Chapter X: Book 4: , Page 28 of the English book, and just look at Captain (1)

Schüssler’s description of the fourth period: “Armament under the direction of the Reich Government in camouflaged form (from 1933 to 1935 when we were free to recruit on an unrestricted basis.)”

Do you agree that Captain Schüssler was giving an accurate description of your methods from 1933 to 1935?

RAEDER: How does he describe it? Where is that passage?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is Number 4.

RAEDER: “Armament under the leadership of the Reich Government in camouflaged form”?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You agree that it is a correct description of your activities from 1933 to 1935?

RAEDER: Of course. I did that on orders from the head of the State; and before all the head of the State was very anxious to see that no exaggerated measures should be taken, so that it would not interfere in any way with his plans for making an agreement with Great Britain. He allowed very little to be done with regard to the Navy. He could at once have built eight armored ships, so many destroyers, and so many torpedo boats, none of which had yet been built, but he did none of these things because he said, “We do not want to create the impression that we are arming on a large scale.” He approved only two...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have explained that; so note, Defendant, the point is this—the “camouflaged form” when you were negotiating the naval agreement. You did not want anyone to know what steps you had taken contrary to the treaty and how far you had gone. That is the plain fact of it—you wanted to get the naval agreement without disclosing what you had done, isn’t that so?

RAEDER: No, that distorts the sense of what I said. We did not want the announcement of these measures to cause strained relations between Germany and Britain. The measures as such were completely justifiable and were extremely minor ones.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will come to that in a moment. I only do want, before we leave these naval works, to ask you one question about another book. You know that Oberst Scherff projected a history of the German Navy. I don’t want any misunderstanding about it. As I understand the position, you permitted Oberst Scherff to have recourse to the archives of the Navy but beyond that you hadn’t seen anything of his work, isn’t that right?

RAEDER: I did not see his book at all. I saw the table of contents here the first time I was interrogated. I did not give him the order, either; he received it from the Führer; and for that reason I allowed the Chief of the Navy Archives to assist him.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that is exactly what I put to you. I want you to turn to Book 10a. It starts at Page 1 in the English version and also Page 1 in the German. And if you would look at Page 3 you will find the proposed table of contents of Oberst Scherff’s book, Page 3 in the English version. I think it must be about Page 3 in the German version, too. Now would you look at the heading of Section 2. It is: “Incorporation of the Navy in the National Socialist State.” And then he describes, “(a) National Socialism in the Navy before 1933”...

RAEDER: Where is that? I have not found it yet.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Section 2 of the table of contents.

RAEDER: No, that must be something quite different. I have not got it here...

I have got it now.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you look at Section 2, which is: “Incorporation of the Navy in the National Socialist State.” And you can see the proposed headings which were to cover some 30 pages: “National Socialism in the Navy before 1933.” Then: “The oath of the Navy to the Führer; the taking over of the National Insignia; the first alteration of the flag and the New War flag.” Do you agree with Oberst Scherff’s description? You agree that this is a correct description, that the proceedings could be described as the incorporation of the Navy in the National Socialist State?

RAEDER: Of course—I explained that here recently—the Navy—the Armed Forces—had to have some connection with the National Socialist State. A democratic Navy in a monarchy is impossible. The basic principles must agree. But I myself decided the extent to which these principles were adopted—that is to the degree where the Navy maintained its internal independence and yet occupied its appropriate position with regard to the National Socialist State.

Apart from that, I do not see any text here; I can only see the headings.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say that doesn’t offend you as a description. That is all I wanted to get clear. I do not want to spend a great deal of time.

RAEDER: But the headings mean nothing.

For instance, it might say in the actual text that the Navy did not fit into the National Socialist State properly. I do not know. The same holds good of the fleet. Of course...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not going to waste time on it. There were three matters which you dealt with in your examination-in-chief, and I am not going to deal with them in detail; but I just want to remind you of them and put one general question. You can put that document away; I am not going to pursue it further. Would you mind putting that document away and giving me your attention for the next question?

You were asked about the E-boats, your survey list, that long document, in September 1933, and the question of disguised auxiliary cruisers as transport ships O. Is this a fair summary of your answer: That you admitted that these breaches of the Treaty took place, but said in each case that the breach was only a little one. Is that a fair summary of your answer? Is it?

RAEDER: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, let’s take it in bits, then. Are you disputing that any of these matters with regard to the E-boats, the matters on the survey lists or the transport ships O—are you disputing that any of these matters took place? I understood, you admitted they all did take place...

RAEDER: No, they took place in the way I described. For instance, these auxiliary cruisers were not built. We were not allowed to do that. But we were allowed to make plans and we were allowed to select those ships which, in the event of war—if a war had broken out in which Germany was attacked by another state—could have been used as auxiliary cruisers. That was not a violation. If it were I would admit it. The U-boat designing office in Holland was not a violation of the Versailles Treaty either. The wording was quite different; I do not remember the third case which you mentioned.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you remember there was a long list in a document, from yourself.

RAEDER: Yes, of course.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And I understood, maybe wrongly, that you admitted these things took place, but you said “it is only a little one.”

RAEDER: Yes, of course. Those were small things, but they were urgently necessary in Germany’s defense interests.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want to ask you about an officer of yours, Vice Admiral Assmann. Was he an officer in whom you had confidence?

RAEDER: He was a very able historian.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you answer my question? Was he an officer in whom you had confidence?

RAEDER: I had confidence that he would write history correctly.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is all I wanted. Now, would you have a look at a new document, which is Document Number D-854, which, My Lord, will be Exhibit Number GB-460. Now, that is an extract from one of a series of essays on the operational and tactical considerations of the German Navy and consequent measures taken for its expansion between 1919 and 1939, contained among the files of Vice Admirals Assmann and Gladisch, who were in the historical section of the German Admiralty.

Now, would you mind not looking at it for a moment, Defendant? I want to ask you some questions and then you can look at it with pleasure afterwards. Do you agree that in nearly all spheres of armament where the Navy was concerned, the Treaty of Versailles was violated in the letter and all the more in the spirit? Do you agree with that?

RAEDER: No, by no means in every sphere. In the most important sphere we were far behind the Versailles Treaty, as I explained to you very clearly. Possibly we infringed on it the other way round, by not doing as much as we could have done.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you just look at this document. At the beginning of the first quotation your officers say:

“But if—as was stated—in nearly all spheres of armament where
the Navy was concerned, the Treaty of Versailles was violated in
the letter and all the more in the spirit—or at least its
violation was prepared—a long time before the 16th of March
1935...”

Are your admirals wrong in stating that? Is that what you are telling the Tribunal?

RAEDER: May I please see which page this is on? I have not seen it yet. Yes, he says, “in nearly all spheres of naval armament...”

That is not the case, for in the sphere of...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That’s what I put to you; is that right?

RAEDER: No, it is not right. We had not even built as many ships as we could have built, but—as I have explained repeatedly, the violations were concerned with...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You’ve explained that.

RAEDER: ...violations were...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Really, we do know the position of your shipbuilding yards. You’ve given that explanation and it’s a matter of discussion whether it’s of any value. I am not going to argue with you. I am asking you this question: Are you saying that the admirals of your historical section are wrong in that sentence that I read out to you?

RAEDER: Yes, I am stating that. It is wrong as it stands.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Well, now let’s pass on—the Tribunal will judge that—to the statement of Admiral Assmann. It goes on:

“This probably took place in no other sphere, on the one hand so
early, and on the other hand under such difficult circumstances,
as in the construction of a new submarine arm. The Treaty of
Versailles had only been in force a few months (since 10 January
1920) when it was already violated in this point.”

Do you agree with Admiral Assmann on that?

RAEDER: No, he is wrong. It was not violated at all in this point, and the reason it started so early was because all the ex-U-boat commanders and U-boat officers and technicians were out of a job and offered their services to maintain technical developments in U-boats abroad; that is why it was so early. But that has nothing to do with me because I had no say in these matters then. At that time I was working on the Navy Archives.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, how are you able to be so confident today that Admiral Assmann is wrong? I thought you said that he was a good historian. He had not to go back very far. He only goes back 20 years.

RAEDER: A good historian can make mistakes too if his information is wrong. I merely said I had confidence in him...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say quite in detail—the first paragraph is about Japan.

RAEDER: Yes; what he says about the building of U-boats is wrong.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, let’s just see how far he was wrong. We needn’t go into the first paragraph which deals with shipbuilding for Japan, but take the second one: “In 1922...” Do you see the paragraph which begins:

“As early as 1922, three German shipbuilding yards established a
German U-boat designing office in Holland under a Dutch cover
name with about 30 engineers and designers. In 1925 a Dutch
shipbuilding yard built two 500-ton U-boats for Turkey according
to the plans of this bureau, which enjoyed the financial and
personal support of the Naval Command. In the solution of this
question, too, Kapitän zur See Lohmann was concerned
decisively.”

Is that right?

RAEDER: We have admitted that. That was in no way a violation of the Versailles Treaty.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We’ll not argue that, but it’s right anyway. Admiral Assmann’s right about that. Then he deals with Finland and with Spain. And, if you look at the end of the paragraph after dealing with Spain, he says:

“Already in the autumn of 1927 the Naval Designing Department
was commissioned to carry out construction in Spain by the Chief
of the Naval Command Staff, Admiral Zenker, who accepted the
responsibility despite all the difficulties in the field of home
politics. The working out of the project and the drawing up of
the construction plans took place in the Dutch Bureau. After
completion in 1931, the ship carried out trial runs and diving
exercises from Cadiz to Cartagena, under German direction and
with German personnel, consisting of officers, engineers, naval
construction students and foremen.”

That’s all. That’s quite right, isn’t it?

RAEDER: Yes, but the shipbuilding designer from our designing office, in particular, as well as the above-named other persons employed on U-boat construction, were discharged from the Navy.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And just look at the last sentence: “This boat which is now the Turkish submarine _Gür_ became the prototype for the _U-25_ and _U-26_.”

RAEDER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the 250-ton submarines which were made in Finland. And, if you look at the last sentence of the next paragraph:

“The Finnish U-boat was the first U-boat plan to be worked out
in Germany and successfully carried out; the Dutch bureau was
called upon only to work out the details.

“The Finnish 250-ton vessel became the prototype for _U-1_ to
_U-24._”

RAEDER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And now the next paragraph:

“The building and the thorough trial of the prototype vessel
made it possible to obtain the parts for _U-1_ to _U-24_ in 1933
to 1935, long before the order for the assembly of the vessels;
and the latter was prepared beforehand as far as was possible
without endangering secrecy.”

RAEDER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, would you turn on to Page 156. You see where the next quotation is from:

“At the beginning of 1935”—that is 6 months before the
Anglo-German Treaty—“there were probably six 250-ton boats
ready for assembly, six 275-ton and two 750-ton boats on which
preparatory work was being done. About 4 months were needed for
assembling the small ships and about 10 months for the big ones,
dating from 1 February 1935, but everything else was still quite
uncertain.”

Now, look at the next words:

“It is probably in this very sphere of submarine construction
that Germany adhered least to the restrictions of the
German-British Treaty.

“Considering the size of the U-boats which had already been
ordered, about 55 U-boats could have been provided for up to
1938. In reality 118 were completed and under construction.

“The preparations for the new U-boat arm were made so early, so
thoroughly and so carefully, that already 11 days after the
conclusion of the German-British Naval Treaty, which permitted
the construction of U-boats, the first German U-boat could be
put into commission on 29 June 1935.”

Now, take that sentence, which is written by Admiral Assmann, and we’ve seen what your connections with Assmann were through about 100 documents. He said: “It is probably in this very sphere of submarine construction that Germany adhered least to the restrictions of the German-British Treaty.”

Now, you’ve told this Tribunal for about several hours of your evidence that that was a freely negotiated treaty of which you were very proud and which you were ready to support. Are you telling the Tribunal that your admirals are wrong in saying that in submarine construction Germany adhered the least to the restrictions of that freely negotiated treaty?

RAEDER: That is a completely false judgment. I have stated here that, as long as no negotiations with Great Britain had taken place with regard to the pending agreement, all the preparations which we did make were exclusively attended to abroad—that in the proportion which probably...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, you can make your explanation...

RAEDER: Will you please stop interrupting me.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We’ll take it in this order, and don’t get cross about it. You answer my question, and then you make your explanation. Now answer my question first. Are you saying that Admiral Assmann is wrong in saying in that first sentence that it was just in the “sphere of submarine construction that Germany adhered least to the restrictions of the German-British Treaty.” Is Admiral Assmann wrong when he says that, is that what you’re telling the Tribunal? Well, that is my question.

RAEDER: He is wrong. I said so; I have already said so.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe these are not questions relating to facts. They are questions for legal decisions. It is a legal argument as to just how Article 191 of the Versailles Treaty is to be interpreted.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think that the question is quite proper. In his explanation, of course, he can explain that in his view it was not a breach of the Treaty and he has already explained that. He can give us his opinion about it. He was the head of the German Navy.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, will you take the second sentence...

RAEDER: But I should like to finish if I may. I can give an explanation of that.

All these things were only preparations made outside Germany. The point under discussion is whether the Finnish U-boats were constructed with the help of German designers. That is true. German designers were not forbidden to help Finnish designers to draft designs for U-boats. It is also true that this U-boat later...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I’m awfully sorry to interrupt you, but you know this isn’t dealing—this sentence isn’t dealing with this early period. This is dealing with the period after the Anglo-German Treaty in 1935 and that’s what I want you to answer me about. This Finnish matter was long before that.

RAEDER: I am still speaking of the period preceding the agreement, for I was accused of manufacturing U-boat parts abroad. And the fact is that...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I know, but don’t you see that...

RAEDER: I have not given my answer yet. No...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not asking you about that. I like you to answer the right question. I’m not asking you about the question of Versailles any longer. I’m asking you about Admiral Assmann’s assertion that you did not adhere to the restrictions of the German-British Treaty in 1935, and what you did in Finland in the 20’s has nothing to do with that. Now, that’s all. You can give your explanation.

RAEDER: That is entirely wrong. We particularly restricted ourselves with regard to the construction of U-boats; and in 1938 we had still not built the 45 percent which we were entitled to build, so we made an application for permission to build up to 100 percent; and this was agreed on, and came into effect, as appears from the text of the English treaty, after a friendly discussion with the British Admiralty at the end of 1938. At the beginning of the war we still did not have 100 percent. We were always behind with the construction of submarines.

Admiral Assmann, who probably had no up-to-date knowledge of these matters, is quite wrong. I can swear to that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just look at the next sentences. This is dealing...

RAEDER: What page are you speaking of?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Page 156. I will read it very slowly again:

“Considering the size of the U-boats which had already been
ordered, about 55 U-boats could have been provided for up to
1938. In reality 118 were completed and under construction.”

Are you saying that Admiral Assmann is wrong when he states that?

RAEDER: I am awfully sorry; I still have not got the passage from which you are reading, that is quite—which line...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Have you got the sentence, Defendant?

RAEDER: Yes, I have found it now.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, you see what Admiral Assmann says, that:

“Considering the size of the U-boats which had already been
ordered, about 55 U-boats could have been provided for up to
1938.” That is before there was any mention of going from 45 to
100. “In reality 118 were completed and under construction.”

Are you saying that Admiral Assmann is wrong in giving these figures?

RAEDER: Certainly. In 1939 we entered the war with 40 submarines—I do not know the exact number. This is either a misprint or quite an incredible figure. As you know, we started the war with—I think—26 U-boats capable of sailing the Atlantic, and in addition a number of smaller boats. I cannot tell you for certain now what was under construction at the beginning of the war but there was no intention of this kind. That was precisely the accusation made against me—that I did not have sufficient U-boats built in good time. I dispute the whole of that sentence.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You agree then, Defendant, that Admiral Assmann’s figures are quite incompatible with what you have told the Tribunal about the number of U-boats with which you started the war?

RAEDER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: I should be grateful to Sir David if he would read the entire sentence; that is, if he would also read Note 6, which appears after the Number 118 and after the word “ordered.” Note 6 which, as I have just observed, is not included in the English translation is worded as follows: “Chief of the Naval Budget Department, B. Number E 311/42, Top Secret, of 19 November 1942.”

The figure, Mr. President, refers to a much later period, not 1938 at all.

I should be extremely grateful if, after the experience we have just had, I could in future have not only the German document but also the English translation from Sir David. I should be very grateful to Sir David if he could have this done.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you not have the passage you want translated from the German into English by the time you want to re-examine? As I understand it, you are referring to some note which is an addition to what has been translated into English. Will you read it again, would you read the passage again?

DR. SIEMERS: Sir David has been reading the following: “In reality 118 were completed and under construction.”

That is as far as Sir David has read. After the word “ordered” there is the figure 6. This refers to Note 6. Note 6 is worded as follows: “Chief of the Naval Budget Department, B. Number E 311/42, Top Secret, of 19 November 1942. (Page 19).”

In other words, this shows that the Number 118 must have been mentioned on Page 19 of this document of the Naval Budget Department in 1942. The figure therefore does not refer to the year 1938 but to a later date.

RAEDER: I can add another explanation to that which is quite possible.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I will look into that, but the text says—and there is no difference in the German text—exactly what I read—that “about 55 could have been provided up to 1938 and that in reality 118 were ready and ordered.” That is Admiral Assmann’s text.

DR. SIEMERS: But not 1938.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Really, My Lord, my friend, Dr. Siemers, will have ample opportunity—if there is any point, I shall consider it, but there is the text, and the text includes that. What the footnote says, Dr. Siemers, can be put in re-examination.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Sir David, will you look at the note and see if the report was made in 1942, rather than the construction? I suggest that you ask him whether or not the note doesn’t show that the report was made in 1942.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Really, my translation of this note is “Chief of the Naval Budget Department.” Then it gives the reference to his note, dated 19 November 1942. It seems entirely to bear out the suggestion of the learned American Judge, that this is the reference to the report, nothing more. It is only suggesting that the date of construction was 1942, and I think it really would be a matter of convenience that, unless Dr. Siemers has got something to say on the text that I am putting, if he reserved these argumentative points to re-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, you can raise it all in re-examination. You can have a translation of this note laid before us by that time.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I am perfectly agreeable. I have merely requested that one copy of the English translation of the newly submitted documents should be given to me.

Mr. President, you will admit that it is a considerable handicap to me to ascertain during the cross-examination what passages are missing from the translation and translate them myself when the British Delegation have an English translation on hand. I think it might be easier if Sir David would be good enough to let me have an English translation for my own use.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you will be able to let him have an English translation of any new document?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. The Tribunal has ordered that. That is prepared. Surely you got the English translation? Certainly, My Lord. As I put each document, a translation will be given to Dr. Siemers.

THE PRESIDENT: There may have been some mistake.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You will certainly get it.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Now, we will pass to another gentleman on your staff. You told us a good deal about the naval budgets. Do you remember a Flottenintendant in your department, Secretary Flottenintendant Thiele, of the OKM Department E, the Budget Department of the German Admiralty? Do you remember?

RAEDER: Yes. Mr. Prosecutor, may I just say one more thing about the question of 118? I have just remembered something in connection with this Number 6, Chief of the Naval Budget Department. It is perfectly possible that in this case Admiral Assmann has taken two things together. All U-boats and ships were, of course, included in the budget and in this way sanctioned. This budget was drafted at the end of the year and published before the year to which it applied. As this large figure suddenly appears in this document, it is perfectly possible that here the Figure 118 originates on the basis of the agreement with England made on 30 or 31 December. It is perfectly natural that we should include in the budget all the other U-boats which we were allowed to build to complete the 100 percent. This does not necessarily mean that we started to build the U-boats in 1938. Incidentally I think we might have perhaps begun, because one can only build so and so many U-boats in any one year.

I think that this explanation, which occurred to me when I saw the words “Naval Budget Department,” is a perfectly correct one.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal has the wording; that is, “up to 1938,” and I am not going to argue the point with you. The words speak for themselves.

I would like you to look at Document Number D-855, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-461, and it is an extract from a lecture by the gentleman I have just mentioned, Herr Thiele, which was given at the German Naval Training Center for Administrative Officers in Prague on 12 July 1944. The extract I want to put to you is on Page 22, and it is headed “Ship Construction Plan.” Have you got that—Page 22, and the heading is “Ship Construction Plan”? You see the paragraph beginning:

“The era of the very large development of the Navy had therefore
come at the moment of the seizure of power. Already in the first
year after this, in March 1935, the construction of battle
cruisers with a displacement of 27,000 tons was undertaken. Such
a vessel was ordered to be constructed. Thus one of the clauses
of the Treaty of Versailles which was the most important for us
was at once violated in the naval sphere in a manner which in a
short time could no longer be camouflaged.”

Is not Flottenintendant Thiele right when he says that in his lecture?

RAEDER: Of course it was a violation, but I have explained here at length that there was no question of building new battle cruisers but of utilizing the two armored ships which had already been granted us; and I said that in 1934 Hitler had only given me permission to enlarge somewhat the plans for these ships, so that the armor might be heavier. I see from this that it was not until March 1935, when it was certain that the treaty would be concluded and also that England would allow us to build such ships through this treaty in a few months’ time that the Führer sanctioned the plans projected for the 26,500 ton ships which were to be the first of the battleships in the new program; and they were then begun. So that the three 28 cm turrets—that is, the offensive weapons which he had not yet approved in 1934—were thrown in.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This gentleman seems to agree with you more than the other. Just look at what he says about U-boats two sentences further on. He says:

“The U-boats were completed in separate parts, as their
construction was under no circumstances to be apparent to the
outside world. These parts were stored in sheds for the time
being and needed only to be assembled after the declaration of
freedom to rearm.”

Is not Flottenintendant Thiele right on that point?

RAEDER: Yes, he is right. We have admitted that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let us look at his next point.

RAEDER: Perhaps I can complete my explanation? We...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do try to keep it as short as you can. I don’t want to cut you out, but keep it as short as you can.

RAEDER: Of course, but I must complete my defense.

We had U-boat parts manufactured abroad and only at the beginning of 1935 did we bring them in and assemble them, when the naval treaty was certain.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. You say you were anticipating the treaty; well now, just look at what he says after that:

“The third also of those clauses of the Treaty of Versailles
that was most disadvantageous for us, the limitation of
personnel to 15,000 men, was immediately ignored after the
seizure of power. The total personnel of the Navy was already
25,000 in 1934, and in 1935, the year of the London Naval
Agreement, 34,000 men.”

Is not Flottenintendant Thiele right on that? Is that right?

RAEDER: Yes, that is admitted. It was clear that we had to train personnel in good time so that crews might be available for our increased naval forces.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now I just want you to look for a moment at the document which is on Page 3 of Document Book 10, which you did refer to in your examination-in-chief. That is Document C-23, about the displacement of the _Scharnhorst_ and the _Gneisenau_ and the _Tirpitz_ and the _Bismarck_ and the other ships.

Now, you are familiar with that document; we have discussed it.

RAEDER: Yes. I know the documents.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, that is dated the 18th of February, 1938. Germany didn’t denounce the Anglo-German Naval Treaty until after the British guarantee to Poland in April 1939, which is 14 months later. Why didn’t you simply send a notification to Great Britain that the displacements had come out 20 percent bigger because of defensive matters in construction? Why didn’t you do it?

RAEDER: I cannot tell you that today. We explained recently how the displacements gradually increased through quite insignificant changes to our own detriment.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Really, Defendant, I have got that well in mind. We have got the reason why the displacements came out bigger, and I don’t think you are prejudicing yourself if you don’t repeat it, but just look at the bottom of that page, because I think you will find the reason which you can’t remember there; won’t you?

“In the opinion of A IV, it would be quite wrong to report a
larger tonnage than that which will probably be published
shortly, for instance, by England, Russia, or Japan, so as not
to bring upon ourselves the odium of an armament race.”

Isn’t that the reason?

RAEDER: Yes, that was intended for a future date. We wished in no circumstance to create the impression that we were increasing the offensive power of our ships.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I am going to pass to another subject, and I want to put quite shortly and bluntly, as you will appreciate, the point the Prosecution puts to you, that for 20 years, from 1918 to 1938, you and the German Navy had been involved in a course of complete, cold and deliberate deception of your treaty obligations. That is what I am putting to you. Do you understand? After these documents, do you deny that that is so?

RAEDER: Of course. It was not a cold-blooded affair. All our evasions of the Versailles Treaty were due to our desire to be able to defend our country more efficiently than we had been allowed to. I have proved here that in the Versailles regulations the only points restricted were those unfavorable to the defense of our country and favoring aggression from without. As regards the ships, I may add that we could never complete any very great number of ships, and consequently we were interested in increasing as far as possible the power of resistance, that is, their seagoing security, _et cetera_. At no time did we increase the offensive power above the strength which was permitted.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I want you to understand what my next series of questions is directed to. I don’t want there to be any misapprehension. I am now going to suggest to you that these breaches of treaty and your naval plans were directed toward the possibility, and then the probability of war. I would just like you to take the same document that I have been dealing with, C-23. We will use that to pass from one to the other.

Would you turn to Page 5 of Document Book 10, and there you will see that there is a memorandum, I think of the Planning Committee to the Flottenchef, Admiral Carls. We have heard your view of Admiral Carls, that you thought he was a very good officer, and in fact he was your first choice for your successor.

Now, that is in September 1938, and it is a top secret opinion on the strategic study of naval warfare against England, and you see “A” says:

“There is full agreement with the main theme of the study.”

Now, look at Paragraph 1:

“If, according to the Führer’s decision, Germany is to acquire a
position as a world power, she needs not only sufficient
colonial possessions, but also secure naval communications and
secure access to the oceans.”

Do you agree with that, Defendant?

RAEDER: Yes, that is correct. I know the whole document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, look at 2:

“Both these requirements can only be fulfilled in opposition to
Anglo-French interests, and would limit their position as world
powers. It is unlikely that this can be achieved by peaceful
means. The decision to make Germany a world power, therefore,
forces upon us the necessity of making corresponding
preparations for war.”

Do you agree with that?

RAEDER: Yes, that is all quite correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, let’s take 3:

“War against England means at the same time war against the
Empire, against France, probably against Russia as well, and a
large number of countries overseas—in fact, against half to
two-thirds of the whole world.”

I needn’t ask you about that, because the facts have shown it.

Now, look at the next: “It can only be justified....”

RAEDER: Yes, but I must be allowed to comment on that document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh certainly, I’m sorry. We got on so quickly I thought we were not going to have any explanation.

RAEDER: In 1938, as has been stated here quite often, the Führer’s attitude towards Great Britain became more difficult in spite of all the efforts of General Von Blomberg and myself to tell him that it was not so on England’s side, and that it was possible to live in peace with England. In spite of that the Führer ordered us to prepare for possible opposition by England to his plans. He for his part never contemplated a war of aggression against Great Britain; and we in the Navy still much less; in fact, I have proved that I did nothing but try to dissuade him from that. In 1938 he ordered us to make a study similar to those we had already made in the case of other possibilities of war—which it was the duty of the Wehrmacht Command to do—but dealing with the course which a war against England might take and what we would require for it. This study was prepared, and I reported to the Führer that we could never increase our fighting forces to such an extent that we could undertake a war against England with any prospect of success—it would have been madness for me to say such a thing. I told him—that has repeatedly been mentioned—that by 1944 or 1945 we might build up a small naval force with which we could start an economic war against England or seize her commercial shipping routes, but that we would never really be in a position to defeat England with that force. I sent this study, which was compiled under my guidance in the Naval Operations Staff, to Generaladmiral Carls who was very clear-sighted in all such questions. He thought it his duty to explain in this introduction of his reply, which agreed with our opinion, the consequences which such a war against Great Britain would have for ourselves, namely, that it would bring about a new world war, which neither he nor we in the Navy nor anyone in the Armed Forces wanted—in my opinion, not even Hitler himself, as I proved the other day—hence this statement. He said that if we must have war with England, it was essential that we should first of all have access to the ocean and, secondly, that we should attack English trade on the sea route of the Atlantic. Not that he proposed that we, on our part, should embark on such a venture. He was only thinking of the case of such a war breaking out very much against our will. It was our duty to go thoroughly into the matter.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He says that, “The war against it”—that is the war against England—“can only be justified and have a chance of success if it is prepared economically as well as politically and militarily.” Then you go on to say “waged with the aim of conquering for Germany an outlet to the ocean.”

Now, I just want to see how you prepared.

RAEDER: Yes, that is quite clear and quite correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let’s just look how you had begun to prepare economically. Let’s take that first, as you put it first.

Would you look at Document C-29, which is Page 8.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, hadn’t we better break off now before going into this?

[_A recess was taken._]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I told you, Defendant, that I was next going to ask you a question about Document C-29, which is on Page 8 of the English Document Book 10 and on Pages 13 and 14 of the German document book. You will remember, this document gives general directions for export given by the German Navy to the German armament industry...

RAEDER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: ...and you told us when you were dealing with the document that you wanted your service not to be small-minded about matters of a not very high secrecy but, in addition to that, your general policy was that the German armament firms should develop a foreign trade so that they would have the capacity to deal with the increased demands of the German Navy as soon as possible. Is that right, is that a fair summary, or shall I repeat it?

RAEDER: Yes, but it must be added that I said in two places that we hoped at that time that the Treaty of Versailles would be relaxed, because it was a comparatively favorable period for negotiations for disarmament and we already had the governments headed by Von Papen and Von Schleicher, both of whom showed great understanding for the needs of the Armed Forces and therefore fought hard for that at the disarmament conference. So a definitely legal development might be hoped for in this direction; and on the other hand, our entire industry was unable to cope with armaments production except on an insignificant scale and had therefore to be increased. I again stress the fact that it had nothing to do with the Hitler regime. That decree just happened to come out on 31 January.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don’t think you are really disagreeing with me that your policy, your broad economic policy for the German armament industry, was to develop its export trade so as to be able to deal with increased home requirements in future years; that is what you advocated, isn’t it, that the German armament industry should at once increase its export trade so as to be able to deal with increased home requirements when these requirements arose? Isn’t that right?

RAEDER: Yes, that is correct but I do not quite understand that expression. Did you say “Eigenhandel” or “Eisenhandel”—internal trade or iron trade? I did not quite hear the expression—“Eigenhandel” or “Eisenhandel”?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “Aussenhandel” (Foreign Trade).

RAEDER: “Aussenhandel”—yes, undoubtedly we wanted to be able to compete industrially with other nations, so that our industry would be in favorable position, and would gain strength.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I will ask you to turn to Document Number C-135, which is Page 21 of the—sorry My Lord, Page 20 of the English document book and Page 73 of the German document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Book 10.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Book 10, My Lord, yes.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Now, you remember that document, you dealt with it? You said...

RAEDER: Yes, it was dealt with in the Lohmann affidavit.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it is a document of the—I think, in April 1933, judging by the dates which I put to you a moment ago, and you said to the Tribunal in giving your evidence that it was mere chance that the year 1938 was mentioned; that that was the same period as has been dealt with.

RAEDER: It has already been stated several times that the year 1938 was mentioned.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Has it been mentioned in some Weimar Republic document? Will you just look at the second last paragraph; that will be on your Page 74, Page 21 of the English document. It is in the middle paragraph of Paragraph 3:

“Now Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler had made the clear political
request to build up for him in 5 years, that is, by the first of
April 1938, armed forces which he could place in the balance as
an instrument of political power.”

Is that sure, that Hitler had made a clear political request?

RAEDER: Yes, as far as I remember, he demanded a sort of five year plan in 1933 the last year of which, 1938, happened to coincide with the 1938 mentioned in our substitute plan for subsurface construction, and that directive had obviously been given for the whole of the Armed Forces; since the naval agreement, which gave us the right to arm only in the proportion of 1:3 and not in accordance with any special plans, had become the basis for the Navy as early as 1935.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The point that I want to deal with is this: Did Hitler tell you that he wanted these forces to place in the balance as an instrument of political power, did he tell you that?

RAEDER: I can no longer tell you that; but I believe that it is a perfectly ordinary expression to say that one uses one’s armed forces as an instrument which could also be thrown into the scales at political negotiations, so that we need no longer be kicked around by the different nations, as had so far been the case. In my opinion, no suspicion attaches to the expression.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: To put it bluntly, Hitler was telling you, “by 1938 I want armed forces that I can use in war, if war should become necessary.” That is what it means, isn’t it? That is what you understood it to mean, isn’t that right?

RAEDER: No. There was no word about a war, only about the fact that we had to keep our position among the other nations so that we could no longer be tossed aside, as had hitherto been the case.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If anyone tried to push you over, you could fight; that is it, wasn’t it?

RAEDER: That is obvious. That would be the case, of course, if we were attacked. We wanted to be in a position to defend ourselves if we were attacked. Up till that point we were unable to do this.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, just let us take the first example, when you contemplated fighting. If you look at Document Book 10a, Document Number C-140, Page 104 of the English translation and Page 157 of the German version, you remember that is the directive of Field Marshal Von Blomberg on Germany leaving the disarmament conference and League of Nations. And there, there is a pretty full general directive as to what military measures you would take if the members of the League of Nations applied sanctions against you; in other words you were quite prepared...

RAEDER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: ...for a war happening on that peace policy; that is so, isn’t it, and that is what it says, it gives all preparations ready for fighting?

RAEDER: These preparations were made, if I remember correctly, 11 days after we had left the League of Nations, and it was quite natural that, if the Führer believed that in consequence of our leaving the League of Nations, which was quite a peaceful action in itself, warlike measures or sanctions would be applied against us, we would have to defend ourselves; and if such an attack was probable we had to take these preparatory steps.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So you realized, Defendant, that as early as October 1933 the course of Hitler’s foreign policy might have brought about an immediate war, did you not?

RAEDER: No, I did not expect at all that such a measure as the secession from the League of Nations, where we had always been treated unjustly because we had no power behind us, would result in a war with any other power. Nevertheless, it was right to take such eventualities into consideration.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. That is good enough for me.

Now, just let us look at the same document book, Document Number C-153, on Page 107 of the English version and Page 164 to 167 of the German version. That is, you will remember, your armament plan for the third armament phase, and I would just like you first of all to look at Paragraph 3.

In (a) and (b) of Paragraph 3 you give the general basis for your arrangements:

“(a) For the military leaders a sound basis for their strategic
considerations, and

“(b) For the political leaders a clear picture of what may be
achieved with the military means available at a given time.”

RAEDER: Yes, it is quite obvious that such a plan would have this purpose.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that your political leaders were to make their plans on what armed forces you had available for war, if necessary. That was what you were contemplating then, was it not?

RAEDER: Yes, that is a matter of course; I reported to the Führer that I could put a certain military strength at his disposal during that year. The Chief of State must know that in order to know what he can count on. But that has nothing to do with plans for war. That is the case in every state. On the other hand, I cannot influence the political leader as to what he wants. I can only report what I could have. Therefore, I had nothing to do with political matters. I only did what is necessary and what is done in every state.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And just look at Paragraph 7.

I am not going to argue with you as to whether states base their foreign politics on things other than war as a matter of argument, but look at Paragraph 7: “All theoretical and practical R-preparations (armament) are to be drawn up with a primary view to readiness for a sudden war.”

That is that you, as far as the Navy was concerned, you had to be ready then for an immediate war footing, have the Navy on an immediate war footing, isn’t that right?

RAEDER: No, no. This concerns the sequence of the things to be taken for granted. The armament plan listed the most important immediate requirements of the Navy and at that point I say here that this applied to weapons to be used in a war where there was no time to prepare and that is, in plain language, the mobile fleet, which must be in a state of constant readiness. It had to be kept ready for action at a moment’s notice and it had to receive priority. All other matters, such as quarters, and things that had nothing to do with direct combat, were attended to afterwards.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought that is what I put to you, that the fleet had to be ready and ready for war. However, you have given your account of it.

Just turn over, if you will be so good, to Page 66 of Document Book 10, Page 285 of the German document book; Document Number C-189, My Lord.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Now, I want to raise just this one point on which you made a point in your examination and which I must challenge. You say in Paragraph 2:

“The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy expresses the opinion that
later on”—and I ask you to note the words “later on”—“the
fleet must anyhow be developed against England and that
therefore from 1936 onwards the large ships must be armed with
35 centimeter guns.”

Now, are you telling the Tribunal, that “gegen England” does not mean “against” in the sense of in antagonism to, directed against, in opposition to—that it merely means in comparison to? Are you seriously saying that, are you?

RAEDER: I explained the other day that we are dealing here with the question of keeping up with other navies. Up to that time we were keeping up with the French Navy which had 33 cm guns. Then England went beyond that in mounting 35.6 cm guns on her ships and then, as I said before, France went beyond England in using 38 cm guns. Thus I said to the Führer that our 28 cm guns which we believed we could use against the French _Dunkerque_ class would not be heavy enough, and that we would have to take the next bigger caliber, that is 35.6 like those of the English ships. That was never done because the French began to use 38 cm guns and our _Bismarck_ class followed the French lines.

That comparison of calibers and classes of vessels was at that time quite customary and was also...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You told us all that before and my question is a perfectly simple one; that this document in the original German, when you say “gegen England” is exactly the same as in your song _Wir fahren gegen England_. It means against, in antagonism and directed against, and not in comparison. That is what I am putting to you and it is a perfectly short point.

Are you telling this Tribunal that “gegen England” means in comparison with England?

RAEDER: That is what I want to say; because it says “develop gegen England” and at that time we had not even signed the Naval Agreement. It is hardly likely that I would consider following an anti-British policy.