, was condemned to death for having committed precisely these atrocities, this business of tanning the skin and preserving the head. And in the course of the discussion before the Tribunal the Record reveals that counsel for the Defendant Bormann, in addressing the Tribunal, stated that it was highly probable that the Prosecution knew that the German authorities had objected to this camp commandant Koch and, in fact, knew that he had been tried and sentenced for doing precisely these things. And there was some intimation, we feel, that the Prosecution, having this knowledge, withheld it from the Tribunal. Now, I wish to say that we had no knowledge at all about this man Koch at the time that we offered the proof; didn’t know anything about him except that he had been the commandant, according to the affidavit. But, subsequent to this objection we had an investigation made, and we have found that he was tried in 1944, indeed, by an SS court, but not for having tanned human skin nor having preserved a human head but for having embezzled some money, for what—as the judge who tried him tells us—was a charge of general corruption and for having murdered someone with whom he had some personal difficulties. Indeed, the judge, a Dr. Morgen, tells us that he saw the tattooed human skin and he saw a human head in Commandant Koch’s office and that he saw a lampshade there made out of human skin. But there were no charges at the time that he was tried for having done these things.

I would also point out to the Tribunal that, we say, the testimony of Dr. Blaha sheds further light on whether or not these exhibits, Numbers USA-252 and 254, were isolated instances of that atrocious kind of conduct. We have not been able to locate the affiant. We have made an effort to do so, but we have not been able to locate him thus far.

THE PRESIDENT: Locate whom?

MR. DODD: The affiant Pfaffenberger, the one whose affidavit was offered.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Dodd.

DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): The statement just made is undoubtedly significant, but it would be of importance to have the documents which served to convict the commandant and his wife at the time. Kaltenbrunner told me that it was known in the whole SS that the commandant Koch and his wife had been taken to account also—I emphasize “also”—on account of these things and that it was known in the SS that one of the factors determining the severity of the sentences imposed had been this proved inhuman behavior.

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. As you were the counsel who made the allegation that the commandant Koch had been put to death for his inhuman treatment, it would seem that you are the party to produce the judgment.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I never had the verdict in my hand. I depended on the information which Kaltenbrunner gave me personally and orally.

THE PRESIDENT: It was you who made the assertion. I don’t care where you got it from. You made the assertion; therefore it is for you to produce the document.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.

COLONEL H. J. PHILLIMORE: (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal: Briefs and document books have been handed in. The documents in the document book are in the order in which I shall refer to them, and the references to them in the briefs are also in that order. On the first page of the brief is set out the extract from Appendix A of the Indictment, which deals with the criminality of this defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing first of all with Raeder or with Dönitz?

COL. PHILLIMORE: With Dönitz. My learned friend, Major Elwyn Jones, will deal with Raeder immediately after. Reading at Page 1 of the brief. . .

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for 10 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, may I proceed?

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Briefs and document books have been handed in. The documents are in the document book in the order in which I shall refer to them, and the references in the brief to the documents are in that same order. On the first page of the brief is set out the extract from the Indictment as Appendix A, which deals with the allegations against this defendant. It sets out the positions he held and charges him, first, with promoting the preparations for war, set forth in Count One; second, with participating in the military planning and preparation for wars of aggression and wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances, set forth in Count One and Two of the Indictment; and thirdly, with authorizing, directing, and participating in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, including particularly the crimes against persons and property on the High Seas.

Now, if at any place I appear to trespass on Count Three, it is with the consent and courtesy of the Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic.

My Lord, on the second page of the brief are set out first the positions held by the Defendant Dönitz; and the document in question is the first document in the document book, 2887-PS, which has already been put in as Exhibit Number USA-12. The Tribunal will see that after his appointment in 1935 as Commander of the Weddigen U-boat Flotilla—that was, in fact, the first flotilla to be formed after the end of the World War in 1918—the defendant, who was in effect then Commander of U-boats, rose steadily in rank as the U-boat arm expanded, until he became an admiral. And then on the 30th of January 1943, he was appointed Grossadmiral and succeeded the Defendant Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy, retaining his command of the U-boat arm. Then on the 1st of May 1945, he succeeded Hitler as head of Germany.

My Lord, as appears from a number of documents which I shall put in evidence, the defendant was awarded the following decorations: On the 18th of September 1939 the Cluster of the Iron Cross, first class, for the U-boat successes in the Baltic during the Polish campaign. This award was followed on the 21st of April 1940 by the high award of the Knight’s Cross to the Iron Cross, while on the 7th of April 1943 he received personally from Hitler the Oak Leaf to the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross, as the 223rd recipient, for his services in building up the German Navy and, in particular, his services for the offensive U-boat arm for the coming war, which were outstanding. And now I put in the next document in the document book, D-436, which becomes Exhibit GB-183. That is an extract from the official publication _Das Archiv_ on the defendant’s promotion to vice admiral. It is dated the 27th of September 1940, and I read the last two sentences:

“In 4 years of untiring and, in the fullest sense of the word,
uninterrupted work of training, he succeeds in developing the
young U-boat armed personnel and material till it is a weapon of
a striking power unexpected even by the experts. More than 3
million gross tons of enemy shipping sunk in only 1 year,
achieved with only a few boats, speak better than words of the
merits of this man.”

The next document in the document book, 1463-PS, which I put in as Exhibit GB-184, is an extract from the diary for the German Navy, 1944 edition, and it serves to emphasize the contents of that last document. My Lord, I won’t read from it. The relevant passage is on Page 2, and if I might summarize that, it describes in detail the defendant’s work in building up the U-boat arm, his ceaseless work in training night and day to close the gap of 17 years during which no training had taken place, his responsibility for new improvements, and for devising the “pack” tactics which were later to become so famous. And then his position is summarized further at the top of Page 3. If I might read the last two sentences of the first paragraph on that page:

“In spite of the fact that his duties took on immeasurable
proportions since the beginning of the huge U-boat construction
program, the chief was what he always was and always will be:
leader and inspiration to all the forces under him.”

And then the last sentence of that paragraph:

“In spite of all his duties, he never lost touch with his men;
and he showed a masterly understanding in adjusting himself to
the changing fortunes of war.”

It was not, however, only his ability as a naval officer which won the defendant these high honors: his promotion to succeed the Defendant Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, the personal position he acquired as one of Hitler’s principal advisers, and finally, earlier candidates, such as Göring, having betrayed Hitler’s trust or finding the position less attractive than they had anticipated, the doubtful honor of becoming Hitler’s successor. These he owed to his fanatical adherence to Hitler and to the Party, to his belief in the Nazi ideology with which he sought to indoctrinate the Navy and the German people, and to his masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war, referred to in the diary and which the Tribunal may think, when I have referred them to the document, may be regarded as synonymous with the capacity for utter ruthlessness. His attitude to the Nazi Party and its creed is shown by his public utterances.

I turn to the next document in the document book, D-443, which I put in to become Exhibit GB-185. It is an extract from a speech made by the defendant at a meeting of commanders of the Navy in Weimar on the 17th of December 1943. It was subsequently circulated by the defendant as a top secret document for senior officers only and by the hand of officers only. My Lord, if I might read:

“I am a firm adherent of the idea of ideological education. For
what is it in the main? Doing his duty is a matter of course for
the soldier. But the full value, the whole weight of duty done,
is only present when the heart and spiritual conviction have a
voice in the matter. Doing his duty is then quite different from
what it would be if I only carried out my task literally,
obediently, and faithfully. It is therefore necessary for the
soldier to support the execution of his duty with all his
mental, all his spiritual energy; and for this his conviction,
his ideology are indispensable. It is therefore necessary for us
to train the soldier uniformly, comprehensively, that he may be
adjusted ideologically to our Germany. Every dualism, every
dissension in this connection, or every divergence or
unpreparedness imply a weakness in all circumstances. He in whom
this grows and thrives in unison is superior to the other. Then
indeed the whole importance, the whole weight of his conviction
comes into play. It is also nonsense to say that the soldier or
the officer must have no politics. The soldier embodies the
state in which he lives, he is the representative, the
articulate exponent of his state. He must therefore stand with
his whole weight behind this state.

“We must travel this road out of our deepest conviction. The
Russian travels along it. We can only maintain ourselves in this
war if we take part in it, with holy zeal, with all our
fanaticism. . . .

“I alone cannot do this, but it can be done only with the aid of
the man who holds the production of Europe in his hand—with
Minister Speer. My ambition is to have as many warships for the
Navy as possible so as to be able to fight and to strike. It
does not matter to me who builds them.”

My Lord, that last sentence is of importance in connection with a later document. The Tribunal will see when I come to it that the defendant was not above employing concentration camp labor for this purpose.

I put in the next document in the document book, D-640, which becomes Exhibit GB-186. It is an extract from a speech on the same subject by the defendant as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to the Commanders on the 15th of February 1944. My Lord, it is cumulative except that I think the last two sentences add, if I might read them:

“From the very start the whole of the officer corps must be so
indoctrinated that it feels itself co-responsible for the
National Socialist State in its entirety. The officer is the
exponent of the State, the idle chatter that the officer is
non-political is sheer nonsense.”

Now, the next document is 2878-PS, which I put in to become Exhibit GB-187. It consists of three extracts from speeches. The first is from a speech made by the defendant to the German Navy and the German people on Heroes’ Day, the 12th of March 1944.

“German men and women!

“. . . What would have become of our country today, if the
Führer had not united us under National Socialism! Split into
parties, beset with the spreading poison of Jewry and vulnerable
to it, and lacking, as a defense, our present uncompromising
ideology, we would long since have succumbed to the burdens of
this war and been subject to the merciless destruction of our
adversaries. . . .”

My Lord, the next extract is from a speech to the Navy on the 21st of July 1944. It again shows the defendant’s fanaticism. It is perhaps worth reading the first sentence:

“Men of the Navy! Holy wrath and unlimited anger fill our hearts
because of the criminal attempt which was to have cost the life
of our beloved Führer. Providence wished it otherwise, watched
over and protected our Führer, and did not abandon our German
fatherland in the fight for its destiny.”

And then he goes on to deal with the fate which should be meted out to these traitors.

The third extract deals with the introduction of the German salute into the Armed Forces. I don’t think I need read it, but as the members of the Tribunal will see, it was the Defendant Keitel and this defendant who were responsible for the alteration of the salute in the German forces and the adoption of the Nazi salute—together with Göring. . . Pardon, I should have said: the Defendants Göring, Keitel, and Dönitz.

The next document is a monitored report of the speech made on the German wireless by this defendant, announcing the death of Hitler and his own succession. It is Document D-444. I put it in to become Exhibit GB-188, and I read a portion of it. The time is 2226—marked on the document. I read therefrom:

“It has been reported from the Führer’s headquarters that our
Führer Adolf Hitler has died this afternoon in his battle
headquarters at the Reich Chancellery, fallen for Germany,
fighting to the last breath against Bolshevism.

“On the 30th of April the Führer nominated Grossadmiral Dönitz
to be his successor. The Grossadmiral and Führer’s successor
will speak to the German nation.”

And then, the first paragraph of the speech:

“German men and women, soldiers of the German Armed Forces. Our
Führer Adolf Hitler is dead. The German people bow in deepest
sorrow and respect. Early he had recognized the terrible danger
of Bolshevism and had dedicated his life to the fight against
it. His fight having ended, he died a hero’s death in the
capital of the German Reich, after having led an unmistakably
straight and steady life.”

Then, that document also contains an order of the day issued by the defendant, which is very much to the same effect.

Apart from his services in building up the U-boat arm, there is ample evidence that the defendant as officer commanding U-boats took part in the planning and execution of aggressive war against Poland, Norway, and Denmark. The next document in the document book, C-126(c), has already been put in as Exhibit GB-45. It is a memorandum by the Defendant Raeder, dated the 16th of May 1939, and I will call the attention of the Tribunal to the distribution. The sixth copy went to the Führer der Unterseeboote, that is to say, to the Defendant Dönitz. The document is a directive for the invasion of Poland, Fall Weiss, and I won’t read it. It has already been read.

The next document, C-126(e), on the second page of that same document, has also been put in as Exhibit GB-45. It again is a memorandum from the Defendant Raeder’s headquarters, dated the 2d of August 1939. It is addressed to the fleet, and then Flag Officer U-boats—that is, of course, the defendant . . . and it is merely a covering letter for operational directions for the employment of U-boats which are to be sent out into the Atlantic by way of precaution in the event the intention of carrying out Fall Weiss should remain unchanged. The second sentence is important:

“Flag Officer U-boats is handing in his operation orders to
SKL”—that is the Seekriegsleitung, the German Admiralty—“by 12
August. A decision on the sailings of U-boats for the Atlantic
will probably be made in the middle of August.”

The next document, C-172, I put in as Exhibit GB-189. It consists of the defendant’s own operational instructions to his U-boats for the operation Fall Weiss. It is signed by him. It is not dated, but it is clear from the subject matter that its date must be before the 16th of July 1939. I don’t think the substance of the document adds. It is purely an operational instruction, giving effect to the document already put in, C-126(c), the directive by Raeder.

My Lord, the next document, C-122, has already been put in as Exhibit GB-82. It is an extract from the War Diary of the naval war staff of the German Admiralty, dated the 3rd of October 1939, and records the fact that the chief of the naval war staff has called for views on the possibility of taking operational bases in Norway. It has already been read and I would merely call the Tribunal’s attention to the passage in brackets, in the paragraph marked “d”:

“Flag Officer U-boats already considers such harbors extremely
useful as equipment and supply bases for Atlantic U-boats to
call at temporarily.”

The next document, C-5, has already been put in as Exhibit GB-83. This is from the defendant, as Flag Officer U-boats, addressed to the Supreme Command of the Navy, the naval war staff. It is dated the 9th of October 1939, and it sets out the defendant’s view on the advantages of Trondheim and Narvik as bases. The document proposes the establishment of a base at Trondheim with Narvik as an alternative.

Now the next document, C-151, has already been put in as Exhibit GB-91. It is the defendant’s operation order to his U-boats for the occupation of Denmark and Norway, and the operation order, which is top secret, dated the 30th of March 1940, is termed “Hartmut.” The members of the Tribunal will remember that the document, in the last paragraph, said:

“The naval force will, as they enter the harbor, fly the British
flag until the troops have landed, except presumably at Narvik.”

The preparations for war against England are perhaps best shown by the disposition of the U-boats under his command on the 3rd of September 1939, when war broke out between Germany and the Western Allies. The locations of the sinkings in the following week, including that of the _Athenia_ which will be dealt with by my learned friend, Major Elwyn Jones, provide corroboration. On that, I would put in two charts; I put them in as Document D-652, and they become Exhibit GB-190.

My Lord, I have copies here for the members of the Tribunal. They have been prepared by the Admiralty. There are two charts. The first sets out the disposition of the submarines on the 3rd of September 1939. There is a certification attached to the chart, in the top left-hand corner, which I should read:

“This chart has been constructed from a study of the orders
issued by Dönitz between 21 August 1939 and 3 September 1939 and
subsequently captured. The chart shows the approximate
disposition of submarines ordered for the 3rd of September 1939
but it cannot be guaranteed accurate in every detail as the
files of captured orders are clearly not complete and also some
of the submarines shown apparently had received orders at sea on
or about 3 September to move to new operational areas. The
documents from which this chart was constructed are held by the
British Admiralty in London.”

My Lord, there are two points I would make on that first chart. First, it will be apparent to members of the Tribunal that U-boats which were in those positions on the 3rd of September 1939 had left Kiel some considerable time before. The other point which I would make is important in connection with my learned friend Major Elwyn Jones’ case against the Defendant Raeder, and that is the location of the U-boat U-30. The members of the Tribunal may care to bear it in mind while looking at the charts now.

The second chart sets out the sinkings during the first week of the war, and the location of the sinking of the _Athenia_ will be noted. There is a short certification in the left-hand corner of the Tribunal’s copies:

“This chart has been constructed from the official records of
the British Admiralty in London. It shows the positions of the
sinkings of the British merchant vessels lost by enemy action in
the 7 days commencing the 3rd of September 1939.”

My Lord, I turn to the defendant’s participation in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

The course of the war waged against neutral and Allied merchant shipping by the U-boats followed under the defendant’s direction a course of consistently increasing ruthlessness. The defendant displayed his masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war. From the very early days, merchant ships, both Allied and neutral, were sunk without warning; and when operational danger zones had been announced by the German Admiralty, these sinkings continued to take place both within and without those zones. With some exceptions in the early days of the war, no regard was taken for the safety of the crews or passengers of sunk merchant ships, and the announcement claiming a total blockade of the British Isles merely served to confirm the established situation under which U-boat warfare was being conducted without regard to the established rules of international warfare or the requirements of humanity.

The course of the war at sea during the first 18 months is summarized by two official British reports made at a time when those who compiled them were ignorant of some of the actual orders issued which have since come to hand.

My Lord, I turn to the next document in the document book. It is Document D-641(a), which I put in to become Exhibit GB-191. It is an extract from an official report of the British Foreign Office concerning German attacks on merchant shipping during the period 3 September 1939 to September 1940, that is to say, the first year of the war, and it was made shortly after September 1940.

My Lord, if I might quote from the second paragraph on the first page:

“During the first 12 months of the war, 2,081,062 tons of Allied
shipping comprising 508 ships have been lost by enemy action. In
addition, 769,213 tons of neutral shipping, comprising 253
ships, have also been lost. Nearly all these merchant ships have
been sunk by submarine, mine, aircraft, or surface craft, and
the great majority of them were sunk while engaged on their
lawful trading voyages. 2,836 Allied merchant seamen have lost
their lives in these ships. . . .

“In the last war the practice of the central powers was so
remote from the recognized procedure that it was thought
necessary to set forth once again the rules of warfare in
particular as applied to submarines. This was done in the Treaty
of London, 1930; and in 1936 Germany acceded to the rules. The
rules laid down:

“(1) In action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must
conform to the rules of international law to which surface
vessels are subjected.

“(2) In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to
stop on being summoned or of active resistance to visit and
search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not
sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without
having first placed passengers, crew, and ships’ papers in a
place of safety. For this purpose, the ship’s boats are not
regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the
passengers and crew is assured in the existing sea and weather
conditions by the proximity of land or the presence of another
vessel which is in a position to take them on board.”

Then, the next paragraph:

“At the beginning of the present war, Germany issued a prize
ordinance for the regulation of sea warfare and the guidance of
her naval officers. Article 74 of this ordinance embodies the
submarine rules of the London Treaty. Article 72, however,
provides that captured enemy vessels may be destroyed if it
seems inexpedient or unsafe to bring them into port, and Article
73 (i) and (ii) makes the same provision with regard to neutral
vessels which are captured for sailing under enemy convoy, for
forcible resistance, or for giving assistance to the enemy.
These provisions are certainly not in accordance with the
traditional British view but the important point is that, even
in these cases, the prize ordinance envisages the capture of the
merchantman before its destruction. In other words, if the
Germans adhered to the rules set out in their own prize
ordinance, we might have argued the rather fine legal point with
them, but we should have no quarrel with them, either on the
broader legal issue or on the humanitarian one. In the event,
however, it is only too clear that almost from the beginning of
the war the Germans abandoned their own principles and waged war
with steadily increasing disregard for international law, and
for what is, after all, the ultimate sanction of all law, the
protection of human life and property from arbitrary and
ruthless attacks.”

I pass to the third paragraph on the next page which sets out two instances:

“On the 30th of September 1939 came the first sinking of a
neutral ship by a submarine without warning and with loss of
life. This was the Danish ship _Vendia_ bound for the Clyde in
ballast. The submarine fired two shots and shortly after
torpedoed the ship. The torpedo was fired when the master had
already signaled that he would submit to the submarine’s orders
and before there had been an opportunity to abandon ship. By
November submarines were beginning to sink neutral vessels
without warning as a regular thing. On the 12th November the
Norwegian _Arne Kjode_ was torpedoed in the North Sea without
any warning at all. This was a tanker bound from one neutral
port to another. The master and four of the crew lost their
lives and the remainder were picked up after many hours in open
boats. Henceforward, in addition to the failure to establish the
nature of the cargo, another element is noticeable, namely an
increasing recklessness as to the fate of the crew.”

And then dealing with attacks on Allied merchant vessels, certain figures are given: Ships sunk 241, recorded attacks 221, illegal attacks 112. At least 79 of these 112 ships were torpedoed without warning.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then they were not illegally sunk, however?

COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, Sir.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): According to this document, the Germans have been given the benefit of the doubt.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Oh, yes, I should have read that sentence; I am obliged to Your Honor.

I pass to the second report, Document D-641(b). It is part of the same document and is put in as Exhibit GB-191. It is a report covering the next 6 months from September 1, 1940. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Are you not reading Page 3?

COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Lordship pleases, I have read a great deal of the report and there are passages that I had not considered important.

THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t myself read it, but I think. . .

COL. PHILLIMORE: If I might read the first two paragraphs on Page 3:

“By the middle of October submarines were sinking merchant
vessels without any regard to the safety of the crews. Yet 4
months later the Germans were still officially claiming that
they were acting in accordance with their prize ordinance. Their
own semi-official commentators, however, had made the position
clear. As regards neutrals, Berlin officials had early in
February stated that any neutral ship that is either voluntarily
or under compulsion bound for an enemy port—including
contraband control harbors—thereby loses its neutrality and
must be considered hostile. At the end of February the cat was
let out of the bag by a statement that a neutral ship which
obtained a navicert from a British consul in order to avoid
putting into a British contraband control base was liable to be
sunk by German submarines, even if it was bound from one neutral
port to another. As regards Allied ships, in the middle of
November 1939 a Berlin warning was issued against the arming of
British vessels. By that date a score of British merchantmen had
been illegally attacked by gunfire or torpedo from submarines,
and after the date some 15 more unarmed Allied vessels were
torpedoed without warning. It is clear therefore that not only
was the arming fully justified as a defensive measure but also
that neither before nor after this German threat did the German
submarines discriminate between armed and unarmed vessels.”

The last paragraph is merely a summing-up; it does not add.

Turning to D-641(b), which is a similar report covering the next 6 months, if I might read the first five paragraphs of Page 1:

“On the 30th January 1941 Hitler proclaimed: ‘Every ship, with
or without convoy, which appears before our torpedo tubes is
going to be torpedoed. On the face of it, this announcement
appears to be uncompromising; and the only qualification
provided by the context is that the threats immediately
preceding it are specifically addressed to the peoples of the
American Continent. German commentators, however, subsequently
tried to water it down by contending that Hitler was referring
only to ships which attempted to enter the area within which the
German ‘total blockade’ is alleged to be in force.

“From one point of view it probably matters little what exactly
was Hitler’s meaning, since the only conclusion that can be
reached after a study of the facts of enemy warfare on merchant
shipping is that enemy action in this field is never limited by
the principles which are proclaimed by enemy spokesmen, but
solely by the opportunities or lack of them which exist at any
given time.”

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, isn’t this document you are now reading really legal argument?

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, some of it is. The difficulty is to leave those parts and take in the facts.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

COL. PHILLIMORE: The third paragraph, if I might leave the rest of the second, is as follows:

“The effect of the German ‘total blockade’ is to prohibit
neutral ships from entering an enormous stretch of sea round
Britain (the area extends to about 500 miles west of Ireland,
and from the latitude of Bordeaux to that of the Faroe Islands),
upon pain of having their ships sunk without warning and their
crews killed. As a matter of fact, at least 32 neutral ships,
exclusive of those sailing in British convoys, have been sunk by
enemy action since the declaration of the ‘total blockade.’”

The last sentence in the following paragraph about the sinking of ships without warning:

“Yet though information is lacking in very many cases, details
are available to prove that, during the period under review, at
least 38 Allied merchant ships exclusive of those in convoys
have been torpedoed without warning in or near the ‘total
blockade’ area.

“That the Germans themselves have no exaggerated regard for the
area is proved by the fact that of the 38 ships referred to at
least 16 were torpedoed outside the limits of the war zone.”

My Lord, the next page deals with a specific case illustrating the matter set out above. It is in the first paragraph of that page, the third sentence:

“The sinking of the _City of Benares_ on the 17th September 1940
is a good example of this. The _City of Benares_ was an
11,000-ton liner with 191 passengers on board, including nearly
100 children. She was torpedoed without warning just outside the
‘war zone,’ with the loss of 258 lives, including 77 children.
It was blowing a gale, with hail and rain squalls and a very
rough sea when the torpedo struck her at about 10 p. m. In the
darkness and owing to the prevailing weather conditions, at
least four of the 12 boats lowered were capsized. Others were
swamped and many people were washed right off. In one boat alone
16 people, including 11 children, died from exposure; in another
22 died, including 15 children; in a third 21 died. The point to
be emphasized is not the unusual brutality of this attack but
rather that such results are inevitable when a belligerent
disregards the rules of sea warfare as the Germans have done and
are doing.”

I think the rest of that paragraph is not important.

I turn to the next document, 641(c), which is part of Exhibit GB-191.

THE PRESIDENT: It is clear, I suppose, from that statement of facts that there was no warning whatever given?

COL. PHILLIMORE: No, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: We think that you should read the next paragraph too.

COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Lordship pleases.

“There are hundreds of similar stories, stories of voyages for
days in open boats in Atlantic gales, of men in the water
clinging for hours to a raft and gradually dropping off one by
one, of crews being machine-gunned as they tried to lower their
boats or as they drifted away in them, of seamen being blown to
pieces by shells and torpedoes and bombs. The enemy must know
that such things are the inevitable result of the type of
warfare he has chosen to employ.”

My Lord, the rest is very much to the same general effect.

The document, 641(c), is merely a certificate giving the total sinkings by U-boats during the war (1939 to 1945) as 2,775 British, Allied, and neutral ships totalling 14,572,435 gross registered tons.