The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-170.03

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-170.03
Last-Modified: 2000/09/11

THE PRESIDENT: It is not necessary to read it now, is it?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I should be very grateful if I
might be permitted to read this affidavit, as it deals with
a portion of evidence which is quite significant. The
Tribunal will, I am sure, recall the fact -

THE PRESIDENT: But I have already told you, Dr. Siemers -
you can certainly confine yourself to the really important
part of it and summarize anything that is really not so
important. We cannot have all these documents read out to

DR. SIEMERS: The Tribunal will agree with me that as far as
my other documents are concerned, I read remarkably little.
My reason for wanting to read a part of it was because the
British Delegation, at the close of the cross-examination,

                                                   [Page 46]

submitted two very lengthy summaries, Exhibits GB 464 and GB
465. These are summaries about the key documents of the 22nd

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, surely you can tell us what the
subject matter of the affidavit is. We will then know the
general subject matter of it, and then I should have thought
you could direct your attention to the particular matters
which are of special importance here. It only takes up time
if you are going to tell us what the prosecution have done.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, if I have
been misunderstood. It was my intention to do that.

I shall not read from "1" of the affidavit. I shall only
summarize it. It is a discussion between Raeder and Admiral
Boehm in the summer of 1939, on which occasion Boehm told
Raeder that he was worried about the political developments.
He then asked Raeder whether he had called Hitler's
attention to the great dangers and to the fact that the
German Navy would not be in a position to carry on a war at

  "Grand Admiral Raeder replied to me" - and these are his
  "that he had put this up to Hitler more than once, and
  that he had concluded his exposition to Hitler with the
  fundamental sentence: 'In such a case the Navy could not
  do anything but die gloriously.' "

No. 11 of the affidavit of Admiral Boehm:

  "On the 22nd October, 1939, Hitler made a speech to the
  top leaders of the Wehrmacht at the Obersalzberg. I was
  present during the entire speech, which lasted two to two
  and a half hours. The speech was delivered in Hitler's

I am omitting the next few points and continue:

  "The speech which was submitted to the Tribunal as
  Exhibit Raeder 27 has been set down by me with great
  accuracy, and I can state under oath that the speech was
  delivered in the way in which I have set it down. In
  particular I can confirm that my account contains all the
  important ideas and words.
  The versions submitted by the prosecution, Documents 798
  and 1040-PS, have been submitted to me by Dr. Siemers. I
  have now compared my version with these two versions."

I am again omitting a paragraph:

" I declare under oath that some of the expressions as shown
in these documents were not used by Hitler, while others
were used in another sense by Hitler. As to Document 798-PS,
the following pages agree with the version which I have just
received, and which was submitted by Sir David Maxwell

I should like to remind the Tribunal that this is the ten-
page summary, Exhibit GB-464. In this version you will find
the sentence, "Afterwards we shall discuss military


  "This sentence was not used. Military details did not
  follow in Document 798-PS either."

Lines 7 to 10:

  "I made this decision already in the spring, but I
  thought that, first of all, in a few years' time, I
  should turn against the West, and only afterwards against
  the East."


  "The account as set down by me, on lines 5 to 8, is
  absolutely true. In any case Hitler never used the words
  that he would first of all turn against the West."

Lines 12 to 14:

  "First of all I wanted to bring about a working agreement
  with Poland so that I could first of all fight against
  the West."

                                                   [Page 47]


  "This sentence was never used, and what I have just said
  applies here too, Hitler never voiced the intention that
  he wanted to fight against the West."

Now I shall omit the next point and in lines 15 to 18 on
Page two it says:

  "It is easy for us to make decisions. We have nothing to
  lose, only to gain. Our economic situation, because of
  our limited resources, is such that we can hold out only
  a few more years."


  "As to the attitude taken here: The version in my
  statement, Pages 21 to 26, is absolutely correct. Above
  all the sentence: 'We have nothing - '"

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, does it not come to this? There
are two or three versions of this particular speech and this
admiral is saying that his version is correct. That is all
it comes to. I mean, he does not think the other versions
are correct. Well, the Tribunal will no doubt have to
compare the three versions and compare them with this
affidavit. But what is the purpose or use of reading it to
us at this stage I do not know.

DR. SIEMERS: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
Then I ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the
further statements as set out therein. I should like to
refer only to the fact that Admiral Boehm expressly asserts
and declares under oath that the sentence which has been
quoted several times:

  "'I am afraid that at the last moment some dirty dog
  (Schweinehund) will submit to me a plan for mediation'
  was not uttered by Hitler."

Referring to Document 1014-PS, I should like to read a
sentence which has been brought up by the prosecution six or
seven times.

  "The destruction of Poland is in the foreground and the
  aim is the elimination of living forces, not the reaching
  of a certain line."

In this connection Boehm says

  "There was never any talk of destroying Poland or of
  eliminating the living forces of the Polish people. What
  was discussed was the breaking of the military forces."

And I should like the Tribunal to take judicial notice of
these very carefully set down statements for it seems to me
that this is important in assessing the evidence value of
the documents presented by the prosecution.

Then under "III" Admiral Boehm describes that period during
which he was commanding in Norway. I should like the
Tribunal to take judicial notice of this. This statement
chiefly concerns the struggle carried on by Raeder and Boehm
against Terboven, against the German civilian administration
and the attempts to make peace with Norway.

Mr. President, after many weeks the interrogatory of
Albrecht has reached me in its final form. I sent it to the
translation department several days ago and have not yet
received the translation. This interrogatory has been
approved and I put it in as Exhibit Raeder 128.

I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this

I should like to mention that Admiral Albrecht was for many
years one of Raeder's closest co-workers. He resigned in
October, 1939. He knows the attitude taken by Raeder and he
knows the High Command of the Navy before 1933 and up to
1938. He, too, confirms the fact that Raeder constantly
warned Hitler of complications, and that Hitler always
stated that he had matters under control and that he would
not let it come to war.

As regards all the other points, I ask, Mr. President, that
the Tribunal take judicial notice of them.

Then I should like to refer to the following: One
interrogatory by Admiral Schulze has not yet come to hand.
My efforts to obtain this interrogatory date back to March,
1946. I have given his address. The witness is in retirement
and lives in Hamburg-Blankenese. Unfortunately the
interrogatory has not yet arrived in Hamburg. I should be
very grateful to the Tribunal if it would give me

                                                   [Page 48]

permission to submit this interrogatory at a later date, as
I myself have no means of expediting it. I do not know when
it will arrive, as it has been sent to Washington for
reasons I do not understand, but I certainly hope that it
will be returned at some future date. Finally, Mr. President

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. What do you mean by it having been
sent to Washington? Did you say Washington?

DR. SIEMERS: I was informed by the General Secretary that
this interrogatory had been sent to Washington in order to
locate the witness there. But the witness resides in Hamburg-
Blankenese. I am sorry that I have no influence in the
matter. I have been trying for three months -

THE PRESIDENT: Well, no doubt the General Secretary is
making every effort to have the witness found. If he is
found, then - What are the dates? You say that three months
ago you submitted this interrogatory? Was it sent to Hamburg
or where was it sent?

DR. SIEMERS: I have -

THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Siemers, you ought to know. You
have been in touch all these three months with the General
Secretary and you are stating that he sent it to Washington.
You ought to know. Have you given him any address in
Hamburg? What is your complaint?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, you have misunderstood. I was
not complaining. I was just stating the facts in order to
show why the interrogatory is not here, and I ask that when
the interrogatory arrives I may be permitted to submit it
then, though by that time the evidence -

THE PRESIDENT: I know you say that, but the Tribunal wants
to know where the interrogatory was first sent and why it
was sent to Washington, and why it was not sent to Hamburg
and what you know about the fact - the alleged fact that the
person who was to make the interrogatory was at Hamburg?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I am from Hamburg myself and
last November I talked with the witness, and I gave his
address when I put in my first application to the General
Secretary. Perhaps some misunderstanding arose with the
other offices who transmitted the interrogatory. Perhaps
they looked for a witness by the name of Schulze in some
other place. The name of the Admiral is Otto Schulze and it
is quite possible that they looked up someone else with this
rather common name.

The only answer I received was that the witness was being
looked for, to which I replied that it was not necessary to
look for the witness.

MR. DODD: I think the Tribunal might be interested in
knowing that Dr. Siemers himself returned from Hamburg a few
days ago, and I think he has been there two or three times
since he asked for this interrogatory. Now, if he knows
where this witness is, all he had to do while he was up
there was to go to a military government officer, submit his
questions, get them answered and bring them back, and I
think it is a little bit unfair to blame the General
Secretary under these circumstances.

DR. SIEMERS: I regret very much that Mr. Dodd considers it
necessary to reproach me with unfairness. I was told that an
interrogatory could not be given to the witness by me. The
interrogatory for Admiral Albrecht I brought back with me
from Hamburg at the request of the General Secretary because
the formula of the oath had been omitted. In a case of this
kind I consider it quite natural that I should co-operate
with the General Secretary. However, I have submitted this
interrogatory and I cannot understand how Mr. Dodd could
blame me if I have not brought the interrogatory back with

THE PRESIDENT: Well, this seems to me a waste of time. We
had better get a report from the General Secretary.

                                                   [Page 49]

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that I still have not
been understood. I am not accusing anyone. I am just asking
for permission to submit my interrogatory subsequently.

THE PRESIDENT: Well. We will consider that. We will not make
any decision until we have heard a report from the General
Secretary upon the circumstances.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, then I should like to point out
that two of my applications were granted, which were not
carried out completely. One was the application concerning
the files of the British Admiralty containing the Allies'
plans regarding Scandinavia and Finland. Purely as a matter
of form I should like to say that the answer from the
Foreign Office, which is known to the Tribunal, is
available, and the Tribunal had approved the submission of
these files, but the request was turned down by the Foreign
Office. As this matter has not been dealt with before I
should like it to be made absolutely clear.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, I think, has the communication
from the Foreign Office.

DR. SIEMERS: But I did not submit it, Mr. President.
Therefore, I did not know under what number, what exhibit
number, it can be found in the files of the Tribunal. Would
it be possible, Mr. President

THE PRESIDENT: You can give it a number, certainly. Give it
whatever number you think right. What is the number you

DR. SIEMERS: May I submit this document as Exhibit Raeder
133 either this afternoon or at the latest tomorrow morning?


DR. SIEMERS: Then, Mr. President, I made the request that
the first edition of Hitler's Book, Mein Kampf, be placed at
my disposal. In this, case as well, I should like to point
out, according to information received, the General
Secretary has made every effort, for which I am grateful,
but he has not been successful in providing me with this
first edition.

I should like to remind you of the fact that the edition
used by the prosecution is of the year 1933 and therefore it
cannot be used as a basis for the argument put by the
prosecution concerning the period before 1933.

THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of argument.

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, indeed. During my absence four documents
were submitted by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. As far as I was
able to ascertain, these documents, which all come from
Admiral Assmann, were submitted with the remark that Admiral
Assmann belonged to the Staff of Grand Admiral Raeder. This
fact was also mentioned several times in preceding records.

For the sake of order, I should like to clear up this error.
Assmann was in the historical section and he was in no way
concerned with the Staff of Raeder.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any evidence of the facts you
are stating, or do the prosecution accept them?

DR. SIEMERS: I believe, Mr. President, that Sir David will
not dispute this.

MR. DODD: We accept - I'm sure. My Lord, we have had it in
evidence and we accept the fact that he was in the Naval
Historical Section of the German Admiralty. My Lord, when I
said "Staff" I was speaking generally. I did not mean the
Operations Staff.

THE PRESIDENT: Then we need not waste further time about

DR. SIEMERS: I should like to refer to one point, Mr.
President, concerning these four documents: D-879, D-881, D-
892 and D-854. I hope that in this matter as well Sir David
will agree with me. All the English translations bear the
heading "Diary".

                                                   [Page 50]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is simply a point of how
the compilation of Admiral Assmann should be described. I am
quite prepared that it should be described as it is in the
original one.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.