The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-04/tgmwc-04-33.05


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-04/tgmwc-04-33.05
Last-Modified: 1999/09/26

Q. Now, will you give the Tribunal - speaking slowly - an
account of what Admiral Donitz said in his speech?

A. Grand Admiral Donitz said in his speech: The successes of
the U-boats have diminished. Strong enemy air controls.
account for that. New ack-ack guns have been developed,
which will make it possible for the U-boats to fight off
enemy aircraft in the future. Hitler had personally given
him the assurance that U-boats, first of all branches, would
be equipped with these ack-ack guns. It could be expected
that the old successes would be reached again within a few
months. Then Grand Admiral Donitz referred to his good
relations with Hitler, and spoke about the German armament
programme.

He answered an interpolated question regarding a newspaper
article, according to which the United Nations were building
more than a million tons of merchant shipping every month.
He doubted, at first, the credibility of this estimate and
said a figure given by President Roosevelt was the basis for
it. Grand Admiral Donitz spoke. shortly about Roosevelt as a
person, about the

                                                  [Page 242]

American production programme, and the armament potential.
He further mentioned that the Allies met with great
difficulty in manning their ships. Seamen considered the
route across the Atlantic very dangerous because German U-
boats were sinking Allied ships in great numbers. Many of
the Allied seamen had been torpedoed more than once. News
like that is spreading and frightens seamen from going to
sea again. Some of then even were trying to escape before a
crossing of the Atlantic so that the Allied authorities were
compelled, if necessary, to retain them aboard by force.
Such observations would be favourable to the Germans. First,
the fact that the Allies are manufacturing much commercial
shipping; and, second, that the Allies have many
difficulties in manning these newly built ships.

Grand Admiral Donitz concluded that the problem of the
personnel represents a very serious matter for the Allies.
The losses in personnel mean a special setback to the
Allies, as, first, they have few reserves and second -

Q. I do not want to interrupt you, but did he say anything
about rescues at all? You have told us about the Allied
losses and how serious they were.

A. Yes, he mentioned rescues, but I would like to speak
about that later.

Grand Admiral Donitz said that the losses of the Allies were
heavy, first of all because they had no reserves and,
second, because the training of new seamen requires a very
long time. It is difficult for him to understand how
submarines -

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, just a moment. I do not
think we want to hear the whole of Admiral Donitz' speech.
We want to hear the material part of it.

COLONEL PHILLIMORE:

Q. Now, you have dealt with the question of losses. Will you
come to the crucial part of the speech, at the end, and deal
with that? What did the Grand Admiral go on to say?

DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): The testimony
of the witness does not concern me directly, but I have
certain problems. According to German law, German criminal
law, the witness has to tell everything that he knows on the
matter. When asked about a speech made by Grand Admiral
Donitz, he should not, at least according to German law,
report only those things to the Tribunal which, in the
opinion of the prosecution, are unfavourable to the
defendant. I believe this principle should apply in these
proceedings also whenever a witness is questioned.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is not bound by German law. I
have already said that the Tribunal does not desire to hear
from this witness all of Admiral Donitz' speech.

It will be open to any of the counsel for the defendants to
cross-examine this witness. Your intervention is therefore
entirely unnecessary.

COLONEL PHILLIMORE:

Q. Now, will you deal with the crucial parts of the Grand
Admiral's speech?

A. Grand Admiral Donitz continued his speech as follows:
Under the given situation he could not understand how German
U-boats, contrary to their own safety, could let the crews
be saved; it would be absolutely working for the enemy, and
these rescued crews would sail again on new ships.

Now total war at sea was to be instituted. The men - the
seamen - as well as the ships - were to be a target for the
U-boats, and through this it was to be made impossible for
the Allies to use this personnel again on a new ship. On the
other hand, it was to be expected that in America and the
other Allied countries a strike was likely, for already a
part of the seamen did not want to go back to sea.

Now if, according to our tactics, the sea war were to be
harsher, it would have heavy repercussions along those
lines. If this is considered harsh, we

                                                  [Page 243]

should also remember that our wives and our families at home
are being bombed.

That was the speech of Grand Admiral Donitz in respect to
its main points.

Q. Now, about how many officers were present and heard that
speech?

A. I have nothing practical to give you about the number of
men, I can only give you an estimate. I would say, roughly,
120 officers.

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the witness is available for
cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the United States prosecutor wish to ask
any question?

(No response.)

The Soviet prosecutor?

(No response.)

The French prosecutor?

(No response.)

Now, any of the defendants' counsel may cross-examine the
witness.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for defendant Donitz): I represent
Grand Admiral Donitz.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will understand that what I said to
Dr. Thoma was not intended to interfere with your cross-
examination; it was only intended to save time. The Tribunal
did not desire to hear unimportant passages in the defendant
Donitz' speech. Therefore, they did not want to hear them
from this witness. However, you are at liberty to ask any
questions that you please.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER:

Q. Oberleutnant Heisig, you yourself took part in an action
against the enemy?

A. Yes.

Q. On which boat were you, and who was your commander?

A. I was on U-877 and Finkeisen was the Kapitanleutnant.

Q. Please repeat your answer.

A. I was on U-877, and the commander was Kapitanleutnant
Finkeisen.

Q. Were you successful?

A. Our boat was sunk when cruising in the zone of combat.

Q. Before you had ever sunk an enemy ship?

A. Yes.

Q. The boat was sunk by which enemy weapon?

A. Depth charges sank us. Two Canadian frigates had sighted
our U-boat and destroyed it through depth bombs.

Q. Your testimony to-day differs slightly from the statement
that you made on the 27th November, and in an essential
point. How did you come to make this statement of the 27th
November?

A. I made the statement in order to help my comrades who
were put before a court martial in Hamburg and sentenced to
death for the murder of ship-wrecked sailors.

Q. Your declaration, your affidavit, starts by stating that
you had received reports that German sailors were accused of
murder, and you felt yourself duty-bound to give the
following affidavit.

Which report had you received, and when?

A. At the beginning of the Hamburg proceedings against
Kapitanleutnant Eck and his officers I was a prisoner of war
in England. I understood from the radio and from the
newspapers that these officers were to be sentenced. Knowing
one of these accused officers very well, a Lieutenant
Hoffmann, having conversed with him on this subject,
repeatedly, two or three times, I felt it my duty to come to
his assistance and to help him by my testimony.

Q. In your hearing on the 27th November were you not told
that the death sentence against Eck and Hoffmann had already
been pronounced?

                                                  [Page 244]

A. I do not know whether it was on the 27th November. I know
only that I was told here of the fact that the death
sentence had been carried out. The date I cannot remember; I
was in several hearings.

Q. Can you, having knowledge of these connections, still
maintain that the speech given by Grand Admiral Donitz made
some remark concerning the shooting of shipwrecked sailors?

A. No; we gathered that from his words, that total war was
to be carried on against ships and men, from his reference
to the bombings. We assumed that, and I talked about it to
my comrades on the way back. We were convinced that Admiral
Donitz meant that. He did not express it clearly.

Q. Did you speak to any of your superiors at the school
about this point?

A. On the same day I left school. But I can remember that
one of my superiors, whose name I do not recall - and I do
not recall in which connection I had this conversation - did
speak about the same topic. We were advised that officers
were to be at the bridge ready to annihilate shipwrecked
sailors, should this possibility arise, and should it be
necessary.

Q. One of your superiors told you that?

A. Yes, but I cannot remember in which connection and where.
I received plenty of advice from my superiors, and on many
things.

Q. Was it at school?

A. No; I left school the same day.

Q. At school were you advised on the permanent orders of
war?

A. Yes, we were.

Q. Was there one word in these standing orders that
shipwrecked sailors were to be shot or their rescue
apparatus destroyed?

A. Nothing was said with regard to that in the regulations,
but from an innuendo of Captain Rollmann, then the chief of
our officers' company, I felt entitled to assume that a
short time prior to that some order had arrived by telegram
that rescue measures were prohibited and that, on the other
hand, sea warfare should be fought with radical means. That
is, it was to be carried on in a harsher manner.

Q. Do you see in the prohibition of rescue measures the same
thing as in the shooting of shipwrecked sailors?

A. We came to this -

Q. Please answer my question. Does it mean the same to you?

A. No.

Q. Thank you.

DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, I am afraid the Tribunal will have
to adjourn now, and I have an announcement to make. You may
cross-examine to-morrow.

DR. THOMA: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: As I have already said, the Tribunal will not
sit in open session this afternoon.

The announcement that I have to make is in connection with
the organisations which are alleged to be criminal under
Article 9 of the Charter, and this is the announcement:

The Tribunal has been giving careful consideration to the
duty imposed upon it by Article 9 of the Charter.

It is difficult to determine the manner in which the
representatives of the named organisations shall be
permitted to appear in accordance with Article 9, without
considering the exact nature of the case presented for the
prosecution.

For this reason, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion
that, at this stage of the trial, with many thousands of
applications being made, the case for the prosecution should
be defined with more precision than appears in the
Indictment.

                                                  [Page 245]

In these circumstances, therefore, it is the intention of
the Tribunal to invite argument from the counsel for the
prosecution and for the defence, at the conclusion of the
case by all prosecutors, in regard to the questions
hereinafter set forth.
The questions which need further consideration are as
follows:

1. The Charter does not define a criminal organisation, and
it is therefore necessary to examine the test of criminality
which must be applied, and to decide the nature of the
evidence to be admitted.

Many of the applicants who have made requests to be heard
assert that they were conscripted into the organisation, or
that, they were ignorant of the criminal purposes of the
organisation, or that they were innocent of any unlawful
acts.

It will be necessary to decide whether such evidence ought
to be received to rebut the charge of the criminal character
of the organisation, or whether such evidence ought more
properly to be received at the subsequent trials under
Article 10 of the Charter, when the organisations have been
declared criminal, if the Tribunal so decides.

2. The question of the precise time within which the named
organisation is said to have been criminal is vital to the
decision of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal desires to know from the prosecution at this
stage whether it is intended to adhere to the limits of time
set out in the Indictment.

3. The Tribunal desires to know whether, in the light of the
evidence, any class of persons included within the named
organisations should be excluded from the scope of the
declaration, and which, if any.

In the indictment of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party,
the prosecution have reserved the right to request that
political leaders of subordinate grades or ranks, or of
other types or classes, be exempted from further proceedings
without prejudice to other proceedings or actions against
them.

Is it the intention of the prosecution to make any such
request? If so, it should be done now.

4. The Tribunal would be glad if the prosecution would also:

   (a) summarise in respect of each named organisation the
   elements which in their opinion justify the charge of
   being a criminal organisation;
   (b) indicate what acts on the part of individual
   defendants, indicted in this trial - in the sense used
   in Article 9 of the Charter - justify declaring the
   groups or organisations, of which they are members, to
   be criminal organisations;
   (c) submit in writing a summary of proposed findings of
   fact as to each organisation, with respect to which a
   finding of criminality is asked.

The Tribunal hopes it is not necessary to say to the
prosecution that it is not seeking to interfere with the
undoubted right of the prosecution to present its case in
its own way, in the light of the full knowledge of all the
documents and facts which it possesses, but the duty of the
Tribunal under Article 9 of the Charter makes it essential
at this time to have the case clearly and precisely defined.

This announcement will be communicated to the Chief
Prosecutors and to Defence Counsel in writing.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 15th January, 1946, at 10.00
hours.)

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.