Chapter I: N T H E (24)

“I. Organization of the Reich Defense Council: The Reich Defense
Council was already, by decision of the Cabinet of 1933 and
1934, called into being; but it has never met. Through the Reich
Defense Law of 4 September 1938 it was re-established. The
Chairman is the Führer, who has appointed General Field Marshal
Göring his permanent deputy.”

Concerning the Reich Defense Council, about which we have been talking, consisting of Schacht—or rather of the triumvirate—it is attested here in writing once more, as I have correctly said, that this Council never met. I ask to have the question about the second document repeated, as I have forgotten it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You testified that the movement into the Rhineland had not been planned in advance.

GÖRING: Only a short time in advance, I emphasized.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: How long?

GÖRING: As far as I recall, at the most 2 to 3 weeks.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to the minutes of the 10th meeting of the Working Committee of the Reich Defense Council, Document Number EC-405 toward the end of that document, the discussion on 6th month, 26th day of 1935, which reads as follows . . .

GÖRING: May I ask what page? This document is very long and is new to me. What page, please, otherwise I shall have to read the whole document.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Turn to the last paragraph and we will work backwards.

“Commitment to writing of directives for mobilization purposes
is permissible only insofar as it is absolutely necessary for
the smooth execution of the measures provided for the
demilitarized zone. Without exception such material must be kept
in safes.”

Do you find that part?

GÖRING: This document that has been handed to me contains alternating statements of various individuals, that is, a dialogue. May I ask once more . . . The last paragraph contains nothing of what you have stated, apparently there must be a difference between the German and English texts. The last paragraph here is altogether irrelevant. Where, please, am I to read in the document?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you find the third paragraph from the end? If my document is correct we have got the same document.

GÖRING: You must tell me who was speaking, for different persons speak here.

[_The place in the document was indicated to the defendant._]

Now it has been shown to me. Under the name Jodl; I have to read through it first.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you find this:

“The demilitarized zone requires special treatment. In his
speech of 21 May 1935 and in other statements, the Führer and
Reich Chancellor declared that the stipulations of the
Versailles Treaty and the Locarno Pact regarding the
demilitarized zone would be observed.”

Do you find this?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And do you find the next paragraph,

“Since at present international entanglements must be avoided
under all circumstances, all urgently needed preparations may be
made. The preparations as such, or their planning, must be kept
in strictest secrecy in the zone itself as well as in the rest
of the Reich.”

Do you find this?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you also find,

“These preparations include in particular”—a) and b) are not
important to my present question—“c) Preparation for the
liberation of the Rhine.”

GÖRING: Oh, no, here you have made a great mistake. The original phrase—and this alone is the point in question—is: “c) Preparation for the clearing of the Rhine.” It is a purely technical preparation that has nothing at all to do with the liberation of the Rhineland. Here it says, first, mobilization measures for transportation and communications, then “c) Preparation for the clearing of the Rhine,” that is, in case of mobilization preparations the Rhine is not to be overburdened with freighters, tugboats, _et cetera_, but the river has to be clear for military measures. Then it continues: “d) Preparation for local defense,” _et cetera_. Thus you see, it figures among small quite general, ordinary and usual preparations for mobilization. The phrase used by the Prosecution . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Mobilization, exactly.

GÖRING: That, if you remember, I stressed clearly in my statement, that in the demilitarized zone general preparations for mobilization were made. I mentioned the purchase of horses, _et cetera_. I wanted only to point out the mistake regarding “clearing of the Rhine,” which has nothing to do with the Rhineland, but only with the river.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, those preparations were preparations for armed occupation of the Rhineland, were they not?

GÖRING: No, that is altogether wrong. If Germany had become involved in a war, no matter from which side, let us assume from the East, then mobilization measures would have had to be carried out for security reasons throughout the Reich, in this event even in the demilitarized Rhineland; but not for the purpose of occupation, of liberating the Rhineland.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You mean the preparations were not military preparations?

GÖRING: Those were general preparations for mobilization, such as every country makes, and not for the purpose of the occupation of the Rhineland.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But were of a character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers?

GÖRING: I do not think I can recall reading beforehand the publication of the mobilization preparations of the United States.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I respectfully submit to the Tribunal that this witness is not being responsive, and has not been in his examination, and that it is . . .

[_The defendant interposed a few words which were not recorded._]

It is perfectly futile to spend our time if we cannot have responsive answers to our questions.

[_The defendant interposed a few words which were not recorded._]

We can strike these things out. I do not want to spend time doing that, but this witness, it seems to me, is adopting, and has adopted, in the witness box and in the dock, an arrogant and contemptuous attitude toward the Tribunal which is giving him the trial which he never gave a living soul, nor dead ones either.

I respectfully submit that the witness be instructed to make notes, if he wishes, of his explanations, but that he be required to answer my questions and reserve his explanations for his counsel to bring out.

THE PRESIDENT: I have already laid down the general rule, which is binding upon this defendant as upon other witnesses.

Perhaps we had better adjourn now at this state.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 20 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]

EIGHTY-SIXTH DAY
Wednesday, 20 March 1946

_Morning Session_

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If the Tribunal please, the last question which I asked last night referring to mobilization preparations in the Rhineland, as shown in the official transcript, was this: “But of a character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers?” The answer was: “I do not believe I can recall the publication of the preparations of the United States for mobilization.”

Now, representing the United States of America, I am confronted with these choices—to ignore that remark and allow it to stand for people who do not understand our system; or to develop, at considerable expense of time, its falsity; or to answer it in rebuttal. The difficulty arises from this, Your Honor, that if the witness is permitted to volunteer statements in cross-examination there is no opportunity to make objection until they are placed on the record. Of course, if such an answer had been indicated by a question of counsel, as I respectfully submit would be the orderly procedure, there would have been objection; the Tribunal would have been in a position to discharge its duty under the Charter and I would have been in a position to have shortened the case by not having that remark placed.

The Charter in Article 18 provides that the Tribunal shall rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever. We are squarely confronted with that question; we cannot discharge those duties if the defendant is to volunteer these statements without questions which bring them up. I respectfully submit that, if the ruling of the Tribunal that the defendant may volunteer questions of this kind is to prevail, the control of these proceedings is put in the hands of this defendant, and the United States has been substantially denied its right of cross-examination under the Charter, because cross-examination cannot be effective under this kind of procedure. Since we cannot anticipate, we cannot meet . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I quite agree with you that any reference to the United States’ secrecy with reference to mobilization is entirely irrelevant, and that the answer ought not to have been made, but the only rule which the Tribunal can lay down as a general rule is the rule—already laid down—that the witness must answer if possible “yes” or “no,” and that he may make such explanations as may be necessary after answering questions directly in that way, and that such explanations must be brief and not be speeches. As far as this particular answer goes, I think it is entirely irrelevant.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I must, of course, bow to the ruling of the Tribunal, but it is to the second part, I quite recall the admonition of the Court that there shall be answers “yes” or “no.” This witness, of course, pays not the slightest attention to that, and I must say I cannot blame him; he is pursuing his interests. But we have no way of anticipating, and here we are confronted with this statement in the record, because when these statements are volunteered they are in the record before the Tribunal can rule upon them and I have no opportunity to make objections, and the Tribunal have no opportunity to rule. And it puts, as I said before, the control of these proceedings in the hands of the defendant, if he first makes the charges and then puts it up to us to ignore them or answer them by long cross-examination in rebuttal; and I think the specific charge made against the United States of America from the witness stand presents that.

Your Honor now advises the United States that it is an improper answer, but it is in the record and we must deal with it. I respectfully submit that unless we have . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What exactly is the motion you are making? Are you asking the Tribunal to strike the answer out of the record?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, no; in a Trial of this kind, where propaganda is one of the purposes of the defendant, striking out does no good after the answer is made, and Göring knows that as well as I. The charge has been made against the United States and it is in the record. I am now moving that this witness be instructed that he must answer my questions “yes” or “no” if they permit an answer, and that the explanation be brought out by his counsel in a fashion that will permit us to make objections, if they are irrelevant, and to obtain rulings of the Tribunal, so that the Tribunal can discharge its functions of ruling out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever. We must not let the Trial degenerate into a bickering contest between counsel and the witness. That is not what the United States would expect me to participate in. I respectfully suggest that if he can draw any kind of challenge . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Are you submitting to the Tribunal that the witness has to answer every question “yes” or “no” and wait until he is re-examined for the purpose of making any explanations at all?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is the rule of cross-examination under ordinary circumstances. The witness, if the question permits it, must answer, and if there are relevant explanations they should be reserved until later.

Now let me come back to the specific problem I have right here this morning. Here is an answer given which the Tribunal now rules is irrelevant. But we have no opportunity to object to it. The Tribunal had no opportunity to rule upon it. The witness asks, “Did you ever hear of the United States publishing its plan of mobilization?” Of course, we would have objected. The difficulty is that the Tribunal loses control of these proceedings if the defendant, in a case of this kind where we all know propaganda is one of the purposes of the defendant, is permitted to put his propaganda in, and then we have to meet it afterwards. I really feel that the United States is deprived of the opportunity of the technique of cross-examination if this is the procedure.

THE PRESIDENT: Surely it is making too much of a sentence the witness has said, whether the United States makes its orders for mobilization public or not. Surely that is not a matter of very great importance. Every country keeps certain things secret. Certainly it would be much wiser to ignore a statement of that sort. But as to the general rule, the Tribunal will now consider the matter. I have already laid down what I believe to be the rule, and I think with the assent of the Tribunal, but I will ascertain . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me say that I agree with Your Honor that as far as the United States is concerned we are not worried by anything the witness can say about it—and we expected plenty. The point is, do we answer these things or leave them, apart from the control of the Trial? And it does seem to me that this is the beginning of this Trial’s getting out of hand, if I may say so, if we do not have control of this situation. I trust the Tribunal will pardon my earnestness in presenting this. I think it is a very vital thing.

THE PRESIDENT: I have never heard it suggested that the Counsel for the Prosecution have to answer every irrelevant observation made in cross-examination.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That would be true in a private litigation, but I trust the Court is not unaware that outside of this courtroom is a great social question of the revival of Nazism and that one of the purposes of the Defendant Göring—I think he would be the first to admit—is to revive and perpetuate it by propaganda from this Trial now in process.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Doctor Stahmer?

DR. STAHMER: I just wanted to explain the following: An accusation has been made as if we intended to make propaganda here for Nazism, or in some other direction. I do not think this accusation is justified. Neither do I believe that the defendant intended to make an accusation against the United States. I think we have to consider the question that was put to him. That is, it was pointed out to him by the Prosecution that this document which was submitted to him was marked “secret.” Then he stated that he had never heard that a document of that kind would have been made public in the United States. If instead of the U.S.A, he had said any other nation, then the remark would have been considered harmless.

In my opinion the answer was quite justified. The witness should be given the possibility not only to answer “yes” or “no,” but to give reasons for his answer, as ruled by the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal considers that the rule which it has laid down is the only possible rule and that the witness must be confined strictly to answering the question directly where the question admits of a direct answer, and that he must not make his explanation before he gives a direct answer; but, after having given a direct answer to any question which admits of a direct answer, he may make a short explanation; and that he is not to be confined simply to making direct answers “yes” or “no,” and leaving the explanation until his counsel puts it to him in his re-examination.

As to this particular observation of the defendant, the defendant ought not to have referred to the United States, but it is a matter which I think you might well ignore.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I shall bow to the ruling, of course.

I wish to make a statement to the Tribunal about one of the documents. At the conclusion of the session yesterday we were considering Document Number EC-405. The Defendant Göring challenged the use of a word which he said should have been translated “clearance” rather than “liberation.” We have since had the translation checked and find that the defendant is correct. This document was introduced under Exhibit Number GB-160 on the 9th of January, at Page 2396 of the Tribunal’s records (Volume V, Page 28), and since it has already been received in evidence and it is before the Tribunal, we think it incumbent upon the Prosecution to make that correction now for the record.

[_Turning to the witness._] You stated yesterday that the minutes of the Reich Defense Council with which you were presented were not minutes of a meeting of the Reich Defense Council as such?

GÖRING: Yes, I said that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And your testimony, notwithstanding that document, still stands, I take it, that the Reich Defense Council never met?

GÖRING: I said that also, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I now ask to have you shown a document which has just come into our possession, the minutes of the second session of the Reich Defense Council. I should have said, just come to us for translation. We have not had it translated; we just discovered it among our great collection of documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Could Doctor Stahmer have a copy in English or not?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We have not even had a chance to get it into English. I do not know what it says except that it is the minutes of their meeting. We have a photostat.

[_Turning to the witness._] Are those not the minutes of the second meeting of the Reich Defense Council held on the 23rd of June 1939?

GÖRING: I must read it first.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the fact that the chairman is Minister President General Field Marshal Göring. You will find that on Page 1.

GÖRING: I have never disputed that. It was fixed by law. This deals with the second Reich Defense Council, not the first one. Besides, I was not present at this meeting; and I point out that on the left is a list of the authorities who took part in the meeting, and in my case it says “Minister President Field Marshal Göring,” and on the right, as representative for him, “State Secretary Körner and State Secretary Neumann.” But I shall have to look through the document first in order to find out whether I took part personally.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Does it not say on Page 1, directly under the place of meeting, “Chairman: Minister President Göring”?

GÖRING: Yes. I have to read it first.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you deny the authenticity of those minutes?

GÖRING: I have not looked them through yet.

It seems to be an absolutely authentic copy of the minutes; I admit that. But here again we are dealing with a meeting not, as I said when answering my counsel, of the Reich Defense Council, but of a larger meeting in which many other departments participated; and it is a matter of the second Reich Defense Council, which was set up after 1938, not a secret council such as was the case from 1933-38.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In other words, in interpreting your testimony, we must understand that, when you say there was no meeting of the Reich Defense Council, you mean only that there were no meetings at which no other people were present?

GÖRING: No, that is not correct. There were two Reich defense laws concerning the Reich Defense Council, which I tried to explain in my statement: the Secret Council of 1933 to 1938, which was not made public, and the Reich Defense Council which was created in 1938 and converted into the Ministerial Council in 1939; the latter held meetings which were in no way confined to its own members.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you say that this was not the Defense Council that met under the ban of secrecy?

GÖRING: The Prosecution want me to answer first with “yes” or “no.” It is hard to answer this question with “yes” or “no.” I assert that the Secret Defense Council, which was not made public and which arose out of a meeting of ministers in 1933, never met. After 1938 a new Reich defense law created a new council. At that time it was clear that our military sovereignty had already been declared. This first council, which the Prosecution called the secret one, never met, and the document of yesterday proved that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Will you refer to Page 19 of this document, please, and tell me whether one of the very things with which this meeting concerned itself was not the lifting of the secrecy ban from the Reich defense law?

GÖRING: No, that is not the way it reads here. If I may translate it, the last point on the agenda: Consequences resulting from the lifting of the secrecy ban on the Reich defense law and measures to expedite procedures have already been dealt with by a letter from the Reich Defense Committee on 26 June: “Consequences resulting from the lifting of the secrecy ban with a view to expediting written communications.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have stated that on the Jewish question, some of the members of the government were more radical than you. Would you state who these were?

GÖRING: Broadly speaking, when we took over the government, we only demanded their removal from political and other leading positions in the State.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is not what I asked you.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not a direct answer to the question. The question was that you said some members of the government were more radical toward Jews than you were. Would you tell us which of the members of the government were more radical than you were?

GÖRING: Excuse me, I did not understand the question to mean who were more radical, but in what way they were more radical. If you ask who, then I would say that those were primarily Minister Goebbels and Himmler.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you also include your co-defendant, Streicher, as more radical than you?

GÖRING: Yes, but he was not a member of the government.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: He was the Gauleiter, was he not, for this very territory in which we are sitting.

GÖRING: That is correct; but he had very little or no influence on government measures.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What about Heydrich?

GÖRING: Heydrich was subordinate to Himmler. If I said Himmler, I, of course, include Heydrich.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Heydrich is then included in the list of the more radical ones to whom you refer?

GÖRING: That is right; yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What about Bormann?

GÖRING: It was only during the later years that I observed that Bormann was becoming more radical. I do not know anything about his attitude in the beginning.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I want to review with you briefly what the Prosecution understands to be public acts taken by you in reference to the Jewish question. From the very beginning you regarded the elimination of the Jews from the economic life of Germany as one phase of the Four Year Plan under your jurisdiction, did you not?

GÖRING: The elimination, yes; that is partly correct. The elimination as far as the large industries were concerned, because there were continual disturbances due to the fact that there were large industries, also armament industries, still partly under Jewish directors, or with Jewish shareholders, and that gave rise to a certain anxiety among the lower ranks.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, do I understand that you want the Tribunal to believe that all you were concerned about was the big Jewish enterprises? That is the way you want to be understood?

GÖRING: I was not at first disturbed by the small stores. They did not come into the Four Year Plan.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When did you become disturbed by the small stores?

GÖRING: When trade had to be limited, it was pointed out that this could be done first by closing the Jewish stores.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, let us go through the public acts which you performed on the Jewish question. First, did you proclaim the Nuremberg Laws?

GÖRING: As President of the Reichstag, yes. I have already stated that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What date was that?

GÖRING: 1935, I believe; here in Nuremberg, in September.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That was the beginning of the legal measures taken against the Jews, was it not?

GÖRING: That was a legal measure.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That was the first of the legal measures taken by your government against the Jews, was it not?

GÖRING: No, I believe the removal from office was before.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When was that?

GÖRING: I could not state the exact date, but I believe that happened in 1933.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then on the first day of December 1936, you promulgated an act making it a death penalty for Germans to transfer property abroad or leave it abroad; the property of a culprit to be forfeited to the State, and the People’s Court given jurisdiction to prosecute, did you not?

GÖRING: That is correct; the “Decree Governing Restriction on Foreign Currency.” That is to say, whoever had an account in a foreign country without permission of the government.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, your third public act was on 22 April 1938 when you published penalties for veiling the character of a Jewish enterprise within the Reich, was it not?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then on 28 July 1939, you, Hermann Göring, published certain prescriptions on the competence of the courts to handle those matters by the decree, did you not?

GÖRING: Please, would you kindly read the law to me? I cannot recall it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will not take time reading it. Do you deny that you published the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ law, 1939, found on Page 1370, referring to the competence of the courts to handle penalties against Jews? If you do not remember, say so.

GÖRING: Yes, I say that I cannot remember the law. If it is in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ and bears my name, then, of course, it is so; but I do not remember the contents.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, on 26 April 1938 you, under the Four Year Plan, published a decree providing for the registration of Jewish property and provided that Jews inside and outside Germany must register their property, did you not?

GÖRING: I assume so. I no longer remember it, but if you have the decree there, and if it is signed by me, there cannot be any doubt.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: On 26 April 1938 you published a decree under the Four Year Plan, did you not, that all acts of disposal of Jewish enterprises required the permission of the authorities?

GÖRING: That I remember.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you published on 12 November 1938 a decree, also under the Four Year Plan, imposing a fine of a billion marks for atonement on all Jews?

GÖRING: I have already explained that all these decrees at that time were signed by me, and I assume responsibility for them.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I am asking you if you did not sign that particular decree? I am going to ask you some further questions about it later.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then on the 12th of November 1938, you also signed a decree that, under the Four Year Plan, all damage caused to Jewish property by the riots of 1938 must be repaired immediately by the Jews, and at their own expense; and their insurance claims were forfeited to the Reich. Did you personally sign that law?

GÖRING: I did sign a similar law. Whether it was exactly the same as you have just read, I could not say.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You do not disagree that that was the substance of the law, do you?

GÖRING: No.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And on the 12th of November 1938, did you not also personally sign a decree, also under the Four Year Plan, that Jews may not own retail stores, or engage independently in handicrafts or offer goods, or services, for sale at markets, fairs, or exhibitions; or act as leaders of enterprises or as members of co-operatives? Do you recall all of that?

GÖRING: Yes. Those are all parts of the decrees for the elimination of Jewry from economic life.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, on the 21st of February 1939, you personally signed a decree, did you not, that the Jews must surrender all objects of precious metals and jewels purchased, to the public office within 2 weeks?

GÖRING: I do not remember that, but without doubt, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I refer to Volume I of the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1939, Page 282. You have no recollection of that?

GÖRING: I have not the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ in front of me now, but if there is a decree in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, or a law signed with my name, then I signed that law and decreed it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not also, on the 3rd of March 1939, sign a further decree concerning the period within which items of jewelry must be surrendered by Jews—_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Volume I, 1939, Page 387?

GÖRING: I assume that was the decree for the execution of the decree for surrender previously mentioned. A law sometimes requires regulations and decrees for execution consequent upon the law. Taken together, this is one single measure.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not also sign personally a decree under the Four Year Plan, of the 17th of September 1940, ordering the sequestration of Jewish property in Poland?

GÖRING: Yes, as I stated before, in that part of Poland which, I may say, as an old German province, was to return to Germany.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not also, on the 30th day of November 1940, personally sign a decree which provided that the Jews should receive no compensation for damages caused by enemy attacks or by German forces, and did you not sign that in the capacity of President of the Reich Defense Council? I refer to the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Volume I, 1940, Page 1547.

GÖRING: If you have it there before you, then it must be correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have no recollection of that?

GÖRING: Not of all the separate laws and decrees. That is impossible.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, it was you, was it not, who signed, on the 31st day of July 1941, a decree asking Himmler, and the Chief of Security Police and the SS Gruppenführer Heydrich to make the plans for the complete solution of the Jewish question?

GÖRING: No, that is not correct. I know that decree very well.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask to have you shown Document 710, Exhibit Number USA-509.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that 710-PS?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 710-PS, Your Honor.

[_Turning to the witness._] That document is signed by you, is it not?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it is addressed to the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, and to SS Gruppenführer Heydrich, isn’t it?

GÖRING: That is also correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am not certain whether the entire thing has been read into the record, but I think it should be; and, that we may have no difficulty about the translation of this, you correct me if I am wrong:

“Completing the task that was assigned to you on the 24th of
January 1939 . . .”

GÖRING: Here is a mistake already. It says: “Complementing” not “completing” the task which has been assigned to you.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Very well, I will accept that.

“. . . which dealt with arriving at a thorough furtherance of
emigration and evacuation, a solution of the Jewish problem, as
advantageously as possible, I hereby charge you with making all
necessary preparations in regard to organizational and financial
matters for bringing about a complete solution of the Jewish
question in the German sphere of influence in Europe.”

Am I correct so far?

GÖRING: No, that is in no way correctly translated.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Give us your translation of it?

GÖRING: May I read it as it is written here?

“Complementing the task which was conferred upon you already on
24 January 1939, to solve the Jewish problem by means of
emigration and evacuation in the best possible way according to
present conditions, I charge you herewith to make all necessary
preparations as regards organizational, factual, and material
matters. . . .”

Now comes the decisive word which has been mistranslated: “for a total solution,” not “for a final solution.”

“. . . for a total solution of the Jewish question within the
area of German influence in Europe. Should these come within the
competence of other governmental departments, then such
departments are to co-operate.

“I charge you further to submit to me as soon as possible a
general plan showing the organizational and material measures
for reaching the desired total solution of the Jewish
question. . . . Complementing the task assigned to you on 24
January 1939. . . .”

That was at a time when there was no war or prospect of a war.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now are you reporting the instrument or are you making an explanation?

GÖRING: I wanted to add an explanation to the quotation and just to point out the date.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. Well, I just did not want it to appear that it was a part of the instrument. The last that is contained in the instrument is:

“I charge you furthermore to send me, before long, an over-all
plan concerning the organizational, factual, and material
measures necessary for the accomplishment of the desired
solution of the Jewish question.”

Is that not a substantially accurate translation of your order to Heydrich and Himmler?

GÖRING: To Heydrich and the other government departments which had anything to do with it. That can be seen from the first part of the letter, the last sentence.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us have no misunderstanding about this translation now. This letter was directed to the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, and SS Gruppenführer Heydrich. We are right about that, are we not?

GÖRING: That is correct, but I have to make an explanation in connection with that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right.

GÖRING: The reason I sent this letter to him was that, by the decree of 24 January 1939, Heydrich, or it may have been Himmler, had been given the task of dealing with the emigration of the Jews. Therefore, this was the government department concerned, and it was to the department which had been given the task that I had to apply concerning all material and economic matters arising therefrom.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And you ordered all other governmental agencies to co-operate with the Security Police and the SS in the final solution of the Jewish question, did you not?

GÖRING: There is nothing about the SS here; only about the Sicherheitspolizei, a governmental agency. The fact that Heydrich was SS Gruppenführer had no direct bearing on it, because it was sent to the Chief of the Security Police—mentioning his rank as SS Gruppenführer Heydrich.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And mentioning his rank in the SS was just superfluous and has nothing to do with the case?

GÖRING: I have to explain that. For instance, if I write to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, then I write: “To the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Colonel General or Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch.” And if I write to the Chief of the Security Police, then I must address it: “To the Chief of the Security Police, SS Gruppenführer Heydrich.” That was his rank and his title. However, that does not mean that the SS had anything to do with it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, at the time that you issued this order you had received complete reports as to the 1938 riots and Heydrich’s part in them, hadn’t you?

GÖRING: At that time I had no knowledge of Heydrich’s part in the riots—only Heydrich’s report on the riots, for which I had asked.

MR. JUSTICE, JACKSON: All right. Now we will show you Document Number 3058-PS, in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-508.

[_Document 3058-PS was submitted to the witness._]

That is the report written by Heydrich which you say you had received, and it is dated 11 November 1938, is it not?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it recited to you the looting of Jewish shops, the arrest of 174 persons for looting, the destruction of 815 shops, 171 dwellings set on fire or destroyed, and that this indicated only a fraction of the actual damage caused; 191 synagogues were set on fire, and another 76 completely destroyed; in addition, 11 parish halls, cemetery chapels, and similar buildings were set on fire, and 3 more completely destroyed; 20,000 Jews were arrested; also, 7 Aryans and 3 foreigners—the latter were arrested for their own safety; 36 deaths were reported, and the seriously injured were also numbered at 36. Those killed and injured are Jews. One Jew is still missing. The Jews killed include 1 Polish national, and those injured include 2 Poles.

You had that report on or about the 11th day of November 1938, did you not?

GÖRING: That is correct. That is the report mentioned by me and which I had asked the police to supply, because I wanted to know what had happened up to then.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Exactly. And the note was made at the top of it, “The General Field Marshal has been informed and no steps are to be taken.” Was it not?

GÖRING: That is not quite correct. It says here, “General Field Marshal has taken note. No steps are to be taken by any other office,” because I myself wanted to take them.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you know that that is not true, do you not, that steps were to be taken by some other office? I put it to you squarely whether you are telling this Tribunal the truth when you say that no steps were to be taken by anyone else.

GÖRING: This is a note by my staff department, that nothing was to be done by that quarter, because I said I was going to deal with it personally. In fact I went straight to the Führer with this report.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. Did you receive a report from the Chief Party Judge of the Nazi Party, dated Munich, the 13th of February 1939, concerning the proceedings taken by the Party in these matters?

GÖRING: That is correct. I received that report much later.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And at the time you appointed—I withdraw the question. It is obvious from the dates of the documents. You acknowledged the receipt of that document, did you not, to Party member Buch?

GÖRING: That is also correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the only proceedings that were taken about these riots were those taken by the Party Court, were they not?

GÖRING: Not quite; some were brought before the law courts. That is in the report also.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask that he be shown the report, which is Document 3063-PS. It is not in evidence. Since the document apparently has not been brought here, I will ask you from your recollection.

GÖRING: I know it fairly well.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I thought so.

GÖRING: No, because it has been submitted to me before, here.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, it has not been kept from you. Now, in the first place, the Party Court reported that it was probably understood—I quote—“by all of the Party leaders present, from oral instructions of the Reich Propaganda Director, that the Party should not appear outwardly as the originator of the demonstrations, but in reality should organize and execute them.” Was that the report of the Party Court?

GÖRING: The Party Court, as a result of its investigation, established that the Propaganda Chief, Dr. Goebbels, had given these directives. May I ask, if we are dealing with a report dated March or maybe April?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The 13th of February 1939, is the date.

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct; that is the result of investigations after the incidents.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. Now, as a result of the riots, did the Court, the Party Court, not also report this to you: that the Supreme Party Court has reserved itself the right to investigate the killings, also the severe mistreatment and moral crimes and will request the Führer to drop proceedings against any person whom the Party Court did not find guilty of excesses?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the Party Court was made up of Gauleiter and Group Leaders of the Party?

GÖRING: The Party Court changed. I cannot say just now, without having the document, who made up the Party Court at that time. I see that I am being given the document.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to Page 4, toward the bottom, where the report says, “Gauleiter and Group Leaders of the branches served as jurors at the trials and decisions.”

GÖRING: Yes, it was a matter of course that the jurors of the Party Court were always taken from these categories according to their importance. I wanted only to say I did not know which persons were taking part here.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the Party Court found five persons guilty of offenses, did they not? Number 1, a Party member, was guilty of a moral crime and race violation and he was expelled. Is that right?

GÖRING: And turned over to the penal court. That is what it says in the last sentence.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. Another Party member, Case Number 2, was suspected of race violation and expelled from the Nazi Party.

GÖRING: Expelled for suspected race violation and theft, and turned over to the ordinary court.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes; and Number 2, Gustav, was expelled from the Party and SA for theft. Right?

GÖRING: You are at Number 3?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have Number 2, Gustav, the first name mentioned.

GÖRING: Gustav is the first name—Gerstner—yes, for theft, also turned over to the ordinary court for suspected race violation.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, Number 3 dealt with two expulsions of Party members on the grounds of moral crimes against a Jewess, and they are now held in protective custody. Right?

GÖRING: Expelled from the NSDAP and taken into protective custody; they were also turned over to the civil court later. I know that very well.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, we come to Cases 4 and 5, the first of which was a man, a Party member and SA member, who was reprimanded and declared unfit to hold office for 3 years because of a disciplinary offense, namely, for killing the Jewish couple Selig, contrary to order. Is that right?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And in the last of these cases the offender was reprimanded and declared unfit to hold office for 3 years for shooting a 16-year-old Jew, contrary to orders after completion of the drive. Is that right?

GÖRING: That is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We now come to the cases of the killing of Jews, where proceedings were suspended or minor punishments pronounced. I will not go through those in detail, but it is a fact that only minor punishments were pronounced by the Supreme Court of the Party for the killing of Jews, were they not?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I now ask you to turn to Page 8.

GÖRING: One moment please.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the language in regard to Cases 3 to 16.

GÖRING: Which page, please?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Nine, I believe it is. The Supreme Party Court asks the Führer to quash the proceedings in the State criminal courts.

GÖRING: To quash them, to beat them down, that does not mean suppress. A penal proceeding can be “niedergeschlagen.” In Germany that is a different thing from “suppress.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you give us your version of it and tell us what it is. What does beating down a proceeding mean? Does it mean that it has ended?

GÖRING: That is what it means, but it can only be ordered by an office which has authority to do it; that is to say, the Führer can at any time “beat down” a proceeding by way of an amnesty. The Cabinet could at any time pass a resolution to “beat down” a proceeding—suppressing it would have been illegal. In Germany, “niedergeschlagen” is a legal term meaning “to suspend.”

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And one further question. It was also reported to you, was it not, in that report—I refer to Page 11:

“The public down to the last man realize that political drives,
like those of 9 November, were organized and directed by the
Party, whether this is admitted or not. When all the synagogues
burned down in one night, it must have been organized in some
way and can only have been organized by the Party.”

That also was in the report of the Supreme Party Court, was it not?

GÖRING: I have not found it yet. It is not the same page as mine.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us find it and not have any mistake about it. Page 11. I should think it would be at the very bottom of Page 10, perhaps, where it starts.

GÖRING: Yes, I have just found it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did I give a reasonably correct translation of it?

GÖRING: That is correct.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off? Before we break off, will you offer in evidence these documents that you have been putting to the witness? Those which are not already in evidence?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, they should be, Your Honor, I will do that.

THE PRESIDENT: I think Document 3575-PS may have been offered yesterday, but not strictly offered in evidence; and Document 3063-PS today; and one other document the number of which I have not got.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I appreciate very much your calling my attention to it.

[_A recess was taken._]

DR. HORN: Mr. President: I ask you, Your Honor, to permit the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to be absent from tomorrow’s session, as there are still some fundamental questions I have to discuss with him in order to prepare his counterevidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, your suggestion as I understand it, is that the Defendant Ribbentrop should be absent from tomorrow morning’s sitting in order that you may consult with him in reference to the preparation of his defense. Is that right?

DR. HORN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to that course being taken provided that you make arrangements with some other Defense Counsel to look after Defendant Ribbentrop’s interests if any questions arise. The Tribunal does not wish that you should come hereafter and say that you and Defendant Ribbentrop were out of court and object to what may have happened in your absence. You understand what I mean?

DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, and I give you my assurance that I will not use an objection of that nature, and shall ask one of my colleagues to act on my behalf.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to your taking that course of action, but of course you realize that the Trial cannot be held up by any delay which might be caused in the future by the fact that you were not present.

DR. HORN: Mr. President, the purpose of my request is such that it will help me to avoid future delays.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I quite understand that. I was only saying that in allowing you to do this, which is perfectly reasonable, the Tribunal is merely indicating they will not allow any future delays. The Trial must continue.

DR. HORN: I understand that and I wish to thank you.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [_Turning to the witness._] Now, the _Völkischer Beobachter_ of the 12th of March 1933 quotes a speech of yours delivered at Essen on the 11th of March 1933, including the following—and I refresh your recollection by calling it to your attention:

“I am told that I must employ the police. Certainly I shall
employ the police, and quite ruthlessly, whenever the German
people are hurt; but I refuse the notion that the police are
protective troops for Jewish stores. No, the police protect
whoever comes into Germany legitimately, but it does not exist
for the purpose of protecting Jewish usurers.”

Did you say that?

GÖRING: When did you say that was?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you say that on the 11th of March 1933 in a speech at Essen, either that, or that in substance?

GÖRING: That is correct, but the circumstances were different. Before I answer, I would like to ask whether you have finished with the document in the book that was submitted to me previously. I gave no explanation and will ask my counsel to have me questioned later in regard to that document.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is satisfactory.

After the riots of November 9th and 10th, you have testified that you called a meeting on the 12th of November and ordered all officials concerned to be present, and that the Führer had insisted on Goebbels being present.

GÖRING: Yes, all chiefs of the economic departments.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Could you tell us who was there in addition to yourself and Goebbels?

GÖRING: As far as I recall, the following were there for the purpose of reporting: The Chief of the Secret State Police, concerning the events, the Minister of Economy, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Interior . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Will you please state their names so that there will not be any mistake about who was there at that time.

GÖRING: I can quote only from memory. There were present to draw up a report: The leader of the Secret State Police in Berlin, Heydrich; the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick; Dr. Goebbels you have mentioned already; the then Minister of Economy, Funk, was there; the Finance Minister, Count Schwerin von Krosigk; and Fischböck from Austria.

Those are the only names I can recall at present, but there may have been a few others there too.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Part of the time, Hilgard, representing the insurance companies, was also present, was he not?

GÖRING: He was summoned and waited there. His views were asked on special questions.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you have been shown the stenographic minutes of that meeting which are in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-261, being Document Number 1816-PS, have you not, in your interrogation?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask that they be shown to you, and now, so that we may have no misunderstanding about the translations.

You opened the meeting with this statement. I will read it: “Gentlemen . . .” I think perhaps we had better be clear about which meeting it was. This is the meeting held on the 12th day of November 1938 at the office of the Reich Air Ministry. That is correct, is it not?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You opened the meeting:

“Gentlemen, today’s meeting is of a decisive nature. I have
received a letter written on the Führer’s orders by the
Stabsleiter of the Führer’s Deputy, Bormann, requesting that the
Jewish question be now, once and for all, co-ordinated and
solved one way or another.”

Is that correct?

GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Further down, I find this:

“Gentlemen, I have had enough of these demonstrations. They do
not harm the Jews, but finally devolve on me, the highest
authority for the German economy. If today a Jewish shop is
destroyed, if goods are thrown into the street, the insurance
company will pay the Jew for the damages so that he does not
suffer any damage at all. Furthermore, consumer goods, goods
belonging to the people, are destroyed. If, in the future,
demonstrations occur—and on occasion they may be
necessary—then I ask that they be so directed that we do not
cut our own throats.”

Am I correct?

GÖRING: Yes, quite correct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Skipping two or three paragraphs, I come to this . . .

GÖRING: But the supplement has been omitted.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you can supplement it any way you want to.

GÖRING: “. . . then I ask that they be so directed that we do
not cut our own throats. For it is absurd to empty and set fire
to a Jewish store, when a German insurance company has to cover
the damage, and the goods which I sorely need are burned. I
might as well take and burn the raw materials when they come
in.”