Chapter M: CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: The matter which is before us today is to find (2)

“Therefore, there is nothing to warrant blaming us for anything
in this respect.”

And from another speech of 26 March 1938, which is also quoted from _Hermann Göring’s Speeches and Compositions_, Document Book Number 1, Page 41, Document Number 16, I quote the first and the second sentences:

“We do not wish to annihilate any Church, nor to destroy any
belief or religion. All we want is to bring about a clear
separation. The Church has its definite, very important and very
necessary tasks, and the State and the Movement have other, just
as important and just as decisive, tasks.”

I refer further to a document submitted by a clergyman Werner Jentsch, dated 30 October 1945, addressed to this Tribunal, Document Book Number 1, Pages 44 to 46, Exhibit Number 17.

I quote only one sentence, Figure 8:

“Hermann Göring himself, through his chief adjutant, had the
following answer given to a petition for the introduction of a
special chaplain’s office within the headquarters of the Air
Force; that he could not at the moment do anything because Adolf
Hitler had not yet made a final decision concerning the question
of religion. However, he wished full freedom of religion in the
Air Force, including the Christian denominations, and every
member of the Air Force could choose for himself whatever
chaplain or civilian pastor he desired.”

The affidavit from Gauleiter Dr. Uiberreither, dated 27 February 1946, deals with the question which I mentioned earlier and which is contained in Document Book Number 1, Page 31. It, under Figure 2, deals with the events of the night of 9 to 10 November 1938 and the knowledge thereof, as follows:

“A few weeks after the action against the Jews on the night of 9
to 10 November 1938—towards the end of November or the
beginning of December 1938—Field Marshal Göring again called
all the Gauleiter to Berlin. During this meeting he criticized
the action in harsh words and stated that it had not been in
keeping with the dignity of the nation. Moreover, it had also
seriously lowered our prestige abroad. If the murder of Legation
Counsellor Von Rath was regarded as an attack by Jewry against
the Reich, then the German Reich had other means of countering
such an attack than appealing to the baser instincts. In an
orderly state no irregular mob action ought to take place under
any circumstances.”

And in the last paragraph, under Number 2, it says:

“In conclusion, he asked the Gauleiter to use their entire
influence to see to it that such incidents, which were
detrimental to Germany, would not recur in the future.”

I can skip Page 16, Paragraph 5, as an explanation on that has already been given.

That the Defendant Göring took his duty as Supreme Administrator of Justice very seriously becomes apparent from an affidavit of Judge Advocate General Dr. Lehmann of 21 February 1946. I shall read from this affidavit in Document Book Number I, Page 106, Document Number 27, Exhibit Number Göring-6. I quote from Figure II onwards:

“II. The opinion I have of him is the following:

“The Reich Marshal originally took a negative attitude toward
lawyers. He was evidently influenced by the Führer. This
attitude underwent a change to the extent that he occupied
himself with legal matters of the Air Force. At the end of the
war the Reich Marshal was one of the high commanders who liked
to consult lawyers. He took special interest in the legal
department of the Air Force and attached great importance to it.
He assigned to this department difficult cases for investigation
concerning which he was sceptical of the reports of the other
offices.”

From the following paragraph:

“The Reich Marshal had himself thoroughly informed concerning
matters which I had to discuss with him. He devoted an unusual
amount of time to these matters. The conferences, even when
there were considerable differences of opinion, took a quiet and
objective course.”

Then from Paragraph III:

“III. Concerning the legal department of the Air Force, the
Reich Marshal reserved for himself the confirmation of sentences
in many cases, including all death sentences.

“In passing judgment on individual cases he was inclined to show
occasional leniency—in spite of the harshness demanded of all
judges by the Führer. In cases of treason, and especially in
moral crimes, he showed merciless severity. I know from the
records that in severe cases of rape he would often reverse a
judgment because he considered the death sentence was necessary.
It did not matter whether the woman involved was from Germany or
from the occupied territories. I believe that I remember at
least one case from the records where he even changed the
regular manner of execution and ordered that the soldier be
hanged in the Russian village in which he had committed the
rape.

“IV. When presiding at a trial the Reich Marshal was very
forceful but benevolent; also in his recommendations for mercy
to the Führer.

“V. In his own decisions the Reich Marshal doubtless knowingly
often acted contrary to the ideas and demands of the Führer,
especially in political matters, which he judged much more
mildly, and in cases of excesses against inhabitants of the
occupied countries, which he judged much more harshly than the
Führer.

“I have often discussed the personality of the Reich Marshal
with his legal adviser, a very experienced, quiet, and
conscientious lawyer, as well as with the Judge Advocate
General, who was distinguished by the same qualities, and was
often with him. We were of one opinion about the Reich Marshal.”

In the course of this Trial, the Prosecution has repeatedly referred to the so-called Green File, which was submitted under Document Number 1743-PS. This is not, as the Prosecution maintains, a regulation for the spoliation and annihilation of the population. Its object was rather the economic mobilization and the uninterrupted operation of industry, the procurement and regular utilization of supplies, and of transport facilities in the territories to be occupied by military operations, with special consideration of the fact that Russia had no private enterprise, but only a strict centrally regulated state economy. In addition to that, vast destruction had to be anticipated in view of the Russian attitude. Nowhere does it contain an order or directive to exploit certain groups of the population beyond the necessities caused by the war.

From that Green File I have cited a whole series of passages which are to prove my statements. I cannot refer to them in detail; I should like to draw your attention only to one very characteristic passage which is on Page 94 of this Green File, second paragraph:

“Among the native population, that is, in this case, workmen and
clerical employees, the best possible relationship is to be
established.”

Somewhat below, on the same page:

“Endeavors must be made for good relations with the population,
in particular also with the workers in agriculture.”

I am now coming to the next paragraph:

The German Armed Forces entered the war fully respecting the international conventions.

THE PRESIDENT: Where is this part?

DR. STAHMER: Page 23, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Which volume?

DR. STAHMER: In the trial brief.

THE PRESIDENT: We seem to have only 22 pages in our trial brief. Are there two volumes?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, I believe it is in the second trial brief. The division was made to accelerate the translation. May I continue?

The German Wehrmacht entered the war fully respecting the international conventions. No large-scale excesses by German soldiers were noted. Individual offenses were severely punished. However, immediately after the beginning of hostilities there appeared reports and descriptions of atrocities committed against German soldiers. These reports were carefully investigated. The result was recorded by the German Foreign Office in _White Papers_, which were sent to Geneva. In this way the _White Book_ came into being which deals with the crimes against the laws of war and humanity committed by the Russian soldiers.

GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, Defense Counsel for Göring, Dr. Stahmer, intends to submit to the Tribunal and to read into the record excerpts from the so-called _White Book_ which was published by the Hitler Government in 1941 in connection with some of the violations which supposedly took place concerning German prisoners of war. I consider that these excerpts cannot be submitted and read into the record here because of the following reasons:

There can be put in evidence only facts which refer to this case; there can be submitted to the Tribunal only documents which refer to the crimes which were perpetrated by the German major war criminals.

The _White Book_ is a series of documents of invented data regarding violations which were perpetrated not by the fascist Germans but by other countries. Therefore the data contained in the _White Book_ cannot serve as evidence in this case. This conclusion is all the more justified in that the _White Book_ is a publication which served the purpose of fascist propaganda, and which tried by inventions and forged documents to justify or hide crimes which were perpetrated by the fascists. Therefore I request the Tribunal to refuse the reading into the record, or submitting to the Tribunal, excerpts from the so-called _White Book_.

THE PRESIDENT: On what theory do you justify the presentation of this evidence, Dr. Stahmer?

DR. STAHMER: The question whether it is possible and permissible to refer to these _White Papers_ during this Trial as a means of evidence, has been discussed repeatedly. In particular it was the subject of debate when we were concerned with the question of whether I should be allowed to refer to this _White Book_ as evidence. So far as I know, it has been admitted as evidence for the time being. It was already pointed out, during the debate which arose in regard to this subject, that, as far as evidence is concerned, it is relevant for the evaluation of the motives.

At the time I already pointed out that the crimes committed against German prisoners of war are of importance in order to understand the measures taken on the part of Germany. One cannot evaluate the underlying motives of the men who committed these offenses, or gave orders to commit them, if one fails to consider the background against which these deeds were enacted, or investigate the motives which caused them to commit these acts. And because of the importance of the motive, in order to know about the accusations raised by the Germans, it seems to me that this reference to this document is absolutely necessary.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished?

DR. STAHMER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we are here to try major war criminals; we are not here to try any of the signatory powers. Therefore you must justify the introduction of evidence against the signatory powers in some legal way.

DR. STAHMER: The presentation, if I may repeat, is made for the following reasons:

The defendants here are accused that under their leadership crimes and offenses against members of foreign armed forces were committed which are not in accordance with the Geneva Convention. On our part we plead that if harsh treatment and excesses occurred on the German side, they were caused by the fact that similar violations occurred also on the other side, and that consequently these offenses must be judged differently and not be considered as grave as would be the case if the opposite side had conducted itself correctly. Anyway, these facts are relevant for the evaluation of the motive.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you attempting to justify the introduction of this evidence on the ground of reprisals?

DR. STAHMER: Not only on the ground of reprisals, but from the point of view of the motive for the deed.

THE PRESIDENT: You are asking us to admit a document, a German governmental document. Now, under the Charter we are bound to admit documents, governmental documents, and reports of the United Nations, but it is nowhere said that we are bound to admit or are at liberty to admit documents issued by the German Government. We cannot tell whether those documents contained facts truly stated or not.

DR. STAHMER: We have here in the document books, court records of legal inquiries. These must in my opinion have the same value as evidence as official documents. They were records of court proceedings which are quoted in the _White Book_.

GEN. RUDENKO: I should like, Your Honors, to point out only one thing here. Defense Counsel Stahmer tries to submit these documents in order, as he says, to present his reasons which would explain the crimes of the Germans. I should like to state here that these documents, which have already been submitted to the Prosecution, and which were mentioned yesterday here during the cross-examination of the Defendant Göring, show quite clearly that the document regarding the crimes was drafted before the beginning of the war.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, what are the dates of these documents that you are asking us to admit?

DR. STAHMER: I have the individual ones here. Meanwhile I am having the records looked for.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I suggest, Your Honor, that I support fully the objection made by General Rudenko. I had supposed that the one thing counsel on both sides were agreed upon, when this matter was under discussion before, was that no reprisals against prisoners of war are tolerated. Even my learned adversary, Dr. Exner, agreed that that is the law.

Secondly, certainly, we must know what crimes it is that are sought to be excused. Are these the motives for what crimes? Counsel says they are bare on their motives. Was it their motive in shooting American or British fliers, that there were some violations on the part of the Russians as they claim? The only way, it seems to me, that evidence of this character is admissible would be to bring it under the doctrine of reprisal very strictly by taking specific offenses and saying: “This offense we admit, but we committed it in reprisal for certain other specified offenses.”

I submit that general allegations of this character and relating to prisoners of war are admittedly inadmissible and carry us far afield in the trial of this case.

DR. STAHMER: May I point out one more fact: For instance, I have here a telegram sent by the Foreign Office representative with the High Command of the Army to the Foreign Office, dated 12 August 1941. In other words, this is an official document, and until now the Prosecution has submitted official documents in considerable numbers which have been used as evidence against the defendants. If now an official document is being produced here to exonerate the defendants, I think that this also ought to be admitted and to the same extent, provided that this is legally permissible. The formal side of the matter is that we have here a telegram, as I said, from a representative of the Foreign Office with the Army High Command, that is, from an official authority, addressed to the Foreign Office, dated 12 August 1941. It says here, for instance: “In the captured operational report Number 11, of the 13th of last month, 10 o’clock, of the staff of the 26th Division, 1 kilometer west of Slastjena in the forest north of Opuschka it says: ‘The enemy left about 400 dead on the battlefield . . .’”

THE PRESIDENT: You must not read it, as we are discussing its admissibility.

DR. STAHMER: I beg your pardon. I misunderstood you, Mr. President, you asked me what document . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The date of the _White Book_.

DR. STAHMER: The date of the _White Book_, I see, we misunderstood each other; it is Berlin, 1941.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not a date, that is a year.

DR. STAHMER: It says, “Bolshevist Crimes against the Laws of War and Humanity. Documents compiled by the Foreign Office, First Volume, Berlin, 1941.” That is the name of the document; the date of its publication is not apparent from the book itself. The individual documents and preliminary proceedings are contained in this book, followed by a number of records which have individual dates.

THE PRESIDENT: Then there is nothing to show when that document was communicated, either to the Soviet Government or when it was communicated—if it was—to Geneva or to the Protecting Power.

DR. STAHMER: It was forwarded to Geneva. It was duly handed to the Red Cross in Geneva.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

DR. STAHMER: In 1941. I had proposed to obtain these books from Geneva and to bring in information from the Geneva Red Cross.

Mr. President, may I once more point out that it is an official document published by the Foreign Office. It is a series of reports compiled in an official publication.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not the real point that the Tribunal is considering. The question is, how can you justify in a trial of the major war criminals of Germany, evidence against Great Britain, or against the United States of America or against the U.S.S.R. or against France? If you are going to try the actions of all those four signatory powers, apart from other considerations, there would be no end to the Trial at all, and their conduct has no relevance to the guilt of the major war criminals of Germany, unless it can be justified by reference to the doctrine of reprisal, and this cannot be justified in that way. And therefore the Tribunal considers the document is irrelevant.

DR. STAHMER: I now turn to the subject of aerial warfare, evidence on Page 25 of my trial brief. Relevant to the question of guilt is the question whether the German Air Force started to attack open cities only after the British Air Force had carried out a great number of raids against nonmilitary targets.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I object to this evidence. I was not quite sure whether Dr. Stahmer had passed dealing with this evidence with regard to the air war, or whether he was illustrating his argument. I want to make it quite clear that I object to the first part of it as being too remote, that is, the evidence about the various conferences which took place with regard to the regulation of aerial warfare.

With regard to the second part of the evidence, I object to the documents which purport to show that Great Britain attacked nonmilitary targets. Where I have been able to check the allegations, I find there is a complete dispute as to whether the targets were military or nonmilitary targets, and therefore I cannot accept the German official reports as being evidence of any purported value on their part, and I respectfully submit that, unless the Tribunal had authority from the Charter, it ought to take the same line.

I make these two additional points to the points raised by my learned friends, General Rudenko and Mr. Justice Jackson, on the general question. I do not want to take up more time with the argument by developing that point. I will be pleased to help with any aspect of it.

THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me, Dr. Stahmer, that this matter stands upon exactly the same footing as the matter upon which we have just ruled.

DR. STAHMER: That is right. I believe that from this book on aerial warfare one document is of importance in my opinion, which is quoted on Page 27. It is merely a statement by the French General Armengaud concerning the fact that the German Air Force operated in Poland in accordance with the laws of warfare and attacked military targets exclusively. I believe there will be no objection to reading at least this quotation. It is Page 27.

THE PRESIDENT: Page 27 of the trial brief?

DR. STAHMER: Page 27 of the trial brief. There I give a quotation from General Armengaud, the French Air Attaché in Warsaw, of 14 September 1939.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: There it says: After the outbreak of war the German Air Force under its Commander-in-Chief, Göring, did not, by order of Hitler, attack any open cities in Poland; this was confirmed by Buttler, the British Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on 6 September 1939, and by the French Air Attaché in Warsaw on 14 September 1939 (Documents 41 and 46 of the _White Book_). The latter, General Armengaud, says literally:

“I must emphasize that the German Air Force acted according to
the laws of war; it attacked military targets only and, if
civilians were often killed or wounded this happened because
they were near the military targets. It is important that this
should be known in France and in England, so that no reprisals
will be taken where there is no cause for reprisals, and so that
total aerial warfare will not be let loose by us.”

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, what is the origin of that?

DR. STAHMER: May I have a look? It is contained in the document concerning the bombing war, Number 46, “Report of the French Air Attaché in Warsaw, General Armengaud.” It is dated 14 September 1939, and then comes the report from which I have already quoted.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: I have submitted it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: And now I proceed to Page 30 of the trial brief. And in Paragraph 10, I refer to the creation of the Secret State Police by the Defendant Göring. A passage is quoted there from the book, _Hermann Göring, the Man and His Work_, Document Book 2, Page 53 and 54. I submit it as Document Number 44, and I quote from it the following passage:

“It can be seen from the big Stettin trial and also from others,
that Göring took ruthless measures against men who acted on
their own authority against his instructions.

“The Prime Minister looked into hundreds of individual cases in
connection with the supervision of political prisoners. He did
not wait until he was asked; the offer was made on his own
initiative.

“On the occasion of the Christmas amnesty of 1933, he ordered
the release of nearly 5,000 prisoners from the concentration
camps. ‘Even they must be given a chance.’ It would have been
only too understandable if those released had found doors and
gates closed to them whichever way they turned. That, however,
would not be in keeping with the spirit of this act of mercy.
Nobody was to consider himself shut out. Therefore, Göring in a
clearly worded decree ordered that no difficulties were to be
placed in the way of those released, by the authorities or by
the public. If this action were to have any point, every effort
must be made to take back these people, who had sinned against
the state, into the community again as full fellow Germans.”

And from the last paragraph, I read the second sentence:

“In September 1934 he ordered the release of an additional 2,000
prisoners in a second big amnesty.”

In this connection I beg to offer a telegram which I received a few days ago, and I request that it be admitted as evidence. It is an unsolicited telegram originating from a certain Hermann Winter, Berlin W 20, Eisenach Street, 118. It has been included in the document book which I submit. I believe it is the last document in my document book.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If we are to examine unsolicited correspondence or telegrams, if it is to become evidence, I have a washbasket full of it in my office that, if that kind of material could be used as evidence in this case without any verification, I could bring here in rebuttal. It does seem to me that we should know something more about this than that just a wire has come in from some unknown person who may not even have been the signer; maybe it is an assumed name. I think we are entitled to a little better foundation than that.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, have you any other basis?

DR. STAHMER: I have no other basis, and I beg to have your decision whether this telegram is admissible as evidence.

THE PRESIDENT; Well, I do not think we could admit it simply as a telegram which has been received by you from an unknown person.

DR. STAHMER: I request your decision. Is it being refused? I am coming to the end, Page 34.

THE PRESIDENT: Of the trial brief?

DR. STAHMER: Page 34 of the trial brief, Figure 12. With respect to the question of whether one could blame the defendants for having had confidence in Hitler and following him, it is important to know Churchill’s attitude, expressed in his book _Step by Step_, and I am quoting two passages, Document Book Number 2, Page 46.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This is in 1937, before the events with which we have mainly been dealing here. I do not think it is very important. Mr. Churchill’s speeches are well known, but I do think that we waste time going into Mr. Churchill’s opinions back in 1937, before the event, when he is doubtless in the same position as Dahlerus, the witness, with reference to his knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes.

THE PRESIDENT: Inasmuch as we have already received this book and some passages from it, you may state this.

DR. STAHMER: I may state it? Thank you. On Page 187, in an article, “Friendship with Germany,” of 17 September 1937, is written:

“One can condemn Herr Hitler’s system and still marvel at its
patriotic achievement. Should our country be defeated, I could
only desire that we would find an equally indomitable champion
who would give us our courage again . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: I only said that you could read it because you had read from this book of Mr. Churchill’s, but at the same time it seems to be absolutely irrelevant.

DR. STAHMER: I did not—Oh, I see. May I refer to the quotation on Page 323 which is also a description of Hitler’s personality. I consider it of importance especially because I attach considerable weight in particular to Churchill’s judgment. It says: “Our leadership must at least . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Stahmer, do you not think we have heard sufficient about Hitler’s personality?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, but not from that source. If the Tribunal . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Presumably the Defendant Göring knows more about Hitler than Mr. Churchill.

DR. STAHMER: If the Tribunal does not wish it to be read, then of course, I will abide by that wish.

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is cumulative.

DR. STAHMER: Well, in that case I have finished. I may still of course keep in reserve the evidence which I have not been able to submit up to now, about which I spoke this morning. I said this morning, I had a certain amount of evidence which I have not been able to submit because I have not received it yet.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Would this be a convenient time, if Your Honor please, to make the record concerning the documents which I was to offer formally for the record?

THE PRESIDENT: I do not quite follow? What documents are you referring to?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The ones used in cross-examination . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: . . . which Your Honor spoke to me about.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I understand they have been handed to the Secretary and they have been marked.

The affidavit to Halder is USA-779. It is offered.

Document Number 3700-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-780; Document Number 3775-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-781; Document Number 3787-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-782; Document Number 2523-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-783; Document Number 014-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-784; Document Number 1193-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-785; Document Number EC-317 is offered as Exhibit USA-786; Document Number 3786-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-787; Document Number 638-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-788; Document Number 1742-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-789.