Chapter I: N T H E (21)

GÖRING: No, that is not entirely correct. I made it fairly clear and should like to repeat briefly that not when there were only two left on the list did I intervene; I intervened when I saw that many were shot who were not concerned with this matter. And when I did so, two persons were left who had taken a very active part, and the Führer himself had ordered that they be shot. The Führer was particularly furious with one of them, the chief instigator of the action. What I wanted to make clear was that I said to the Führer, “It is better for you to give up the idea of having these two main perpetrators executed, and put an end to the whole thing immediately.” That is what I meant.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What date was that? Did you fix the time?

GÖRING: Yes, I can give you a definite time. As far as I recall, the decisive day was Saturday; on Saturday evening between 6 and 7 o’clock the Führer arrived by plane from Munich. My request to stop the action was made on Sunday, some time between 2 and 3 o’clock in the afternoon.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And what happened to the two men who were left on the list—were they ever brought to trial?

GÖRING: No. One, as far as I remember, was taken to a concentration camp, and the other was for the time being placed under a sort of house arrest, if I remember correctly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, going back to the time when you met Hitler; you said that he was a man who had a serious and definite aim, that he was not content with the defeat of Germany and with the Versailles Treaty; do you recall that?

GÖRING: I am very sorry, the translation was rather defective and I cannot understand it. Please repeat.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When you met Hitler, as I understand your testimony, you found a man with a serious and definite aim, as you said, in that he was not content with the defeat of Germany in the previous war and was not content with the Versailles Treaty.

GÖRING: I think you did not quite understand me correctly here, for I did not put it that way at all. I stated that it had struck me that Hitler had very definite views of the impotency of protest; secondly, that he was of the opinion that Germany must be freed from the dictate of Versailles. It was not only Adolf Hitler; every German, every patriotic German had the same feelings; and I, being an ardent patriot, bitterly felt the shame of the dictate of Versailles, and I allied myself with the man about whom I felt that he perceived most clearly the consequences of this dictate, and that probably he was the man who would find the ways and means to set it aside. All the other talk in the Party about Versailles was, pardon the expression, mere twaddle.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: So, as I understand you, from the very beginning, publicly and notoriously, it was the position of the Nazi Party that the Versailles Treaty must be set aside and that protest was impotent for that purpose?

GÖRING: From the beginning it was the aim of Adolf Hitler and his movement to free Germany from the oppressive fetters of Versailles, that is, not from the whole Treaty of Versailles, but from those terms which were strangling Germany’s future.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And to do it by war, if necessary?

GÖRING: We did not debate about that at all at the time. We debated only about the foremost condition, that Germany should acquire a different political structure, which alone would enable her to raise objections to this dictate, this one-sided dictate—everybody always called it a peace, whereas we Germans always called it a dictate—and not merely objections, but such objections as would demand consideration.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That was the means—the means was the reorganization of the German State, but your aim was to get rid of what you call the dictate of Versailles.

GÖRING: Liberation from these terms of the dictate of Versailles, which in the long run would make German life impossible, was the aim and the intention. But by that we did not go as far as to say, “We want to wage war on our enemies and be victorious.” Rather, the aim was to suit the methods to the political events. Those were the basic considerations.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it was for that end that you and all of the other persons who became members of the Nazi Party gave to Hitler all power to make decisions for them, and agreed, in their oath of office, to give him obedience?

GÖRING: Again here are several questions. Question One: The fight against the dictate of Versailles was for me the most decisive factor in joining the Party. For others, perhaps, other points of the program or of the ideology, which seemed more important, may have been more decisive. Giving the Führer absolute powers was not a basic condition for getting rid of Versailles, but for putting into practice our conception of the Leadership Principle. To give him our oath before he became the head of the State was, under the conditions then existing, a matter of course for those who considered themselves members of his select leadership corps. I do not know and I cannot tell exactly, just how the oath was given before the seizure of power; I can only tell you what I myself did. After a certain period of time, when I had acquired more insight into the Führer’s personality, I gave him my hand and said: “I unite my fate with yours for better or for worse: I dedicate myself to you in good times and in bad, even unto death.” I really meant it—and still do.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If you would answer three or four questions for me “yes” or “no,” then I would be quite willing to let you give your entire version of this thing. In the first place, you wanted a strong German State to overcome the conditions of Versailles.

GÖRING: We wanted a strong State anyhow, regardless of Versailles; but in order to get rid of Versailles the State had, first of all, to be strong, for a weak State never makes itself heard; that we know from experience.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the Führer principle you adopted because you thought it would serve the ends of a strong State?

GÖRING: Correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And this aim, which was one of the aims of the Nazi Party, to modify the conditions of Versailles, was a public and notorious aim in which the people generally joined—it was one of your best means of getting people to join with you, was it not?

GÖRING: The dictate of Versailles was such that every German, in my opinion, could not help being in favor of its modification, and there is no doubt that this was a very strong inducement for joining the movement.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, a number of the men who took part in this movement are not here; and, for the record, there is no doubt in your mind, is there, that Adolf Hitler is dead?

GÖRING: I believe there can be no doubt about that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the same is true of Goebbels?

GÖRING: Goebbels, I have no doubt about that, for I heard from someone whom I trust completely, that he saw Goebbels dead.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you have no doubt of the death of Himmler, have you?

GÖRING: I am not certain of that, but I think that you must be certain, since you know much more about it than I, as he died a prisoner of yours. I was not there.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have no doubt of the death of Heydrich, have you?

GÖRING: I am absolutely certain about that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And probably of Bormann?

GÖRING: I am not absolutely certain of this. I have no proof. I do not know, but I assume so.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And those are the chief persons in your testimony, who have been mentioned as being responsible—Hitler for everything, Goebbels for inciting riots against the Jews, Himmler, who deceived Hitler, and Bormann, who misled him about his will?

GÖRING: The influence exerted on the Führer varied at different times. The chief influence on the Führer, at least up till the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942, if one can speak of influence at all, was exerted by me. From then until 1943 my influence gradually decreased, after which it rapidly dwindled. All in all, I do not believe anyone had anything like the influence on the Führer that I had. Next to me, or apart from me, if one can speak of influence at all, Goebbels, with whom the Führer was together quite a good deal, exerted an influence in a certain direction from the very beginning. This influence wavered for a time and was very slight, and then increased greatly in the last years of the war, for it was easy to win influence by means of . . .

Before the seizure of power and during the years immediately following the seizure of power, Hess had a certain influence, but only in regard to his special sphere. Then, in the course of the years, Himmler’s influence increased. From the end of 1944 on this influence decreased rapidly. The most decisive influence on the Führer during the war, and especially from about 1942—after Hess went out in 1941 and a year had elapsed—was exerted by Herr Bormann. The latter had, at the end, a disastrously strong influence. That was possible only because the Führer was filled with profound mistrust after 20 July, and because Bormann was with him constantly and reported on and described to him all matters. Broadly speaking these are the persons who had influence at one time or another.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You took over a special intelligence organization in 1933 which was devoted to monitoring the telephone conversations of public officials and others inside and outside of Germany, did you not?

GÖRING: I have explained that I had erected a technical apparatus which, as you said, monitored the conversations of important foreigners to and from foreign countries—telegrams and wireless communications which were transmitted not only from Germany to foreign countries, but also from one foreign country to the other through the ether, and which were intercepted. It also monitored telephone conversations within Germany of: (1) all important foreigners; (2) important firms, at times; and (3) persons who for any reason of a political or police nature were to be watched.

In order to prevent any abuse on the part of the police, this department had to obtain my personal permission when it was to listen to telephone conversations. Despite this there could, of course, be uncontrolled tapping of wires at the same time, just as that is technically possible everywhere today.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You kept the results of those reports to yourself, did you not?

GÖRING: No; this was the procedure: These reports in which the Foreign Office was interested were released to the Foreign Office. Those reports which were important to the Führer went to the Führer. Those which were important to the military authorities went to the Minister of War, or to the Air Ministry, or to the Ministry of Economy. I or my deputy decided whether a report was important for this or that office. There was a man there whose job and responsibility it was to see that these secret reports were submitted only to the chief. I could, of course, order at any time that this or that report should be exclusively for my knowledge and not be handed on. That was always possible.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You had a good deal of difficulty with other police authorities who wanted to get possession of that organization, did you not?

GÖRING: That is correct. The police did strive to get this instrument into their hands. But they did not get it from me, and perhaps they kept a watch of their own here and there. But the decisive control which had to be directed through the Ministry of Posts could technically be ordered only by me.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have listened to the evidence of the Prosecution against all of the defendants in this case, have you not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Is there any act of any of your co-defendants which you claim was not one reasonably necessary to carry out the plans of the Nazi Party?

GÖRING: At present those are only assertions by the Prosecution; they are not yet facts which have been proved. In these assertions there are a number of actions which would not have been necessary.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Will you specify which acts, of which defendants, you claim, are beyond the scope of the plans of the Party?

GÖRING: That is a very difficult question which I cannot answer straight away and without the data.

DR. STAHMER: I object to this question. I do not believe that this is a question of fact, but rather of judgment, and that it is not possible to give an answer to such a general question.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal thinks that the question is somewhat too wide.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have said that the program of the Nazi Party was to rectify certain injustices which you considered in the Treaty of Versailles; and I ask you whether it is not a fact that your program went considerably beyond any matter dealt with in that Treaty?

GÖRING: Of course, the program contained a number of other points which had nothing to do with the Treaty of Versailles.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to a statement in _Mein Kampf_ as follows:

“The boundaries of 1914 do not mean anything for the future of
the German nation. They did not constitute a defense in the past
nor do they constitute a power in the future. They will not give
to the German people inner security or ensure their food supply,
nor do these boundaries appear to be favorable or satisfactory
from a military point of view.”

That is all true, is it not?

GÖRING: I should like to reread the original passage in _Mein Kampf_ in order to determine if it is exactly as you have read it. I assume that it is correct. If so, I can reply that this is the text of a public book and not the Party program.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The first country to be absorbed by Germany was Austria, and it was not a part of Germany before the first World War, and had not been taken from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles; is that correct?

GÖRING: For this very reason this point was distinctly separated from Versailles in the program. Austria is directly connected with Versailles only insofar as the right of self-determination, as proclaimed there, was most gravely infringed; for Austria and the purely German population were not allowed the Anschluss which they wanted to see accomplished as early as 1918, after the revolution.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The second territory taken by Germany was Bohemia, then Moravia, and then Slovakia. These were not taken from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, nor were they part of Germany before the first World War.

GÖRING: As far as the Sudetenland is concerned the same applies as for Austria. The German representatives of the German Sudetenland likewise sat in the Austrian Parliament, and under their leader, Lottmann, cast the same vote. It is different in the case of the last act, that is, the declaration of the Protectorate. These parts of Czech territory, especially Bohemia and Moravia, were not constituent parts of the smaller German Reich before the Treaty of Versailles, but formerly they had been united to the German Reich for centuries. That is an historical fact.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You still have not answered my question, although you answered everything else. They were not taken from you by the Treaty of Versailles, were they?

GÖRING: Of course Austria was taken away by the Versailles Treaty and likewise the Sudetenland, for both territories, had it not been for the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of St. Germain, would have become German territories through the right of the people to self-determination. To this extent they have to do with it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have testified, have you not, on interrogation, that it was Hitler’s information that the United States would never go to war, even if attacked, and that he counted on the isolationists of that country to keep it out of war?

GÖRING: This interrogation must have been recorded entirely incorrectly. That is the very reason why I refused from the beginning to give my oath to these interrogations before I had been able to look carefully at the German transcript and determine whether it had been correctly understood and translated. Only once, and that was on the part of the Russian Delegation, was a completely correct transcript submitted to me. I signed it page by page and thereby acknowledged it. Now, as far as this statement is concerned, I should like to put it right. I said that, at first, the Führer did not believe that America would intervene in the war, and that he was confirmed in this belief by the attitude of the isolationist press, while I, on the contrary, unfortunately feared from the very beginning that America would in any case intervene in the war. Such nonsense—I hope you will excuse me—as to say that America would not come into the war even if she were attacked, you will understand that I could never have uttered, because, if a country is attacked, it defends itself.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you know Axel Wennergren?

GÖRING: He is a Swede whom I have seen two or three times.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You talked with him about this subject, did you not?

GÖRING: About the subject of America’s entering the war I can very well have talked with him; it is even probable.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You told him that a democracy could not mobilize and would not fight, did you not?

GÖRING: I did not tell him any such nonsense, for we had one democracy as our chief enemy, namely England, and how this democracy would fight we knew from the last World War, and we experienced it again during this war. When I talked with Wennergren, the war with England was in full swing.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have testified on interrogation, if I understand you correctly, that there were at all times two basic ideas in Hitler’s mind, either to ally himself with Russia and seek increase in living space through the acquisition of colonies, or to ally himself with Britain and seek acquisition of territories in the East. But in view of his orientation, he would very much have preferred to ally himself with Great Britain, is that true?

GÖRING: That is correct. I need only to refer to the book _Mein Kampf_, where these things were set down in thorough detail by Hitler.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, as early as 1933 you began a real program to rearm Germany regardless of any treaty limitations, did you not?

GÖRING: That is not correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right; tell us when you started.

GÖRING: After all the proposals of disarmament which the Führer made were refused, that is, shortly after our withdrawal from the disarmament conference he made several proposals for a limitation; but, since these were not taken seriously or discussed, he ordered a complete rearmament. At the end of 1933 already certain slight preparations were started by me personally, to the extent that I had made some inconsiderable preparations in regard to the air and had also undertaken a certain militarization of the uniformed police. But that was done by me personally; I bear the responsibility.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, then, the militarization of the police auxiliary was not a state affair. It was your personal affair. What do you mean by that?

GÖRING: Not the auxiliary police, but the municipal police; that is, there was one uniformed police force which had simply police duty on the streets, and a second which was grouped in formations and was at our disposal for larger operations—not created by us, let it be understood, but existing at the time of the seizure of power. This municipal police, which was grouped in units, uniformed, armed, and housed in barracks, I formed very soon into a strong military instrument by taking these men out of the police service and having them trained more along military lines and giving them machine guns and such things, in addition to their small arms. This I did on my own responsibility. These formations were taken into the Armed Forces as regular Army units when the Armed Forces Law was declared.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I want to ask you some questions from your interrogation of the 17th day of October, 1945. I will first read you the questions and answers as they appear in the interrogations and I shall then ask you whether you gave those answers, and then you can make the explanations if you desire, and I assume you do. The interrogation reads:

“I wanted to ask you today about some of the economic history of
the period. When was the armament program first discussed, that
is, the rearmament program? What year?

“Answer: Immediately; in 1933.

“Question: In other words, Schacht had assumed the obligation at
that time already, to raise funds for the rearmament program?

“Answer: Yes. But, of course, in co-operation with the Minister
of Finance.

“Question: During the years 1933 to 1935, before general
conscription came in, naturally, the rearmament was a secret
rearmament, was it not?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: So that money that was used outside of the budget
would have to be raised by some secret means not to be known to
foreign nations?

“Answer: Yes, unless they could be raised from normal Army
funds.

“Question: That is to say, you had a small budget for the
standing 100,000 man Army which was open, and the rest of the
rearmament had to be from secret sources?

“Answer: Yes.”

Were you asked those questions and did you give these answers, in substance?

GÖRING: More or less; generally speaking that is correct. I have these remarks to make: Firstly, I was asked when rearmament had been discussed, not when it had been started. It had, of course, been discussed already in the year 1933, because it was clear at once that our government had to do something about it, that is to say, to demand that the others should disarm, and, if they did not disarm, that we should rearm. These things required discussion. The conclusion of the discussion and the formulation into a definite order followed after the failure of our attempts to get other countries to disarm. As soon as we, or rather the Führer, saw that his proposals would not be accepted under any circumstances, a gradual rearmament, of course, began to take place. There was no reason whatsoever why we should inform the world about what we were doing in the way of rearmament. We were under no obligation to do that, nor was it expedient.

Herr Schacht, in the year 1933 at the very beginning, could not raise any funds because at the start he held no office. He was able to do this only at a later date. And here it was understandable that the funds had to be raised through the Minister of Finance and the President of the Reichsbank according to the wishes and the orders of the Führer, especially as we had left no doubt that, if the other side did not disarm, we would rearm. That had already been set down on our Party program since 1921, and quite openly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Is it not a fact that on the 21st of May 1935, by a secret decree, Schacht was named Plenipotentiary for the War Economy?

GÖRING: The date—if you will kindly submit the decree to me, then I can tell you exactly. I have not the dates of decrees and laws in my head, especially if they do not have anything to do with me personally; but that can be seen from the decree.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: At any event, shortly after he was named, he suggested you as Commissioner for Raw Materials and Foreign Currency, did he not?

GÖRING: If Herr Schacht made this suggestion shortly after his appointment, then that appointment could not have taken place until 1936, because not until the summer of 1936 did Herr Schacht, together with the Minister of War, Von Blomberg, make the proposal that I should become Commissioner for Raw Materials and Foreign Currency.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I ask you if you did not give this answer to the American interrogator on the 10th day of October 1945, referring to Schacht:

“He made the suggestion that I was to become the Commissioner
for Raw Materials and Foreign Currency. He had the idea that, in
that position, I could give the Minister for Economics and the
President of the Reichsbank valuable support.”

How did you give that answer, and is that information correct?

GÖRING: Will you please repeat.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Referring to Schacht, the record shows that you said:

“He made the suggestion that I was to become the Commissioner
for Raw Materials and Foreign Currency. He had the idea that, in
that position, I could give the Minister for Economics and the
President of the Reichsbank valuable support.”

GÖRING: That is absolutely correct, with the exception of the word “Reichstagspräsident;” that ought to be President of the Reichsbank.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. That is the way I have it.

GÖRING: It sounded like “Reichstagspräsident” over the earphones.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “Moreover, he was very outspoken in the
suggestion that he and Blomberg made, that I should be put in
charge of the Four Year Plan. However, Schacht’s idea was that I
did not know very much about economy, and that he could easily
hide behind my back.”

GÖRING: That I said the other day quite clearly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, from that time on you and Schacht collaborated for some time in preparing a rearmament program, did you not?

GÖRING: From that time on I worked together with Schacht in economic matters and covered the whole field of German economy, including the armament program, which of course was a sine qua non for the reassumed German military sovereignty.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you and he had some jurisdictional differences and executed an agreement settling your different spheres of authority, did you not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And that was in 1937 on the 7th of July, right?

GÖRING: On that day a certain proposal for a settlement was made, but this did not lead to anything final being accomplished. That was because of the nature of the two posts and our personalities. Both of us, I, as Delegate for the Four Year Plan, and Herr Schacht, as Minister of Economics and President of the Reichsbank, were able to exercise very great influence on German economy. As Herr Schacht also had a very strong personality and felt his position keenly, and I likewise was not inclined to hide my light under a bushel, whether we were friends or not we could not help getting in each other’s way because of this question of authority, and one of us had finally to give in to the other.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And there came a time when he left the Ministry and the Reichsbank?

GÖRING: First he resigned from the Reich Ministry of Economy in November 1937, and, as far as I know, he resigned as President of the Reichsbank at the end of 1938, but I cannot be certain about that date.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: There was no disagreement between you and him that the program of rearmament should be carried through, was there? You disagreed only in the methods of doing it.

GÖRING: I assume that Herr Schacht also, as a good German, was, of course, ready to put all his strength at the disposal of Germany’s rearmament, in order that Germany should be strong; and therefore differences could have occurred only in regard to methods, for neither Herr Schacht nor I was arming for a war of aggression.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And after he left the rearmament work he remained as a Minister without Portfolio and sat in the Reichstag for some time, did he?

GÖRING: That is correct. The Führer wished it because, I believe, he wanted in this way to express his recognition of Herr Schacht.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And do you recall the time when you considered the calling up of 15-year-olds, the conscription of 15-year-olds?

GÖRING: During the war you mean?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes.

GÖRING: It was a question of Air Force auxiliaries, that is correct. They were 15- or 16-year-olds, I do not remember exactly which, and were called in as Air Force auxiliaries.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask that you be shown Document Number 3700-PS and ask you whether you received from Schacht the letter of which that is a carbon copy.

[_The document was handed to the witness._]

GÖRING: Yes, I certainly did receive that letter. The year is not given here; that is missing in the copy.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Could you fix, approximately, the date of its receipt?

GÖRING: It says here 3rd of November, but from the incidents described on the other side, I assume it must be 1943. On this copy the year, strangely enough, is not given, but I believe it was in the year 1943, I received this letter.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you reply to Document 3700-PS? Did you reply to this letter?

GÖRING: I cannot say that today with certainty—possibly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the Four Year Plan had as its purpose to put the entire economy in a state of readiness for war, had it not?

GÖRING: I have explained that it had two tasks to fulfill—1) to safeguard German economy against crises, that is to say, to make it immune from export fluctuations, and, as regards food, from harvest fluctuations, as far as possible; and 2) to make it capable of withstanding a blockade, that is to say, in the light of experiences in the first World War, to put it on such a basis that in a second World War a blockade would not have such disastrous consequences. That the Four Year Plan in this respect was a basic prerequisite for the entire building-up and expansion of the armament industry goes without saying. Without it the rearmament industry could not have been shaped in this way.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: To get a specific answer, if possible, did you not say in a letter to Schacht, dated the 18th day of December 1936, that you saw it to be your task, using these words, “within 4 years to put the entire economy in a state of readiness for war”? Did you say that or did you not?

GÖRING: Of course I said that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, do you recall the report of Blomberg in 1937 in which—and you may examine if you wish Document Number C-175—in which he starts his report by saying:

“The general political position justifies the supposition that
Germany need not expect an attack from any side.”

GÖRING: That may have been quite possible at that moment. I took a most reassuring view of the German situation in 1937. It was after the Olympic games and at that time the general situation was extraordinarily calm. But that had nothing to do with the fact that I felt obliged, quite apart from passing fluctuations from a calmer to a more tense atmosphere, to make German economy ready for war and proof against crises or blockades, for exactly 1 year later incidents of a different nature occurred.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well now, does not Blomberg continue:

“Grounds for this are, in addition to the lack of desire for war
in almost all nations, particularly the Western Powers, the
deficiencies in the preparedness for war of a number of states,
and of Russia in particular”?

That was the situation in 1937, was it not?

GÖRING: That is the way Herr Von Blomberg saw the situation. Concerning the readiness for war in Russia, Herr Von Blomberg, in the same way as all those representatives of our Reichswehr mentality, was always really mistaken in contrast to the opinion expressed in other quarters with regard to Russian armaments. This is merely the opinion of Herr Von Blomberg—not the Führer’s, not mine, and not the opinion of other leading people.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That, however, was the report of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on the 24th of June 1937, was it not?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You organized, 1 month later, the Hermann Göring Works?

GÖRING: Right.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the Hermann Göring Works were concerned with putting Germany in the condition of readiness for war, were they not?

GÖRING: No, that is not right. The Hermann Göring Works were at first concerned solely with the mining of German iron ore in the region of Salzgitter and in a district in the Oberpfalz, and, after the annexation, with the iron ore works in Austria. The Hermann Göring Works first established exclusively mining and refining plants for this ore and foundries. Only much later steel works and rolling mills were added, that is to say, an industry.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The Hermann Göring Works were a part of the Four Year Plan, were they not?

GÖRING: That is right.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you have already said that the Four Year Plan had as its purpose to put the economy in a state of readiness for war; and the Hermann Göring Works were organized to exploit ore mining and iron smelting resources and to carry the process through to completed guns and tanks, were they not?

GÖRING: No, that is not correct; the Hermann Göring Works had at first no armament works of their own, but merely produced, as I again repeat, the basic product, steel, crude steel.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, at all events, you continued your efforts and on the 8th of November 1943, you made a speech describing those efforts to the Gauleiter in the Führer building at Munich, is that right?

GÖRING: I do not know the exact date, but about that time I made a short speech, one of a series of speeches, to the Gauleiter about the air situation, as far as I remember, and also perhaps about the armament situation. I do not remember the words of that speech, since I was never asked about it until now; but the facts are correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, let me remind you if you used these terms, refreshing your recollection:

“Germany, at the beginning of the war, was the only country in
the world possessing an operative, fighting air force. The other
countries had split their air fleets up into army and navy air
fleets and considered the air arm primarily as a necessary and
important auxiliary of the other branches of the forces. In
consequence, they lacked the instrument which is alone capable
of dealing concentrated and effective blows, namely, an
operative air force. In Germany we had gone ahead on those lines
from the very outset, and the main body of the Air Force was
disposed in such a way that it could thrust deeply into the
hostile areas with strategic effect, while a lesser portion of
the air force, consisting of Stukas and, of course, fighter
planes, went into action on the front line in the battlefields.
You all know what wonderful results were achieved by these
tactics and what superiority we attained at the very beginning
of the war through this modern kind of air force.”

GÖRING: That is entirely correct; I certainly did say that, and what is more, I acted accordingly. But in order that this be understood and interpreted correctly, I must explain briefly:

In these statements I dealt with two separate opinions on air strategy, which are still being debated today and without a decision having been reached. That is to say: Should the air force form an auxiliary arm of the army and the navy and be split up to form a constituent part of the army and the navy, or should it be a separate branch of the armed forces? I explained that for nations with a very large navy it is perhaps understandable that such a division should be made. From the very beginning, thank God, we made the correct, consistent decision to build up a strong—I emphasize the word “strong”—and independent Air Force along with the Army and the Navy; and I described how we passed from a tentative air force to an operative air force.

As an expert I am today still of the opinion that only an operative air force can have a decisive effect. I have also explained, in regard to two- and four-engine bombers, that at first I was quite satisfied with the two-engine bombers because, firstly, I did not have four-engine bombers; and secondly, the operational radius of the two-engine bombers was wide enough for the enemy with whom we had to deal at that time. I further pointed out that the main reason for the swift ending of the campaign in Poland and in the West was the effect of the Air Force.

So that is quite correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I remind you of the testimony of the witness Milch, sworn on your behalf, as to a subject on which I have not heard you express yourself. He said:

“I had the impression that already at the time of the occupation
of the Rhineland, he, Göring, was worried lest Hitler’s policy
should lead to war.”

Do you remember that?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And was it true or false? True or mistaken, perhaps, I should say.

GÖRING: No, I did not want a war and I thought the best way to avoid a war was to be strongly armed according to the well-known adage, “He who has a strong sword has peace.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you are still of that opinion?

GÖRING: I am of that opinion today, now that I see the entanglements more than ever.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it is true, as Milch said, that you were worried that Hitler’s policies would lead to war at the time of the occupation of the Rhineland?

GÖRING: Excuse me, I just understood you to ask whether it is also my opinion today that only a nation that is strongly armed can maintain peace. That is what I meant to answer with my last statement.

If you are connecting this question to the statement of Milch, that I was worried lest the policy of the Führer might lead to war, I should like to say that I was worried lest war might come; and if possible I wanted to avoid it, but not in the sense that the policy of the Führer would lead to it, because the Führer also desired to carry out his program by agreements and diplomatic action.

In regard to the occupation of the Rhineland I was somewhat worried at the time about the reactions; all the same, it was necessary.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And when nothing happened, the next step was Austria?

GÖRING: The one has nothing to do with the other. I never had any misgivings about Austria leading to a war, as I had with the Rhineland occupation, for in the case of the Rhineland occupation I could well imagine that there might be repercussions. But how there could be any repercussions from abroad over the union of two brother nations of purely German blood was not clear to me, especially since Italy, who always pretended that she had a vital interest in a separate Austria, had somewhat changed her ideas. It could not have mattered in the least to England and France, nor could they have had the slightest interest in this union. Therefore I did not see the danger of its leading to a war.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask you just a few questions about Austria. You said that you and Hitler had felt deep regret about the death of Dollfuss, and I ask you if it is not a fact that Hitler put up a plaque in Vienna in honor of the men who murdered Dollfuss, and went and put a wreath on their graves when he was there. Is that a fact? Can you not answer that question with “yes” or “no”?

GÖRING: No, I cannot answer it with either “yes” or “no,” if I am to speak the truth according to my oath. I cannot say, “Yes, he did it,” because I do not know; I cannot say, “No, he did not do it,” because I do not know that either. I want to say that I heard about this event here for the first time.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, in June of 1937, Seyss-Inquart came to you and State Secretary Keppler, and you had some negotiations.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it was Seyss-Inquart’s desire to have an independent Austria, was it not?

GÖRING: As far as I remember, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Keppler was the man who was sent by Hitler to Vienna at the time of the Anschluss and who telegraphed to Hitler not to march in, do you recall?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is the telegram that you characterized as impudent and senseless from the man who was on the spot, and who had negotiated earlier with Seyss-Inquart, do you recall that?

GÖRING: I did not characterize the telegram with this word which has just been translated to me in German, that is “impudent.” I said that this telegram could no longer have any influence and was superfluous, because the troops were already on the move and had their order; the thing was already underway.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You had demanded that Seyss-Inquart be made Chancellor? Is that right?

GÖRING: I did not desire that personally, but it arose out of the circumstance that at that time he was the only man who could assume the Chancellorship because he was already in the Government.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, did Seyss-Inquart become Chancellor of Austria with the understanding that he was to surrender his country to Germany, or did you lead him to believe that he would be independent, have an independent country?

GÖRING: I explained the other day that even at the time when he left by plane the next morning, the Führer himself had still not made up his mind as to whether the union with Austria should not be brought about by means of a joint head of state. I also said that I personally did not consider this solution far-reaching enough and that I was for an absolute, direct, and total Anschluss.

I did not know exactly what Seyss-Inquart’s attitude was at this time. Nevertheless I feared that his attitude was rather in the direction of continued separation with co-operation, and did not go as far as my attitude in the direction of a total Anschluss. Therefore I was very satisfied when this total Anschluss crystallized in the course of the day.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I respectfully submit that the answers are not responsive, and I repeat the question.

Did Seyss-Inquart become Chancellor of Austria with an understanding that he would call in the German troops and surrender Austria to Germany, or did you lead him to believe that he could continue an independent Austria?

GÖRING: Excuse me, but that is a number of questions which I cannot answer simply with “yes” or “no.”

If you ask me, “Did Seyss-Inquart become Chancellor according to Hitler’s wishes and yours?”—yes.

If you then ask me, “Did he become Chancellor with the understanding that he should send a telegram for troops to march in?”—I say, “No,” because at the time of the Chancellorship there was no question of his sending us a telegram.

If you ask me, thirdly, “Did he become Chancellor on the understanding that he would be able to maintain an independent Austria?”—then I have to say again that the final turn of events was not clear in the Führer’s mind on that evening.

That is what I tried to explain.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Is it not true that you suspected that he might want to remain as independent as possible, and that that was one of the reasons why the troops were marched in?

GÖRING: No. Excuse me, there are two questions: I strongly suspected that Seyss-Inquart wanted to be as independent as possible. The sending of troops had nothing at all to do with that suspicion; not a single soldier would have been needed for that. I gave my reasons for the sending of the troops.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But it was never intimated to Seyss-Inquart that Austria would not remain independent until after—as you put it—the Führer and you were in control of Austria’s fate? Is that a fact?

GÖRING: That was certainly not told him beforehand by the Führer. As far as I was concerned, it was generally known that I desired it, and I assume that he knew of my attitude.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you have stated that you then, in conversation with Ribbentrop in London, stressed that no ultimatum had been put to Seyss-Inquart, and you have said that legally that was the fact.

GÖRING: I did not say “legally,” I said “diplomatically.”

THE PRESIDENT: Is that a convenient time to break off?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 19 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]

EIGHTY-FIFTH DAY
Tuesday, 19 March 1946

_Morning Session_

DR. STAHMER: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall call as witness the civil engineer, Birger Dahlerus of Stockholm.

[_The witness Dahlerus took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your name?

BIRGER DAHLERUS (Witness): Birger Dahlerus.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me:

I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth—the whole truth—and nothing but the truth—so help me God.

[_The witness repeated the oath._]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down if you wish.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus, would you please tell the Court how you, as a private person and a Swedish citizen, came to work for an understanding between England and Germany?

DAHLERUS: I knew England very well, since I had lived there for 12 years, and I also knew Germany very well. I had been able to observe the first World War from both sides, as I stayed both in Germany and in England during that time.

During a visit to England at the end of June 1939, I traveled around a number of cities, Birmingham, Coventry, Manchester, and London, and I found everywhere an absolute determination that the British would tolerate no further aggressive acts on the part of Germany.

On 2 July I met some friends in the Constitutional Club. We discussed the current situation and they gave a pretty clear picture of public opinion in Great Britain.

As this summary of public opinion in Great Britain was the basis for my discussions afterward with Göring, I think I should quote it.

“Outline of conclusions reached by observation of conditions in
Great Britain and by conversations with people of the country:

“A. Agreement that Berchtesgaden and Czechoslovakia have shaken
confidence, and that immediately after Berchtesgaden, before
Czechoslovakia could possibly be in a position to accomplish by
co-operation many things already decided upon by Germany.

“B. Public opinion in Great Britain now extremely bitter. It is
resolved: so far and no farther.

“C. Great Britain from now on has obligations which did not
exist at time of Berchtesgaden meeting. Poland and Danzig: An
attack on Danzig means war with Poland and Britain. Great
Britain will be involved automatically as a consequence of its
obligations. Hence, automatically, war with Great Britain.

“D. Great Britain does not make her strength known; this is not
even known to the British public.”

Then follows Statement Number 2, about Lord Halifax’s speech:

“My personal observations indicate that England stands firmly
behind its declarations. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. I am afraid the Russian is coming through on the French again. I am afraid the Tribunal must adjourn then.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: Before the witness goes on with his evidence, the Tribunal want me to say that the system by which the earphones are connected with the interpreters was checked over after the Court rose last night, was checked over again at 9:30 this morning, and again at 9:55 this morning. But everyone who comes into this court must realize that it has not been possible to bury these cables so as to make them altogether safe. It is, therefore, of the very greatest importance that everybody who comes into this court should take real care to avoid, if possible, treading upon these cables, which may become injured by being kicked and broken, and in that way the faults in the system occur.

Everything is being done to maintain the system as efficiently as possible. It, therefore, rests with those who use this court to see that they do their best to assist in keeping the system efficient.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus, would you please continue.

DAHLERUS: Point Number 2: Lord Halifax’s speech:

“Personal observations indicate that England stands firmly
behind its declaration. Lord Halifax underestimates England’s
situation, which is customary with the British; that is, he
makes out the state of the strength of Great Britain to be
weaker than it actually is. Perhaps in Germany this is not fully
realized.

“Point Number 3: England wants peace, but not peace at any
price. The German people are quite acceptable to the British,
and there seems to be no good reason for an armed conflict. As
before, Germany will certainly be defeated again, and will
accomplish far less by war then by peaceful negotiations.
England and her friends will likewise have to suffer much;
possibly it will mean the end of civilization.”

Having observed that there was a disinclination in the Third Reich to forward unfavorable reports, I felt both that it was my duty and that it might be of great value if these clear expressions of British opinion were to be transmitted to the highest quarters in Germany.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus, may I interrupt with a question? Were these friends of yours members of the British Parliament?

DAHLERUS: No, they were people from the business world, and if the Tribunal desires, I can submit a list of the names.

DR. STAHMER: What were their names?

DAHLERUS: May I save time and submit the list of names to the Tribunal?

THE PRESIDENT: Their names are not of any great importance, are they, if they were people in the business world?

DAHLERUS: After having agreed with my friends on the advisability of a trip to Germany, I left for Germany and received an appointment with Göring for 6 July at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, at Karinhall.

I told him what I had observed in England and strongly emphasized the necessity of doing everything to avoid the possibility of a war. Göring expressed doubts as to whether these observations were not perhaps an attempt by the English to bluff. He likewise pointed out that he was of the opinion that England wanted to control developments on the Continent.

I told him that I did not want him to accept statements of mine, of a neutral citizen, and I suggested to him that a meeting should be arranged where he and some other members of the German Government might have the opportunity of meeting British citizens who had absolute knowledge of conditions. I suggested that such a meeting could well take place in Sweden, possibly on the invitation of the King of Sweden, or the Swedish Government.

On 8 July I received from Göring a reply that Hitler had agreed to this plan, and I left for Sweden to ascertain whether it would be possible to make such an arrangement in Sweden.

The Swedish Government, for certain reasons, considered it inadvisable for the Swedish King or the Swedish Government, to extend such an invitation, but they had no objections to private persons arranging such a meeting.

Count Trola Wachmeester willingly placed his castle, Trola Beelda, at the disposal of such a meeting. I left then on 19 July for London to begin the preparations.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, can you not take the witness on, in order to save time, to the actual negotiations? All these preliminaries do not seem to the Tribunal to be very important. Can you not take him on to the actual negotiations?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, he will come directly to the meeting, to the preliminary meeting that took place on 7 August at Soenke Nissen Koog.

Witness, will you tell us of the meeting. You were about to state that on 19 July you flew to London and there, on the 20th met Lord Halifax?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: I consider this statement very material. Would you tell the Tribunal of the content of this meeting with Lord Halifax?