The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08//tgmwc-08-75.01

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08/tgmwc-08-75.01
Last-Modified: 1999/11/25

                                                  [Page 173]


THE PRESIDENT: I desire to announce a slight change in the
order of business.

Dr. Stahmer has submitted a motion in writing, stating that
he desired a little more time in the preparation of his
documents, and for that and other reasons would be grateful
if the case of the defendant Goering did not come up on
Thursday, as announced.

The Tribunal realizes that the case of the first defendant
to be heard may present some difficulties in getting the
documents translated in time. As the Tribunal has announced
that they would continue the hearing of the applications for
witnesses until they are all completed, they will adhere to
this decision. It is anticipated that this will give Dr.
Stahmer one day more, but at the conclusion of the hearing
of the applications for witnesses, the case of the defendant
Goering will come on without further delay.

The Tribunal wishes to make it quite clear that no further
applications for delay or postponement on the part of the
defendants will be entertained, save in the most exceptional

DR. SIEMERS (counsel for the defendant Raeder): For the
defendant Raeder, I should like to apply first for a witness
who will testify to the defendant's character.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, if it would be convenient,
I might first indicate the views of the prosecution, and
then Dr. Siemers can deal with this point.

The prosecution has no objection to the following witnesses
being called for oral testimony:-

No. 3, the retired Minister, Severing.

No. 5, Vice-Admiral Schulte-Moenting.

No. 6 has already been sought for and not objected to by the
prosecution as witness for the defendant Donitz.

No. 10, Admiral Boehm.

Then, with regard to the following witnesses, the
prosecution suggests an affidavit as the suitable procedure:-

No. 2, Admiral Lohmann.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean an affidavit or interrogatories?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Well, in this case I should prefer
an affidavit, because it is only a history of past events
that is involved.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Affidavit in which case?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: In the case of No. 2. - Lohmann.

Then with regard to No. 4, that is Admiral Albrecht, his
evidence covers the same ground as No. 5. It might be that
interrogatories would be more convenient, but that would be
a matter for my friends to decide.

Then the next No. 7. That is Dr. Suechting, who is an
engineer, and it is desired to have him speak about the
Anglo-German Naval Treaty and technical questions. The
prosecution suggests an affidavit there, because apparently
it is desired that he speak on technical matters.

                                                  [Page 174]

No. 8, Field-Marshal von Blomberg, I am told, is still ill.
I think that Dr. Siemers has already submitted questions and
has received the answers. He ought to be dealt with by
interrogatories. That is probably the easiest thing for the
Field-Marshal, and the most suitable.

THE PRESIDENT: Was that not suggested in the case of one of
the other defendants?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Von Blomberg, yes. I have a note
that the defence counsel have submitted questions. I was not
quite sure whether this was Dr. Siemers or another defence
counsel. I think it was Dr. Nelte, for Keitel.

THE PRESIDENT: I think so, yes. That is No. 8.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Then the next one, von Weizsaecker,
who was the Secretary of State at the Foreign Office. He is
asked for with regard to the 'Athenia' case. At the moment I
cannot see the point for which the defence want this
gentleman, but I suggest that if they get an affidavit from
Weizsaecker we should know what he can speak about.

Then the other one is No. 14, Colonel Soltmann. It is
desired to give the results of the interrogation of certain
British prisoners of war at Lillehammer. it would appear
that the object was merely to give further evidence which
would be cumulative to the statements in the German White
Book, and therefore the prosecution suggests an affidavit.

There are two witnesses that the prosecution, think are in
the broader line between admissibility and affidavits. They
are really, in the submission of the prosecution, not
relevant witnesses, but the Tribunal might like to consider
the question. These are, No. 1, a naval chaplain who really
speaks as to the general moral and religious outlook of the
defendant Raeder. That is, in the submission of the.
prosecution, really irrelevant: and at the most it would be
a matter for an affidavit. The position of the prosecution
is, that it is really irrelevant, but it certainly should
not be more than an affidavit, even if a different view was

The other is No. 16, Admiral Schultze. He speaks as to an
interview with the late Admiral Darlan, and the prosecution
submits that that is irrelevant, if there are any approaches
to relevance - which the prosecution has been unable to see
why then it could only be a matter for an affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, dealing with No. 16, would that
not be more suitably dealt with by interrogatories? The
Tribunal granted interrogatories on 9th February in that
case, but I suppose they have not yet been produced.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes. Well, if the Tribunal feel that
it is a matter that should be explored, I agree that
interrogatories would be suitable.

Then, my Lord, the ones that the prosecution make objection
to in toto are:-

No. 11, Vice-Admiral Buerkner, because cumulative to Nos. 5
and 10.

No. 12, Commander Schreiber, because on 21st February Dr.
Siemers said that he was willing not to call this witness,
if No. 5, Schulte-Moenting, was allowed.

No. 13, Lackorn, who is a Norwegian merchant, who is
supposed to speak of the Allied plans, without any means of
knowledge being stated. This witness was temporarily given
up on 21st February.

No. 15, Alf Whist, who was Secretary of Commerce in the
Quisling Cabinet, as I understand the application. There is
no indication why this witness should be competent to speak
on the reputation of the defendant Raeder.

And No. 16 has been dealt with.

No. 17 is Colonel Goldenberg, who was the interpreter at the
meeting between the defendant Raeder and Darlan. Quoting:-

  "The defendant Raeder gives evidence and Admiral Schultze
  answers an interrogatory."

It will appear that that interview is well covered.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers ?

                                                  [Page 175]

DR. SIEMERS: I thank Sir David for taking up the individual
points, as a consequence of which I can, as I presume, count
on the Tribunal's approval of the points to which Sir David
has agreed, without giving specific reasons.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the best course
would be for you to go through the ones upon which Sir David
has not agreed, as to being called as oral witnesses, and
then perhaps it may be necessary to deal with the ones where
he has agreed. I would begin in the order in which he took
them up - 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 - if that is convenient for you.

In the case of No. 2 he suggested an affidavit.

DR. SIEMERS: No. 2 is Vice-Admiral Lohmann. In this
connection I refer to the last page of my brief, where I
have discussed the documents under No. III. There I have
stated that I suggested to the British Delegation that we
come to some agreement as to the figures with regard to the
Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Treaty. The British
Delegation has promised me that such an agreement may be
possible and has in the meantime communicated with the
British Admiralty in London on this matter. If, as I expect,
an understanding is reached, I am agreeable to an affidavit
from Vice-Admiral Lehmann, for then he is to testify on only
a few points. I ask, therefore, that he be approved for the
time being, and I undertake not to call him if the agreement
mentioned is reached with the prosecution. If this
understanding is not reached, the proof of some important
figures would be very difficult, and I could not do without
Lohmann who is well informed about the figures.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about that, Sir David?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have circulated Dr. Siemers's note
and request for agreement to my colleagues, and I have also
sent it to the Admiralty, and I hope that we may be able to
give the information and probably to agree on these matters,
but I am waiting to get that confirmed from the Admiralty in
Britain, so I think if we could leave over the question of
this witness until I see if I can get an agreement which
will satisfy Dr. Siemers on the point.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then if you cannot make the agreement,
probably the witness would have to be called ?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes. I can let Dr. Siemers know
whether there is any controversy on the point, whether I am
going to challenge what he puts forward. If I am going to
challenge it, obviously I should not object to the witness
being called.

DR. SIEMERS: Under these circumstances, I shall be satisfied
with the submission of an affidavit. I have written to Vice-
Admiral Lohmann, asking him to answer the other brief
questions, and regarding the main points, the principles
just stated by Sir David will be adhered to.


DR. SIEMERS: Witness No. 4, Admiral-General Albrecht, was
one of the closest collaborators of Grand-Admiral Raeder.
From 1926 to 1928 he was Raeder's Chief of Staff in Kiel,
from 1928 to 1930, Chief of the Navy Personnel Office of the
OKM. From then on he was Commanding-Admiral in Kiel, and
finally Navy Group-Commander East in 1939.

I should like to remark in this connection that in this last
year, he also  joined, upon the suggestion of the Head of
the Security Group, this organization and from this point of
view also he appears important to me. Admiral-General
Albrecht has also, as I know , written directly to the
Tribunal for this reason.

Albrecht has known the defendant Raeder so long that he is
well acquainted with his main ideas and thus versed on the
main charges of the Indictment. He has known Raeder's trend
of thought since 1928, that is to say, from the time

                                                  [Page 176]

in which the charges against Raeder have their beginning. I
ask that consideration be given to the tremendous charges
which are brought against Raeder covering a period of
fifteen years. I cannot refute all the accusations with one
or two witnesses. The differences among the testimonies are
so great that in such a case one cannot speak of

Furthermore, I ask that note be taken of the fact that so
far I have been unable to talk to Vice-Admiral Schulte-
Moenting, who has been approved by the Tribunal and the

The Tribunal has also not yet informed me where Schulte-
Moenting is. I presume that he is in a prisoner-of-war camp
in England, but I do not know whether he will really be at
my disposal and whether I will be able to talk with him in

THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing with Admiral-General Konrad
Albrecht, are you not? You are dealing with No. 4?

DR. SIEMERS: No, regarding Admiral-General Albrecht, we know
that he is in Hamburg. I simply pointed out that it would
not be cumulative if both Albrecht and Schulte-Moenting are
heard by the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: You see, what Sir David was suggesting was an
interrogatory in the case of Admiral Albrecht and an
affidavit in the case of Admiral Schulte-Moenting.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I will agree to Admiral Schulte-
Moenting being called orally.

THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. I was mixing the numbers.
Yes, that is right, to call the one and have interrogatories
from the other. Have you any objection to that?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I request that I be allowed to call both
witnesses, because Schulte-Moenting is to testify about a
later period, and Albrecht about the earlier period that was
immediately subsequent to the Versailles Treaty. The
position of both is entirely different. In addition, as I
have just pointed out, the Tribunal has not yet informed me
whether I can with absolute certainty, count on the witness
Schulte-Moenting, whether he has been found, whether it is
known where he is.

THE PRESIDENT: Our information is that Schulte-Moenting has
not been located.

DR. SIEMERS: I have no information as yet.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. I am not sure that is right. Yes,
he has. been located in a prisoner-of-war camp in the United
Kingdom. At least, I think so.

Yes, I have a document before me here which shows that he is
in a prisoner-of-war camp in the United Kingdom.

DR. SIEMERS: I thank you very much. I did not know that.
Under the circumstances I am prepared in regard to Admiral-
General Albrecht to accept an affidavit or an interrogatory,
provided Schulte-Moenting really appears.

No. 7, Dr. Suechting. In this connection Sir David suggests
an affidavit in order to speed up the trial. I am satisfied
with an affidavit.


DR. SIEMERS: Again, however, with the one reservation that
the matter of the figures will be clarified between me and
the British prosecution, in accordance with my letter as
already discussed in connection with Admiral Lohmann. I
believe that Sir David is agreeable to this.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know how you
suggest that these questions of shipbuilding in connection
with the German-English Naval Agreements of 1935 and 1937
are relevant to any charge made here.

                                                  [Page 177]

DR. SIEMERS: The defendant Raeder is accused of not having
adhered to the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval
Agreements. Such a treaty violation is mainly a question of
the building of ships. Consequently, I must demonstrate what
could be built according to the Treaty of Versailles and the
Naval Agreements, and what actually was built, and what
plans and orders the Navy had in this connection. As I said,
however, I shall be satisfied with an affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the
arguments on that.

DR. SIEMERS: No. 8, Field-Marshal von Blomberg. The
prosecution has suggested an affidavit or an interrogatory.
In consideration of von Blomberg's state of health, I am
agreeable to this for the sake of simplicity. Since it does
not involve any great number of questions, I suggest an

No. 9, Ambassador Baron von Weizsaecker. I submitted the
application on 6th February and do not know, thus far, the
position of the Tribunal. At the time of the case "Athenia,"
Weizsaecker was State Secretary in the Reich Ministry for
Foreign Affairs. At that time, in September 1939,
Weizsaecker spoke with the American Ambassador on the
subject of the "Athenia ". Weizsaecker spoke with Hitler and
with Raeder. He knows the details and must be heard on these
details. I do not believe that an affidavit will suffice.
First let me remark. that I do not now know where
Weizsaecker is. But apart from that, the charge which has
been made against the defendant Raeder in the case of the
"Athenia" is morally so grave that, although otherwise it
might not be such an important point, I have to put
particular stress on this point.

The British Delegation has given particular emphasis to the
case of the "Athenia " and has made insulting attacks on the
defendant in connection with this case. In the interest of
the absolutely irreproachable life of my client, I feel
obliged to clarify this case completely. That can only be
done by Weizsaecker.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as far as the application goes,
there is nothing to show, beyond the position of the
suggested witness, that he knew anything about it at all.
Under these circumstances would not interrogatories be the
most appropriate course? You did not show whether he knew
anything about it at all. All you say in your application is
that he was State Secretary in the Reich Ministry for
Foreign Affairs.

DR. SIEMERS: I may point out that I stated in my application
that the witness is informed regarding the events connected
with the case "Athenia."

THE PRESIDENT: You say that he must know on the basis of his
position as State Secretary.

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.