Chapter XIV: Book 4: , Page 28 of the English book, and just look at Captain (5)

THE PRESIDENT: Read the document now and you can settle with Mr. Elwyn Jones about the proper notation of the document, whether it should be C-140 or whatever the exhibit number ought to be.

DR. SIEMERS: [_Turning to the defendant._] In the version submitted by the Prosecution, preparation for the defense against sanctions is mentioned. I shall now read a further sentence to you, and I quote, “For the time being, I prohibit all practical preparations.” Would it be right, therefore, that in 1933 nothing whatever was prepared by you in the Navy?

RAEDER: No. Apart from the ordinary state of preparedness, nothing was allowed to be done, in accordance with this order. This was merely a precaution on the Führer’s part in order to take preparative measures in case the opponent might do something.

DR. SIEMERS: You see, the reason why I am asking you this is that yesterday in the cross-examination the preparations that you were supposed to have made in this connection were held against you.

I now come to Document C-189, which is USA-44. I beg to apologize for troubling the Tribunal in that I am asking them, if possible, to look at the document again. It is contained in Document Book Raeder 10, Page 14; and, incidentally, Sir David re-submitted it yesterday. Sir David attached great importance to the two words “against England.” There under Figure 2 it says:

“The Ob.d.M. expresses the opinion that later on the fleet must
anyhow be developed against England and that, therefore, from
1936 onward, the large ships must be armed with 35 centimeter
guns like those of the _King George_ class.”

Would this mean that you were using the plans of the English for building ships of the _King George_ class?

The only reason, therefore, why you were pointing this out was that you were considering the 35 centimeter guns used in the _King George_ class by the British Admiralty?

RAEDER: Yes, it was the aim of every navy at that time to know as early as possible which was the largest caliber of guns being used by other navies. I said yesterday that, to start with, we had chosen as a model the French _Dunkerque_ type, but later on we discovered that the British used up to 35.6 centimeters. Ships have to be used, if war breaks out, in their actual state; their gun caliber cannot be changed any more. Therefore we always went as high as possible.

DR. SIEMERS: Would I be right, therefore—please excuse me—if I said that the expression “against Britain” in this connection is not correct grammatically, that according to German language usage it should have said “with reference to England”?

RAEDER: Yes, it should have said “developing with regard to England.” I said yesterday that it would have been quite senseless if I were to do something against Great Britain before the conclusion of the pact.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, that was fully gone into in cross-examination, and the defendant stated his explanation of the words used.

DR. SIEMERS: From Document C-190, which is the conversation on 2 November 1934 aboard the _Emden_ between you and Hitler, Sir David has held up to you that Hitler, in a discussion with you and Göring, said that he considered the expansion of the Navy in the planned manner an absolutely vital necessity, since war could not be conducted unless the Navy safeguarded the ore imports from Scandinavia. It was said that this would have to be understood to mean that the Navy was planned in view of a war and in view of safeguarding the ore imports, which really meant aggressive intentions. Are you of the opinion that the British Navy was not planned to safeguard imports to England or for the event of war and was not equipped accordingly?

RAEDER: No, there is not the slightest doubt about that.

DR. SIEMERS: Six submarines are mentioned in this document. Considering that figure, may I ask you to tell me the number of submarines that Germany would have needed in order to conduct an aggressive war?

RAEDER: Well, at any rate, many more than we had in October 1939, a multiple of that.

DR. SIEMERS: From a document, Mr. President, which was submitted yesterday, D-806, I want to quote, in addition to the second paragraph which has been quoted, the first paragraph and put it to the witness. It is D-806, GB-462, submitted yesterday at noon.

[_Turning to the defendant._] There it says:

“1.) Reference: Submarine Construction Program. On 27 October
1936 I made decision regarding the full utilization of the still
available U-boat tonnage according to the Naval Agreement of
1935 and regarding the immediate ordering of the construction of
_U-41_ to _U-51_.”

Were these the rest of the submarines within the 45 percent limit to which we were entitled according to the Naval Agreement of 1935?

RAEDER: Yes, that is right, judging from the figures.

DR. SIEMERS: And then, Admiral, you have been very thoroughly questioned about Austria and Czechoslovakia. Since that subject has been gone into in detail, I shall confine myself to just one question: Did you, at any time, receive any tasks or orders of a foreign political nature from Hitler? And did he ask you for your advice especially in foreign political matters?

RAEDER: I was never asked for advice, and I had no foreign political tasks, unless you consider the duties which I had to fulfill in Bulgaria and Hungary after my resignation of a foreign political nature.

DR. SIEMERS: Regarding Czechoslovakia, that is, concerning the document about the “Rest Tschechei,” you were asked whether Hitler had aggressive intentions against Prague at that time. I think the question ought to have been whether his intentions were for an aggressive war.

In connection with that, you have been asked about Göring’s threat to bombard Prague, and you quite rightly admitted to Sir David that such a bombing would be a threat. Sir David commented on it as being near to aggressive war; but in order to be quite clear, I want you to tell the Tribunal when you learned of this planned bombing.

RAEDER: Only after the whole matter had been settled, and only by way of conversation. I heard no announcement and I knew nothing else of it beforehand.

DR. SIEMERS: So you knew nothing of it before the occupation of Prague?

RAEDER: No, because military undertakings against Prague were altogether unknown to me.

DR. SIEMERS: Then there is the Document C-100. Mr. President, it was presented yesterday under the Number GB-464.

THE PRESIDENT: 463, I’ve got it.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon; 463.

[_Turning to the defendant._] From that document I want to quote to you from Page 10. It is Page 3 of the attached document. I want to put the following sentence to you. I quote:

“Führer asked Ob.d.M. whether there were any special wishes of
the Navy with reference to bases on Dutch-Belgian coast. Ob.d.M.
says no, since bases are within reach of the British coast and
are therefore useless as submarine bases.”

According to this, Witness, you were not in favor of an occupation of Belgian and Dutch bases, nor did you in any way occupy yourself with this question.

RAEDER: This was always my point of view, that from the experience of the first World War Belgium and Holland, as far as the Navy was concerned, could not offer any useful bases, since all forces were under the control of the British Air Force. In the first World War serious fighting occurred between the submarines leaving their ports and destroyers stationed nearby. Therefore I declared myself not to be interested in Belgium and Holland.

DR. SIEMERS: Skipping various documents, I now come to D-843, GB-466. This is a document in which Dr. Breuer from the Oslo Embassy expresses the view that the danger of a British occupation of Norway was not really very great and that certain actions were only taken in order to provoke Germany.

I have one more question on that. Did the Embassy in Oslo, that is to say Breuer, know about the information that Admiral Canaris was supplying to you?

RAEDER: I cannot tell you that, as far as I am concerned. I was never in direct contact with Dr. Breuer, only with the naval attaché; but I must add that Dr. Breuer had only been in Oslo for a comparatively short period and that apparently he was not particularly well informed. The statements made by Norwegian Ministers were certainly not properly judged by him.

DR. SIEMERS: Was there not an order from Hitler that the Foreign Office should not be informed about probable plans concerning Norway?

RAEDER: Yes, he expressly ordered that, and it is obvious that for that reason the Reich Foreign Minister himself was informed very late.

DR. SIEMERS: In other words, as far as you can see, the ambassador could not have had Canaris’ information through military sources.

RAEDER: No, hardly.

DR. SIEMERS: Then there were several documents, D-844 and D-845. It was put to you from those that there was no danger in Scandinavia. Was the information that you received at the time different?

RAEDER: Yes. I had continual information...

THE PRESIDENT: All this was gone into yesterday, and the witness gave the same answer.

DR. SIEMERS: I believe that the following has never been mentioned before. Did you know whether as early as 5 April mines had been laid in the territorial waters off Norway?

RAEDER: The Allies had announced it on 7 April, but the actual operations must have taken place a few days earlier.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, yesterday...

THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing_] Dr. Siemers, the only purpose of re-examination is to bring out matters which are favorable to your client which have not been raised in cross-examination, that is to say, to explain anything which has not been given in cross-examination. When he has given this account in cross-examination it is no good putting it to him again in re-examination. We have heard it.

DR. SIEMERS: I think that on this particular point one explanation is missing.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Yesterday you were asked, rather unexpectedly, what had been the technical changes since 1936 and how the legal situation regarding submarine warfare would have been influenced thereby.

RAEDER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: It is a somewhat difficult question to answer in two seconds. You have mentioned aircraft. Can you not supplement your statement?

RAEDER: Yes, I forgot the most important point due to the fact that there was a rather lively controversy. The important point is that the spotting of vessels at sea by aircraft was something quite new and had been developed very efficiently. That development continued very rapidly during the war, until submarines could very quickly be located and pursued.

DR. SIEMERS: Regarding D-841, which is the affidavit from Dietmann, may I, with the Tribunal’s permission, make a formal application? In this affidavit, there is the following sentence:

“It is my personal opinion that the higher authorities of the
Navy in Kiel and other places in Germany had knowledge of these
dreadful things.”

THE PRESIDENT: It isn’t “had knowledge” but “must have had knowledge.” It seems to me it is in the translation “must have had knowledge.”

DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I have not got the German and I do not know how the original is worded. I only have the English translation. It is not quite clear to me how the German version was worded. May I ask the Tribunal...

THE PRESIDENT: Is the document put in in the original German or is it put in in the English? The deposition is in German presumably.

DR. SIEMERS: I presume that originally the statement was in German. The copy I have states that this is a translation and that is English, but I have not seen the German original.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there must have been a German copy for the witness yesterday. I don’t know whether or not it is the original. I didn’t see it but I assume it was.

THE PRESIDENT: It isn’t the case that the deposition was made in German, then translated into English, and then translated back into German, was it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is why I assume it was the original. I am sorry this was done. I haven’t got the original document in front of me but I assume that was so. I will find out in a moment for you.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What is the point, Dr. Siemers?

DR. SIEMERS: I believe that this sentence should be struck from the document. It does not record a fact.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean you are asking to have it struck out or...

DR. SIEMERS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you say, Sir David?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the witness sets out fully the facts in the preceding paragraphs of the affidavit and then it is true that he introduces the sentence “By my personal opinion....” but the gist of the statement is that from these facts which I have stated the higher formations of the Navy in Kiel and in other places in Germany must have had knowledge of these terrible conditions. A man who has been working in that detachment of the German Navy and knows the communications between that detachment and the headquarters is in a position to say whether headquarters would have knowledge from the facts he has stated. His inference has a greater probative value than the inference which the Court can draw. The objection to the statement of a matter of opinion is where the witness gives his opinion on a matter on which the Court is equally capable of drawing an opinion from the same facts, but the importance of that statement is that he is saying “working in the bow and being familiar with the chain of command and communications.” I say that anyone at Kiel must have been able to learn from these facts what was going on at these places—so that is the narrow point, whether his special knowledge entitles him to express a view which the Court, without that special knowledge, would not be in a position to draw.

THE PRESIDENT: But ought he not theoretically to state all the facts; and if he does state all the facts, then the Tribunal will be in the same position as he is to form a judgment; and it is for the Tribunal to form the judgment.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is exactly the point to which I was addressing my argument, that there is the additional fact, that because he was working there, was part of the chain of naval command and he is speaking of the knowledge of the naval command from the point of view of somebody who was working in it, and, therefore, he has on that point his opinion as to the sources of knowledge; and the necessity of constructive knowledge is an additional fact. My Lord, the state of a man’s mind and the expression of his knowledge may be a fact in certain circumstances, just as much a fact as that stated, as Lord Bowen once put it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if the state of his knowledge is directly relevant to an issue.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is the point here.

THE PRESIDENT: It is a form of expert evidence.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in a sense, it is not as Your Lordship says, in a form, it is not in a usual form, but it is the evidence of somebody who has special knowledge. My Lord, it is a well-known distinction, for example, in the laws of libel between the persons who have expert knowledge and the public at large; and, My Lord, the opinion of someone with a special knowledge of the facts must have probative value within Article 19 of the Charter. My Lord, if the provision that this Tribunal is not bound by the technical rules of evidence is to mean anything at all, I submit it should cover the expression of opinion on a point such as this; that is the ability to have knowledge, which is given by somebody who is in a special position to state such an opinion.

THE PRESIDENT: It is a very small point, Sir David, and we have got to decide the matter and form our own opinion about it; and this man isn’t here for the purpose of being cross-examined for anything of that sort.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, that is so, My Lord, but, of course that, with respect, cuts both ways. I mean here he gives an affidavit and part of it as the basis leads up to that conclusion. I should respectfully submit that that conclusion is a statement of fact—but, if Your Lordship says so, the time will come when we can ask Your Lordship to draw that conclusion as a matter of argument ourselves; but, My Lord, on the general position, the only reason that I have occupied even this much of the Tribunal’s time is that Article 19 is an important matter in the view of the Prosecution and, therefore, we have to argue against its being whittled down. It is the only reason that I’ve taken up the Tribunal’s time.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I just draw your attention to one point. Sir David has just been mentioning the well-known legal difference. That is just what I want to base my argument on, the difference between facts and opinions. Here it is a question of opinion and please note the following sentence does even go further; there, the witness is coming to a legal opinion and he is stating who is responsible; therefore, he is passing some sort of judgment. Furthermore, I beg you to consider that this is quite a minor official who, after all, cannot possibly make statements of such portent to the effect that higher formations in Kiel and some other places in Germany—he is quite vague—had some sort of knowledge.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, before the Tribunal adjourn, might I make a correction and an apology? My Lord, I thought that a copy in German had been put to the witness yesterday—of this affidavit; and apparently it was a copy in English. The original affidavit was sent off on the 6th of May; it was verified over the telephone by Colonel Phillimore and it has not yet arrived. An English copy was sent and has been processed and the original will be put in as soon as it arrives. My Lord, I thought that we had got the original but apparently it has not yet arrived, but it is an English document put to the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you let Dr. Siemers see the original as soon as it arrives?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has carefully considered Dr. Siemers’ application and it has decided that the passage to which he objects and which he asks the Tribunal to strike out in the affidavit of Walter Kurt Dietmann shall not be struck out in view of Article 19 of the Charter. The passage contains an opinion only, and the Tribunal will consider that opinion in relation to the whole of the evidence when it is before the Tribunal and will decide at that time the probative value of this opinion as well as the probative value of the other evidence.

DR. SIEMERS: Then I just have...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, may I remind you that you told us that your re-examination would take, you hoped, about half an hour?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Mr. President, I shall conclude very shortly.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Admiral, in connection with this Commando decree which we discussed a good deal, Sir David yesterday put a case to you regarding the attack on the ship _Tirpitz_. In this connection I should like to ask you: Do you recall that in the testimony of Wagner there was the question of a British sailor named Evans?

RAEDER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: And do you recall also that, according to the affidavit of Flesch, Number D-864, GB-457, Flesch declared, “I am unaware of the fact that Evans wore a uniform”?

RAEDER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Then I do not need to submit the document to you?

RAEDER: No, I recall it.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you recall further that it is said in Document UK-57, submitted on the same day as Wagner’s testimony: “The British sailor Evans was captured wearing civilian clothing”?

RAEDER: Yes. I have the document here.

DR. SIEMERS: And that was one case where the SD, obeying the Commando order, committed a murder without the knowledge of the Navy?

RAEDER: Yes. This man had been apprehended by the SD or the Police, not by the Navy. He had only been interrogated in the meantime by the admiral.

DR. SIEMERS: The second case of which you are accused is the sabotage attack on German ships near Bordeaux. I clarified this situation in Wagner’s testimony the other day.

Do you recall that his document also states that these men tried to escape to Spain in civilian clothes?

RAEDER: Yes, that is true.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, when using the small fighter craft mentioned yesterday under the command of Vice Admiral Heye, did our soldiers ever wear civilian clothing?

RAEDER: No, never.

DR. SIEMERS: Always in uniform?

RAEDER: Yes, always in uniform. These craft were a weapon just like submarines, speed boats, _et cetera_.

DR. SIEMERS: As my last point, Mr. President, I should like to point out that yesterday Colonel Pokrovsky submitted a document, USSR-460, which deals with the Moscow notes.

COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, the point is that yesterday the Tribunal made a decision about submitting to the attorneys for the Defense extracts from USSR-460. Today the prosecutors have exchanged opinions among themselves; and the Prosecution of the United States, represented by Mr. Dodd; Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe for Great Britain; and myself for Russia, have agreed that it is necessary for us to request you to permit us to read into the record here today the three brief extracts referring to Dönitz, to Keitel, and to Jodl so that they will be included in the record. These are the excerpts which yesterday the Tribunal did not allow to have read into the record as evidence. If we understood the Tribunal rightly it was due to lack of time as the session was dragging on.

Due to these circumstances these three extremely important excerpts—important from our point of view—the accuracy of which was confirmed yesterday by the Defendant Dönitz, have not been included in the transcript of the session. For that reason I am requesting just about 5 minutes time to read these excerpts into the record today, on behalf of the Prosecution of the three countries.

THE PRESIDENT: What would be the most convenient course, Dr. Siemers? Would you like to have them read now so that you can put any questions upon them?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I make some remarks about this document? The Soviet Delegation has been kind enough to put the original at my disposal. I perused the original yesterday, and I looked at the extracts. The Soviet Delegation desires to retain the original but has also been kind enough to put instead a photostatic copy of the extracts involved at the disposal of the High Tribunal. I am completely in agreement with the suggestion, but I personally do not have the intention of putting any questions on this document, which is clear to me.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. SIEMERS: And so I would like to ask that the resolution put forth by the High Tribunal yesterday be upheld, that this should not be read, just as other documents were not read out either.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the document was originally in German. Presumably it has been translated into Russian; it has certainly been translated into English. Unless the French members of the French Prosecution want it read if it hasn’t been translated into French there doesn’t seem to be any use in taking up the time of the Tribunal by reading it into the record. We have got the document in English, and we have all read it.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I think there is one reason. Even if it is read into the record, it will at least be tomorrow before the transcript is available for the defendants who are referred to, and this witness, or this defendant, will be off the stand. If they want to cross-examine about what he has said about them, then we will have, I suppose, to bring this defendant back on the stand. I think we will lose far more time by doing that, rather than now having Colonel Pokrovsky take 5 minutes to read it. They will all hear it, and then if they want to examine about it, they can do so promptly.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, very well.

Dr. Siemers, if you don’t want to ask any questions about it, you can conclude your re-examination now, and then Colonel Pokrovsky can read the document. Then any of the other defendants can question the witness if they want to, upon it.

DR. SIEMERS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that not be the best way, Colonel Pokrovsky?

COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, certainly.

DR. SIEMERS: I agree, Mr. President, but I do believe that this document need not be read, because Mr. Dodd was somewhat mistaken when he said that the defendants are not familiar with this document. They and their counsel are thoroughly familiar with it. I believe everyone knows it, and I do not think that it needs to be read. However, in the final analysis, it really makes very little difference to me personally.

THE PRESIDENT: If the defendants’ counsel do not want it read then the Tribunal does not want to have it read unless defendants’ counsel want to ask questions upon it.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, I, as defense counsel for Admiral Dönitz, am not interested in having the document read. I know the document.

DR. SIEMERS: I have just been advised that the Defense Counsel know the document and do not put any value on having it read nor do they wish to put any questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Well then, Mr. Dodd and Colonel Pokrovsky, it does not seem that it serves any useful purpose to have it read.

MR. DODD: No, I am satisfied, Your Honor. I have not heard from Keitel’s attorney; I assume he is satisfied. I am just concerned that at some later date—a very interesting document to us, of course—and I am just concerned some question may be raised and I am also sympathetic to the desires of these defendants not to have it read publicly.

The Defendant Schacht’s counsel has not spoken either. I think it might be well, Mr. President, if we had a careful statement from counsel for each of these men that they do not want to question or, if so, that we can be completely sure that it will not be raised again.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the defendants’ counsel are all here or all the defendants are represented and they must clearly understand what I am saying and I take it from their silence that they acquiesce in what Dr. Siemers has said, that they do not wish the document to be read and they do not wish to ask any questions.

COL. POKROVSKY: I have not understood your decision, My Lord. Are you permitting me to read into the record these few excerpts or are you not?

THE PRESIDENT: No, Colonel Pokrovsky; I am saying that as the defendants’ counsel do not wish the document to be read it need not be read.

COL. POKROVSKY: We do give a great deal of importance and significance to this document as it involves not only the interests of the Defense but also the interests of the Prosecution. The document was accepted by the Tribunal yesterday but for some reason only a very small part of the characterization given therein by Admiral Raeder was included in the stenographic record for the day. I do not see any reason why these excerpts should not be read into the record now, and why the witness Raeder, who intimately knew the Defendants Dönitz, Keitel, and Jodl, should not hear the excerpts here and now.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky and Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal ruled yesterday that it was unnecessary that the document should be read and the Tribunal adheres to that decision in view of the fact that the defendants’ counsel do not wish it to be read and have no questions to put upon it.

Yes, Dr. Siemers.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I will now conclude my examination of Admiral Raeder. I do not know whether other questions will be put to Admiral Raeder.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any question which has arisen out of the cross-examination which the defendants’ counsel want to put?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I should like to put two questions, Mr. President.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Admiral, in cross-examination you were confronted with orders and memoranda as to the U-boat warfare.

RAEDER: Yes.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you consider yourself responsible for these decrees dealing with the U-boat warfare which you issued during your term as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy?

RAEDER: I consider myself fully responsible for all decrees issued as to the U-boat warfare which took place under my responsibility as well as every naval operation which I ordered. In the Naval Operations Staff and together with the officers of the Naval Operations Staff I worked out these directives; I approved memoranda and in accordance therewith I gave my orders. The Commander of the U-boat fleet was solely the tactical commander of U-boats. He transmitted the orders and he carried through the details of the operations.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Admiral, yesterday Sir David charged you that he could not determine who actually gave the orders to change the log book of the U-boat which sank the _Athenia_. Admiral Godt testified in answer to my question that he had issued this order at the request of Admiral Dönitz. Do you know of any facts which would show this testimony of Admiral Godt to be incorrect?

RAEDER: Actually I was never concerned with this case. I only decreed the three points which have come up here several times.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Therefore, you consider Admiral Godt’s testimony as being correct?

RAEDER: I assume that it is correct since everything else he said was very reliable.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can return to the dock.

DR. SIEMERS: Then, with the permission of the High Tribunal I should like to call my first witness, the former Reich Minister of the Interior, Severing.

[_The witness Severing took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please.

KARL SEVERING (Witness): Karl Severing. I am 70 years old and I live at Bielefeld.

THE PRESIDENT: Wait one minute. Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[_The witness repeated the oath._]

You may sit down.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, please tell the High Tribunal what role you played in the Social Democratic Party up until the year 1933 and the principal ministerial posts you held up until the year 1933.

SEVERING: At the age of 16½ I entered the labor union movement and when I was 18 years old I entered the Social Democratic Party and as a result of that fact I held honorary positions in the Party at a relatively early age.

In the year 1905 I became councillor in the city of Bielefeld. I was member of the Reichstag from 1907 until 1912; and I again became a member of the Reichstag and at the same time a member of the Prussian Diet in 1919. I was in the Reichstag and in the Prussian Diet until 1933. I was Minister in Prussia from 1920 until 1921; then again from 1921 to 1926, and from 1930 until 1933; from 1928 until 1930 I was Reich Minister of the Interior.

DR. SIEMERS: When and why did you leave public life?

SEVERING: I retired from official public life in July 1932, and from political life when the Social Democratic Party was prohibited.

DR. SIEMERS: Were you arrested when leaving public life in 1933, or perhaps at a later date and, if so, at whose order?

SEVERING: I was arrested on the very same day on which the Enabling Act was scheduled to be read and passed in the Reichstag. The order for my arrest was signed by the then Minister of the Interior, Herr Göring, who at that time was also President of the Reichstag and, if I may utter an opinion, who would have had the obligation, as President of the Reichstag, to protect the immunity of the members of the Reichstag. Under breach of this immunity I was arrested the moment I entered the Reichstag building.

DR. SIEMERS: But you participated in the vote on the Enabling Act?

SEVERING: The Chairman of the Social Democratic Reichstag faction had complained to Göring against the treatment to which I was subjected with the result that I was given leave to vote. But the voting had already come to a close. However, Reichstag President Göring still permitted me to give my “no” vote for the Enabling Act.

DR. SIEMERS: You were arrested thereafter but only for a very short time?

SEVERING: On the next day I had to appear for further interrogations. I was permitted to leave Berlin on the second day and was given the order to hold myself ready at my home in Bielefeld for further interrogations.

DR. SIEMERS: Despite your well-known anti-Nazi attitude, you were not arrested later and put in a concentration camp, if I am not mistaken.

SEVERING: I was never in a concentration camp, thanks to the respect—and I say this with all modesty—which the old Prussian officials, my previous subordinates, had for me. At the end of October 1933 I heard from the Police Chief in Bielefeld that trouble was brewing for me. The police notified me that they would not be able to give me any protection and advised me, therefore, to leave Bielefeld for several months. I followed this advice and, from October 1933 until the end of March 1934, I lived in Berlin using a false name. I first stayed with friends, and then I went to a small Jewish sanatorium at Wannsee. I feared another arrest in August 1944; according to someone whom I knew in the police my name was on a list of people who were to be arrested summarily—men and women who were suspected of having plotted against Hitler in July 1944.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you say ’44 or ’34?

DR. SIEMERS: ’44. After the attempted assassination of Hitler of July 1944.

SEVERING: May I continue?

DR. SIEMERS: Please do.

SEVERING: After the attempted assassination of Hitler orders were given to the police to arrest certain people. My name was on the Bielefeld list. Then a police official whom I knew from the past pointed out that I was close to my seventieth year and had lost my son in the war. Thus he succeeded in having my name struck off the list.

DR. SIEMERS: Aside from what you have told us now, did you suffer any further disadvantage at the hands of the National Socialists?

SEVERING: Well, I was considerably hindered in my movements. I was not especially surprised that my mail was censored and my telephone tapped. I considered that as a matter of course. But I could not even take a trip without being followed and watched by the police.

If you do not mind, I should like to call your attention to the fact that in addition to material damages there is also harm to one’s ideals (ideelle Schädigungen), and in this respect I suffered a great deal at the hands of the National Socialist Party after it assumed power. A political measure, taken in connection with the polls of 1932, was used against me, I might say, in a criminal way. They talked about me and my friend Braun as the “thieves of millions,” and this epithet was also applied to the members of my family.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, is this witness going to give any evidence which has relevancy to the defendant’s case?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, bring him to it then as quick as possible.

DR. SIEMERS: Very well.

[_Turning to the witness._] Herr Minister, try to be as brief as possible in this connection. It is of course true that with respect to your ideals you suffered harm as well, but as the basis of my examination and your testimony I would like to ascertain whether serious harm was caused to you and I would like to have you tell us, but briefly, whether National Socialism...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, what relevancy has this got to Raeder’s case?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, my intention is to show that Minister Severing, after a brief description of his life during Nazism can, without bias, give entirely impartial answers in reference to Raeder. Since he had no advantages but rather disadvantages at the hands of the Nazis and on the other side...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have dealt sufficiently with the disadvantages now. Go to the matter which relates to Raeder. He has given us, from 1933 to 1944, a fairly general account of his life and that ought to be sufficient.

DR. SIEMERS: The Prosecution accuses the Defendant Raeder, that in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy he violated the Treaty of Versailles, in the intention of carrying on aggressive wars, and that behind the back of the Reich Government. In order to shorten the testimony, I would like to point out to you that it is an undisputed historical fact that Germany, in developing her Navy within the framework of the Versailles Treaty, violated the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty. All that is known to the Tribunal. Even before this time, the government applied for the construction of armored cruiser A within the compass of the Versailles Treaty. A great inner political conflict arose over the construction of this cruiser and, in connection with a debate before the Reichstag on this cruiser, the witness made a speech. I have a brief excerpt from this speech which I should like to submit to you and which I should like to read. Mr. President, this is Exhibit Number Raeder-5, to be found in Document Book 1, Page 13. This is an extract from a speech by the former Reichsminister Karl Severing before the German Reichstag on 20 January 1928.

[_Turning to the witness._] Herr Minister, at this period of time you were not a Minister; rather, you gave this speech as a deputy of the Social Democratic Party?

SEVERING: Yes, that is correct.

DR. SIEMERS: The extract reads:

“Now the armored cruiser. The fact that a government, which
knows precisely what gigantic sums we must raise during the
coming year, should make such demands, is, to say the least,
quite surprising. It says, the Peace Treaty permits it—yes, but
the Peace Treaty also decrees the payment of reparations. The
9,300,000 marks demanded for this year will play their decisive
part only in the consequences entailed which would require the
raising of several hundred million marks, which during the next
few years seems to me absolutely impossible. Considering the
development of weapons for naval warfare, I am not convinced of
the military value of armored cruisers. It may be that armored
cruisers are the backbone of the defense at sea, as the
government says. But, to form an active fighting unit
(Gefechtskörper), the backbone must also be made up of other
elements, of U-boats and airplanes; and as long as we are not
allowed to build these, armored cruisers are of very little
value even for defense.”

Is that extract from the speech correct?

SEVERING: Yes, that, extract is reproduced correctly.

DR. SIEMERS: Is it right to conclude here that the Social Democratic Party and you, personally, at that time, were of the opinion that the Wehrmacht which was granted Germany by the Versailles Treaty might not be sufficient for a defensive war?

SEVERING: That is correct.

DR. SIEMERS: Will you please comment on that a little more extensively.

SEVERING: That the 100,000-man army granted to Germany was not sufficient even for a defensive war was and is known today possibly to everyone in Germany concerned with politics. Germany got into a very bad situation with regard to her eastern neighbors since the establishment of the Corridor. The insular position of East Prussia forced Germany even at that time to take measures which I reluctantly helped to carry out; but the population of East Prussia had a right to be protected against attacks which were threatening from the East. I am not speaking about an aggressive war and I am not speaking of any plans of the Polish Government; but I would like to refer you to the fact that in the years 1919, 1920, and 1921, there were aggressive groups in Poland who set foot on German soil, possibly with the idea of establishing a _fait accompli_...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, this evidence is all a matter of argument. Not only is it a matter of argument, but we have had it over and over again from nearly all the defendants and a good many of their witnesses; and, surely, it is not assisting the Tribunal in the very least to know what this witness said in 1928 or what view he took in 1928.

DR. SIEMERS: May it please the High Tribunal, I believe this will become clear in the following. Minister Severing was a member of the government that held this cabinet meeting of 18 October 1928. I agree with the High Tribunal that the matters have been heard frequently—these things only once, however—but I should like to point out that Sir David even yesterday in cross-examination accused the defendant, despite his testimony, that, against the will of the Reich Government and against the wish of the Parliament, he had violated the Treaty of Versailles. If, therefore, after the testimony of Raeder, the Prosecution persists in their opinion, I have no other possibility to prove the incorrectness of the opinion of the Prosecution than by questioning a witness who...

THE PRESIDENT: The question whether the Treaty of Versailles was violated is a question of fact and, of course, upon that you can give evidence and you did give evidence through the Defendant Raeder; but this witness is not talking about the question of fact. He is arguing that Germany was entitled to defend herself in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. That is what I understood his evidence to be and that is a question of argument, not a question of fact.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, as far as I know juridically...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the class of evidence which has just been given by this witness will not be listened to by the Tribunal. If you want to prove facts by him, you can prove them, but you cannot prove arguments or his views upon arguments.

DR. SIEMERS: Could Germany with her Wehrmacht protect herself against the incursions in Silesia by Poland?

SEVERING: In the year 1920 the Wehrmacht would not have been able to protect Germany in East Prussia; therefore, it was necessary to protect the population of East Prussia, and this was achieved in that I, personally, agreed that all weapons which were found in East Prussia were to be given to the population. Under conditions which applied at that time, it was, even for purposes of inspection, very hard to pass through the Corridor by rail; so that in 1920, I had to make a tour of inspection by way of water from Stolpmünde to Pillau. I am mentioning this fact to show the difficulties of transportation through the Corridor. In 1920 and ’21, it was not possible for the German Wehrmacht to prevent attacks of Polish insurgents in Upper Silesia and, I am sorry to say, and I emphasize “I am sorry” that a certain self-defense had to be created in order to protect and defend German life and German property.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, were the measures with regard to rearmament as they were wanted and accounted for since January 1928 by Reichswehrminister Gröner based on defensive or offensive ideas as far as you know Gröner?

SEVERING: As far as I am acquainted with Gröner and his own personal way of carrying on his office, everything that he conceived and carried out was in view of defense.

DR. SIEMERS: Then this should also apply to the armored cruiser A. I should like to know why the Social Democratic Party, which was interested in the idea of defense, was against the building of this armored cruiser.

SEVERING: In 1928 the Social Democratic Party was against the building of the armored cruiser as the economic situation did not warrant expenses which were not absolutely necessary. And the Social Democratic Party wanted to prove and to show that they did everything within their power in order to make the much-discussed disarmament a reality. They did not believe that the building of an armored cruiser would be a favorable gesture for the bringing about of appropriate negotiations.

DR. SIEMERS: On 28 June 1928 a new Reich Government was formed. Müller was Reich Chancellor; Stresemann was Foreign Minister, and you were Minister of the Interior. What position did your government take to the then pending problem of universal disarmament stipulated in Versailles, or to the then pending problem of rearmament by Germany?

SEVERING: I have just made a reference to this problem. We were of the opinion in the Social Democratic Party, even after entering the Müller government, that we would have to use all our efforts in order to solve just this problem. In September of 1928 the then Reich Chancellor Müller, replacing the Foreign Minister Stresemann who was ill, went to Geneva in order to bring this problem up before the League of Nations. Müller made a very resolute speech which, if I remember correctly, was received very coolly by Allied statesmen; so that any practical suggestions for the realization of disarmament could not be hoped for in the near future.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, in July 1928 you spoke with Reichswehrminister Gröner about the budget and specifically about the fact that secret budgets of the Wehrmacht, on the armored cruiser and so forth, had become known. What attitude did you take in this connection and what were the results following your agreement with Gröner?

SEVERING: In order to answer this question I would like to touch again on the extract from my speech, which you just submitted to the High Tribunal. In the same Reichstag session in which I gave this speech, the Reichswehrminister Gröner appeared for the first time as successor of Gessler. I had said a few farewell words in honor of Gessler who was leaving. I greeted the new Minister with the remark that my political friends would show him respect, but that he would have to earn our confidence first. It was probably while thinking of this remark that Gröner came up to me in the first session of the Müller Government and said that he was looking forward to a sincere collaboration with me. I quoted a passage from _Iphigenie_ on that occasion, “May there be truth between us.” Only complete sincerity would make possible fruitful co-operation, I said.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal thinks that this is an absolute waste of time and this speech of the witness is entirely irrelevant. Why do you not ask him some questions which have some bearings on the case of Raeder?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I remind you that the Prosecution has made the accusation that the rebuilding was undertaken by means of a secret budget and that a secret rearmament was carried on with the idea of starting wars of aggression. It is not quite clear to me how I can cross-examine the witness in any other way than by asking him how these secret budgets, which to a certain extent are practically identical with violations of the Versailles Treaty, were dealt with in his government. That is exactly what I just questioned the witness on.

THE PRESIDENT: This speech that you have drawn our attention to is simply a speech in which he said that he did not think that armored cruisers were of any use. That is the only meaning of the speech, except insofar as it refers to the fact that reparations had not been paid. For the rest it simply says that armored cruisers, in his opinion, are of no use.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I may not and do not wish to make a plea here. In the speech which I read something else is said. It says there that the Social Democratic Party was against the building of this armored cruiser, because of economic reasons and not because of strategic reasons, and that if an armored...

THE PRESIDENT: What has that got to do with a charge of making an aggressive war in 1939?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I did not raise the accusation of an aggressive war; the Prosecution did that, but I have to protect my client against the accusation that in 1928 he had intentions of carrying on an aggressive war; I assert that he had no intention of that sort, that the Reich Government knew about the violations of the Treaty, that the Reich Government took the responsibility for them, and the testimony of the Minister will show that these are actual facts which were challenged only yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: Ask him some direct questions on issues of fact. Then the Tribunal will listen to them if they are relevant, but the Tribunal considers that the evidence of his speech that you have been dealing with is an utter waste of time.

DR. SIEMERS: I shall try to be brief. As a result I shall put questions to the witness which he will answer one by one.

[_Turning to the witness._] You just said that you demanded of Gröner confidence and absolute truthfulness. Did you ask him in this connection for enlightenment on the secret budgets and the violations of the Treaty of Versailles which had taken place up to that time?

SEVERING: I specifically asked him for enlightenment since, in January of 1928, the then Reich Chancellor Marx had frankly admitted that under Kapitän Lohmann in the Navy Department there had been misrepresentations in the budget which could not be in accordance with good bookkeeping and political honesty.

DR. SIEMERS: What did Gröner reply?

SEVERING: Gröner then told me that he had the intention of discussing these matters at a cabinet meeting and of clarifying all these matters.

DR. SIEMERS: Were the commanders-in-chief of the two branches of the Wehrmacht to be present at this meeting?

SEVERING: On 18 October they were to appear and did appear.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, when did you meet Admiral Raeder for the first time?

SEVERING: The first official contact, according to my recollection, was made the beginning of October 1928, probably on the day when he paid me an official visit on my assuming office.

DR. SIEMERS: As Exhibit Number Raeder-6, I submitted to the High Tribunal, as the High Tribunal will probably recall, a speech by Raeder dated 23 January 1928. There was a covering letter with this document. This letter will now be submitted to the witness.

[_Turning to the witness._] According to this document, did your meeting with Raeder take place on 5 October 1928, 5 days after the appointment of Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy?

SEVERING: This discussion probably took place on that day. May I mention...

DR. SIEMERS: Just a moment, Herr Minister. I think it will be safer if you look at the letter. There it says: “Following our discussion of 5 October...” May I ask you to confirm to the High Tribunal that this report made by Raeder was saved by you and that it is a true and authentic copy?

SEVERING: The letter which I put at your disposal is the original of the letter by Raeder. It is in accordance with the incidents which you just mentioned.

DR. SIEMERS: Then, on 5 October this conversation with Raeder did take place. Were the conversations between you and Raeder basically in accordance with the ideas expressed in this speech?

SEVERING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you recall that in this speech Raeder declared emphatically that a war of aggression was a crime?

SEVERING: Yes, I remember that.

DR. SIEMERS: Did you on the occasion of this conversation tell Raeder that you had agreed with Gröner that the actual violations of the Treaty of Versailles would have to be discussed and clarified and that a cabinet meeting would have to be held?

SEVERING: I do not recall this detail, but it was quite probable.

DR. SIEMERS: Did you demand of Raeder that between yourself and him there should be absolute sincerity and truthfulness?

SEVERING: Of Raeder, too, but especially of the chiefs of the Army.

DR. SIEMERS: As a result of this discussion with Raeder, did you have the impression that you could work with Raeder in a satisfactory manner and that he would tell you the truth?

SEVERING: Yes, I had that impression.