The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-169.06

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-169.06
Last-Modified: 2000/09/11

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: That is Number 12.

Number 32, minutes on the withdrawal of the Inter-Allied
Military Commission.

Number 50, a speech of Prime Minister MacDonald of 16th
March, 1933.

Number 51, an article of von Neurath on the League of
Nations, in the magazine Der Volkerbund (League of Nations)
of 11th May, 1933.

Number 52, Hitler's speech of 17th May, 1933, the so-called
"Peace Speech".

Number 53, a statement of the German Ambassador, Nadolny, in
Geneva, of 19th May, 1933.

Number 54, a statement of the American representative at the
Disarmament Conference, Norman Davies, of 22nd May, 1933.

Number 55, a statement of the German Ambassador Nadolny, at
the Disarmament Conference of 27th May, 1935.

                                                   [Page 23]

Number 81, a speech by the then minister Benes of 2nd July,

Number 82, an excerpt from the speech of Marshal Petain of
22nd July, 1934.

Number 83, the communique of the Reich Government of 26th
July, 1934.

Number 85, the communique of the Reich Government of 10th
September, 1934.

Number 86, a speech of Herr von Neurath of 17th September,

Number 88, excerpts from the speech of Marshal Smuts of 12th
November, 1934

Number 119, a statement of the British Minister in the House
of Commons of 20th July, 1936.

Those are the documents which I had not yet named, but which
are already contained in my document books.

Mr. President, may I take this opportunity to submit the
following application, namely: The Court -

THE PRESIDENT: Those documents have all been translated,
have they not, Dr. Ludinghausen?

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Yes, they are all included, in
translation, in the document books which have been

Mr. President, may I now make an application to the
Tribunal? It is to the effect that the Tribunal should
permit me to recall the defendant von Neurath to the witness
stand, for the following reason. As may be recalled, in the
course of cross-examination Sir David Maxwell Fyfe presented
Document 3859-PS to the defendant, which document was a
photostatic copy of a letter from him, dated 31st August,
1940, to the head of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers, with
two enclosures; in this letter the defendant asked Lammers
to submit the two enclosures to Hitler and to arrange if
possible a personal conference or an interview on the
question of alleged Germanisation mentioned therein. The two
enclosures of this letter to Lammers are reports and
suggestions on the future form of the Protectorate, and
concern the assimilation or possible Germanisation of the
Czech people. The Tribunal will recall that the presentation
of this rather extensive document - it has thirty or forty
pages in this photostatic form, if not more - surprised the
defendant, and at that moment he could not recall the matter
clearly enough to give positive and exhaustive information
immediately about these documents. Nevertheless, in cross-
examination, after a very brief look at these reports he
expressed doubts as to whether they, as presented here in
photostatic form, were actually identical with the reports
which were enclosed, according to his instructions, in the
letter to Lammers to be submitted to Hitler. A careful
examination of these photostatic copies was not possible in
the course of cross-examination, and of course I myself,
since I did not know the documents, was not able to comment
upon them. Since Herr von Neurath was obviously over-tired
and exhausted after the cross-examination it was not
possible for me to examine the question and discuss it with
him on the same day; that was possible only on the following

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. von Ludinghausen, the defendant may
be recalled for the purpose of being questioned about these
two documents, but of course it is an exceptional licence
which is allowed on this occasion, because the object of re-
examination is to enable counsel to elucidate such matters
as this.


THE PRESIDENT: You may call him.

CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH, recalled, resumed the stand and
testified further as follows:

THE PRESIDENT: You are still under oath, of course.

                                                   [Page 24]



Q. Herr von Neurath, do you recall the reason for your
letter to Dr. Lammers of 31st August, 1940, and your request
for him to arrange a conference, an interview with Hitler?

A. Yes. As I said during my examination, in the course of
the summer of 1940 I learned that various Reich and Party
agencies, among others particularly the Gauleiter of the
neighbouring Gaue, and Himmler, had sent more or less
radical reports and suggestions to Hitler. I knew that
Himmler particularly made quite extreme suggestions
regarding a division of the Protectorate area, and complete
annihilation of the Czech nationality and people. These
agencies were urging Hitler to put these plans into effect
as quickly as possible.

Since, as I have already emphasized, I was opposed to such
plans, and on the contrary, I wanted the Czech people as
such and their nationality retained and protected against
the intentions of Himmler and his companions to destroy it,
I decided to make an attempt to induce Hitler not to carry
out any Germanisation plans, but to forbid them and to send
a categorical order to this effect to the Party and its

Q. Do you recall how these two reports came about, which
were to be included in your letter to Lammers?

A. As far as I can recall, the thing happened as follows:
Either I myself dictated a report or one of my officials
drew it up according to my instructions; I believe the
latter. But I recall definitely that this report was much
briefer than the one submitted here in photostatic copy. I
recall furthermore that the conclusions drawn in it were
similar, but much sharper, and that the whole problem had to
be considered very carefully.

Q. Now, tell us how and why the second report of Frank came
to be made.

A. From the various discussions which I had with Frank, I
knew that he, too, was opposed to this division of the
Protectorate territory and the evacuation of the Czech
population as proposed by Himmler, and that he shared my
opinions, at least to that extent. Therefore, I considered
it expedient, since Hitler had assigned Frank to me as
Secretary of State because he knew the Czech country and
people very well, to point out to Hitler that this man was
opposed to Himmler's plans, too, and advised Hitler against
accepting them.

Q. For what reason, however, in your letter to Lammers did
you especially emphasize that you shared the opinions
expressed in Frank's report?

A. I considered it right to do this because Frank was a
member of the SS and a subordinate and confidant of Himmler.
On the other hand, I knew that already at that time Hitler
was prejudiced against me, because of my attitude towards
the Czech people, which he considered much too mild and co-
operative, and I was, therefore, convinced that together
with Frank I would be more likely to be successful in
winning over Hitler to my way of thinking than if I went to
him alone. That was the reason why I suggested that Frank
should participate in the report. For the same reason I did
not write directly to Hitler, as I did usually, but to
Lammers. According to previous experience, I had to assume
that if I had written directly to Hitler, who was not in
Berlin at the time, he would either not read the report at
all, or would refer it to Himmler.

Q. How was this letter to Lammers and its enclosures handled
in your office?

A. I had the draft of the report of Frank shown to me. Then
I dictated my letter to Lammers, and I sent it with my
report and Frank's draft back to Frank's office for a final
copy of the Frank report to be made and for the letter to
Lammers with the two reports to be sent off. I did not see
the letter to Lammers and the two reports again before they
were sent out; moreover, I did not see them in Berlin at the
conference with Hitler.

Q. The last question. How did you reach the conviction that
the photostatic copies, submitted here, of the two reports
could not be identical with the reports which were enclosed
in the letter to Lammers, according to your instructions?

                                                   [Page 25]

A. As for the first report which I prepared, I have already
stated that according to my recollection it was much shorter
than the one submitted here in photostatic copy.
Furthermore, this photostatic copy does not bear my
signature, nor even my initials. But it is out of the
question that the final copy of this report, which was
enclosed at my office in the letter to Lammers, would not
have been signed, or, at least, initialled by me; and the
certificate of correctness, which, remarkably enough, is
contained in this report and which was prepared by an SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer, is not signed. The photostatic copy
which is said to have been enclosed in the letter to Lammers
does not even bear my initials. The most noticeable thing,
however, is the certificate of correctness on the
photostatic copy. This can have a meaning only if the
document enclosed in the letter to Lammers did not bear my
signature and was enclosed in the letter nevertheless. But
since the final copy which my office sent to State Secretary
Frank's office with the letter to Lammers was certainly
signed by me, this certificate proves that it was not the
report signed by me which was enclosed in the letter sent to
Lammers, but another one drafted by Frank or by officials in
his office. As for Frank's own report, the text of the
photostatic copy here, to my recollection, is not identical
with the text of the report which I approved and which I
then sent on together with my report to Lammers -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Ludinghausen, we have heard the
explanation more than once, I think, that the enclosure
which was in the letter was not the same as the one which he
drew up. It does not get any more convincing by being told
over again.

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: I only wanted to express it again. But
if the Tribunal believes that that explanation has been made
previously, I may dispense with it.

THE WITNESS: Mr. President, may I be permitted to make
another statement as to how I imagine - of course, I can
only imagine - these things took place. I am firmly
convinced that if the two photostatic copies submitted here
were actually enclosed in the letter to Lammers, they were
prepared in Frank's office, and enclosed without my
knowledge. Another possibility would be, of course -

THE PRESIDENT: We are quite as able to imagine possibilities
as you are.

The fact is that the letter was signed in his name, was it
not? The letter itself was signed?


THE PRESIDENT: And he refers expressly to the enclosure?


THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we understand it.

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Yes. I wanted it to be made clear to
the Tribunal. For, as I have said, I could not thoroughly
examine the remarkable characteristics of these two reports,
the outer form and the text at the moment of cross-
examination. I have no further questions, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to the dock. Do
you want to ask any questions, Sir David?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I do not think so. If the
Tribunal would just allow me, I should like to look at the
document while the Court is recessed and see whether there
is any point that I might like to question on.

THE PRESIDENT: We will recess now.

(A recess was taken.)

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have considered the matter and I
think it is really in the stage of argument and not cross-
examination but, my Lord, I should like your Lordship just
to observe, as the matter has been raised, that there is a
certificate, given by Captain Hochwald on behalf of General
Ecer, which states

                                                   [Page 26]

that the exhibit which was put in is a photostat taken from
the original of a document found in the archives of the
Reich Protector's office in Prague, so that that theory
appears, from the certificate and the exhibit, that the copy-
letter to Dr. Lammers and the two memoranda were preserved
and found in the office of the Reich Protector. I do not
want to say anything further in the matter.

THE PRESIDENT: Let the defendant come back to the witness
box. Oh! - no, he need not come back. Dr. Bergold. Dr.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER (counsel for Donitz): Mr. President, since
Dr. Bergold is absent at present, I should like to ask
whether I may submit the three documents in my case which
are still outstanding.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Kranzbuehler.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I am offering as Donitz Exhibit l00, the
affidavit made by the Chief of the American Navy, Admiral
Nimitz, as to U-boat war against the Japanese Navy. The
Tribunal already knows what I wish to prove with this. I
need not read anything now because in the final presentation
of my argument I shall have to come back to this point.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have the document
read, Dr. Kranzbuehler.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I have the original text in English, Mr.
President, and I shall therefore have to read in English:

  "At the request of the International Military Tribunal,
  the following interrogatories were on this date, 11th
  May, 1940, put to Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz -

THE PRESIDENT: You must have given the wrong date - 1946, is
it not?

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: 11th May, 1946.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.

  DR. KRANZBUEHLER: "... put to Fleet Admiral Chester W.
  Nimitz, U.S. Navy, by Lt.-Commander Joseph L. Broderick,
  United States Naval Reserve, of the International Law
  Section, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Navy
  Department, Washington, D.C., who recorded verbatim the
  testimony of the witness. Admiral Nimitz was duly sworn
  by Lt.-Commander Broderick and interrogated as follows:
  "Question. What is your name, rank and present station?
  Answer. Chester W. Nimitz, Fleet Admiral, U.S. Navy,
  Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy.
  Question. What positions in the United States Navy did
  you hold from December, 1941, until May, 1945?
  Answer. Commander-in-Chief, United States Pacific Fleet.
  Question. Did the United States of America enter sea
  warfare against Japan and announce certain waters to be
  areas of operation, blockade, danger, restriction,
  warning, or the like?
  Answer. Yes. For the purpose of command of operations
  against Japan, the Pacific Ocean areas were declared a
  theatre of operation.
  Question. If yes, was it customary in such areas for
  submarines to attack merchantmen without warning, with
  the exception of her own and those of her Allies?
  Answer. Yes, with the exception of hospital ships and
  other vessels under safe conduct, voyages for
  humanitarian purposes.
  Question. Were you under orders to do so?
  Answer. The Chief of Naval Operations on 7th December,
  1941, ordered 'Unrestricted submarine warfare against
  Question. Was it customary for the submarines to attack
  Japanese merchantmen without warning outside areas which
  had been named as theatres of operation since the
  outbreak of the war?

                                                   [Page 27]

  Answer. The reply to this interrogatory involves a matter
  beyond the limits of my command during the war;
  therefore, I make no reply thereto.
  Question. Were you under orders to do so?
  Answer. The reply to this interrogatory involves a matter
  beyond the limits of my command during the war;
  therefore, I make no reply thereto.
  Question. If the practice of attacking without warning
  did not exist since the outbreak of the war, did it exist
  from a later date on, and if so, from what date on?
  Answer. The practice existed from 7th December, 1941, in
  the declared zone of operations.

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.