The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-09/tgmwc-09-85.05


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-09/tgmwc-09-85.05
Last-Modified: 1999/12/10

Q. Just let us proceed, quite shortly, with what happened
after that.

On the week-end of 26th and 27th August you went to England.
You have told me that you did not know about the calling off
of the attack on the morning of the 26th, and you did not
know that the intention of Hitler was to eliminate English
intervention. You did not know these points; so you went
back to England on the 27th with these fuller terms, and the
English answer was that, while they maintained their
obligations, they hoped and recommended that the German and
Polish Governments might begin negotiations between
themselves with regard to the point?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was the answer that you brought back.

Now, I just want you to think for a moment of the interview
that you had at breakfast time with Goering, I think in his
train or in his headquarters, on 28th August. You will find
it at Page 65 of the book, if you want to refresh your
memory. At that time, did not Goering try to convince you
that the return of Danzig and the Corridor would make no
difference to Poland's military situation?

A. Yes.

Q. Because, illustrating it from his own war maps, he
thought that Germany was in a position to defeat the Poles
anyhow, whether they had the Corridor or whether they had
not?

A. Yes.

Q. And his air forces and the troops were all in position to
carry that out?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I want you now to come to the question of the
meeting at which the terms were given to Sir Neville
Henderson. That was at 7.15 in the evening, on 29th August,
and the meeting went on for some time. Do you remember that
meeting?

A. Yes.

                                                  [Page 227]

Q. And then, as I think one of the counsel has elicited from
you, the difficulty arose over the demand for a
plenipotentiary to be back in twenty-four hours, as you have
explained.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I think Sir George Ogilvy Forbes told you that that
meeting had gone very badly, and then at 11.30 you saw
Goering, and Goering said much the same as Sir George Ogilvy
Forbes as to how the meeting had gone.

A. Yes.

Q. And he said that what had upset the Chancellor was that
Sir Neville Henderson had characterised or implied that this
demand that the plenipotentiary should come within twenty-
four hours was equivalent to an ultimatum.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember at that time that Goering underlined
certain of the terms?

Will you turn to the preface of your book ...

A. Yes.

Q. You see the facsimile. Have you a copy?

A. I have the original here.

Q. Well, if you will just look at it. Now, it is in German.
If you follow the German, I want just to read the bits which
Goering has underlined, and I will read it in English and
you check to see that I have got the right piece:

  "For the rest, in making these proposals the German
  Government has never had any intention of touching
  Poland's vital interests or questioning the existence of
  an independent Polish State. The German Government,
  accordingly, in these circumstances agrees to accept the
  British Government's offer of its good offices in
  securing the dispatch to Berlin of a Polish emissary with
  full powers. It counts on the arrival of this emissary on
  Wednesday, 30th August, 1939. The German Government will
  immediately draw up proposals for a solution acceptable
  to itself, and will, if possible, place these at the
  disposal of the British Government before the arrival of
  the Polish negotiator."

That is the bit which the defendant Goering has underlined,
just before the bit about the sending of the
plenipotentiary.

A. Yes.

Q. So that there was no doubt that the defendant Goering was
associating himself with the importance of that point.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you remember that at that time, during that
interview, that is, the night of the 29th, the defendant
Goering made a great tirade against the Poles.

A. That is right.

Q. I am not going to go into that in detail; but then he
said to you that the Fuehrer was preparing what I think in
English is a "magnanimous offer."

A. Yes.

Q. And to show you the nature of the "magnanimous offer," he
hedged in a portion of the bits of Poland. That is also in
the preface to your book.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, there are two points about what he hedged in. In
fact, it was much more than had been taken from Germany
under the Treaty of Versailles.

Secondly, it was entirely different from what was cabled
over by the defendant von Ribbentrop to Sir Neville
Henderson the next night.

A. That is correct.

Q. And, Mr. Dahlerus, I do not think I can put it better
than in your own words, it you will turn to Page 75. Is this
how you record it in your book, the second break:

                                                  [Page 228]

  "This map, a reproduction of which is given in this book,
  is extraordinarily interesting because it illustrates the
  rapidity and recklessness with which the decisions in
  this question were reached. I had the map with me when I
  left for London a few hours later, but it turned out that
  the boundaries drawn up on it differed very considerably
  from those given in the well-known Project Ribbentrop,
  presented at top speed to Henderson on the night between
  30th and 31st August."

That is rather less than twenty-four hours later.

A. Yes.

Q. And then you go on to describe what it showed. Well, it
showed this quite clearly, that twenty-four hours before
that was cabled over to Sir Neville Henderson, the German
Government had never seriously considered what portion of
the Corridor it was going to claim and what portion it was
not going to claim. Is that so? Goering was putting an
entirely different thing to you the night before, was he
not?

A. The first proposal I brought with me on Sunday morning,
the 27th. Yes, there it was only the small Corridor, and
they extended the claims according to this last plan.

Q. They extended the claim, so that the effect of what was
put to you, what you were sent to announce - that a
"magnanimous offer" was coming - was actually an extension
of claims and equally, actually, quite different from what
was suggested the next night by the defendant Ribbentrop.

A. That is correct.

Q, Now, I just want to ask you about an interview which took
place on 31st August. You will find it at Page 87. It is the
interview at which Sir George Ogilvy Forbes gave you an
account of what M. Lipski had said. I want you just to tell
me this: You did meet M. Lipski, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And, of course - obviously, the same could be said of
everyone, I am sure of yourself also - M. Lipski was
suffering from considerable strain in that most critical
time?

A. He was very nervous.

Q. Very nervous. And did not Sir George Ogilvy Forbes tell
you that M. Lipski made his opinion quite clear, that the
German offer was a breach of Polish sovereignty, and that in
his view Poland and France and England must stand firm and
show a united front and that Poland, if left alone, would
fight and die alone? That was M. Lipski's mood, was it not,
at the time?

A. Yes.

Q. And with regard to the other matter: I am not going into
the details, but there is a considerable and significant
different between the Polish version of the telegram of
instructions to M. Lipski and the version which the
defendant Goering showed to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, on the morning of 1st September I think you saw
Goering at 8 o'clock. Would it be a correct description of
the way in which he broke the fact that he had attacked
Poland to say that it was very gradual or slow, with Goering
almost walking backwards, when he broke the news to you that
the attack had taken place?

A. Well, so much so that I immediately phoned up London and
got in contact with the Foreign Office and informed somebody
that, according to the information I had received, the Poles
had been attacked, and they naturally wondered what was
happening to me when I gave that information.

Q. Yes, but he did eventually admit that they had attacked
Poland, and then you had a further interview with Hitler.
There is just one point I want you to clarify. I do not
think you told the Tribunal about the time when he said he
would fight for ten years. Look at Page 98.

                                                  [Page 229]

A. Yes.

Q. You see there, after saying: "'Will ich zehn Jahre
kaempfen,' he brandished his fist and bent down so that it
nearly touched the floor."

A. Yes.

Q. So I take it he was in the same state as at the time of
your previous interview.

A. Well, if possible, more nervous.

Q. Now, there is just one final matter, if you would look at
Page 102, and then I shall leave your book.

You remember you saw the defendant Goering on the morning of
Saturday, 2nd September?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you say this:

  "To my surprise he was more inclined to listen to the
  viewpoints which I maintained, for, as soon as we had sat
  down in his private drawing-room car, he told me that
  there was talk of a mediation sponsored by Mussolini.
  Mussolini was said to be fervently trying to stop the
  war, and especially to prevent it from spreading."

The next sentence is:

  "Goering said that he wanted to inaugurate a new Munich."

I do not want to put it unfairly, and therefore I ask you,
Mr. Dahlerus, does the "he" in that sentence refer to
Goering or to Mussolini?

A. I think it refers to Mussolini.

Q. You think it refers to Mussolini. That is what I
suspected, and therefore I will not trouble you further
about it, except to ask you this:

I have taken you briefly - I hope you will agree, fairly -
through the points on this matter, and on these facts that I
have put to you and with which you will agree - are they the
basis of your opinion that the aim of the German Government,
including Goering, was to split Poland and Great Britain,
and to occupy Poland with the consent of Great Britain?

A. Well, if I had known the facts that I heard later ...

DR. STAHMER: I believe that this question goes too far.
Therefore, I have to object to this question. It refers in
general to the Government and to a definite number of
person. Besides, it is an expression of opinion and not a
fact about which the witness is to testify.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The question was: are these facts
the basis of your opinion?

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks it is a perfectly proper
question and arises directly out of the examination-in-
chief.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. Mr. Dahlerus, you were answering. I had asked you are
these facts ...

DR. SAUTER (counsel for the defendant Funk): But then I
should like to ask, Mr. President, that it be clarified what
is to be understood under the term "German Government," of
which the prosecutor speaks constantly. The German
Government consists of a whole number of Ministers, and, if
one speaks here continuously of the "German Government"
without saying who is meant individually, then the
impression is created as if each and every one of the
Ministers was responsible and had participated in these
negotiations, although, in fact, he knew nothing about it. I
am representing one of these Ministers who knew nothing
about these negotiations, and therefore I am interested that
the prosecutor may be kind enough to clarify who actually is
involved by the term "German Government." That is to say,
whether the Minister of

                                                  [Page 230]

Economics, Funk, for instance, is also included or whether
it refers only to two or three other gentlemen.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I do not suppose ...

THE PRESIDENT: We do not agree at all with what Dr. Sauter
has said. We have already heard the defendant Goering at
considerable length about what the Government consisted of,
and it will be upon the defendants' counsel, when the time
comes to argue the case, to argue that the Government did
not include the members whom they represent.

Defendants' counsel do not seem to understand that what they
call clarification is a matter which can be done in re-
examination. Dr. Stahmer will have the opportunity of re-
examining, and then can ask any questions that arise out of
the cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. I will put it, Mr. Dahlerus, in this way: Are these facts
which you have heard and agreed with this afternoon the
basis of the view which you expressed in answer to Dr.
Stahmer's question this morning?

A. Yes. At the time I thought I could contribute something
to preventing a new war, I could definitely prove that
nothing was left undone by the British, by His Majesty's
Government, to prevent war. But had I known what I know to-
day, I would have realised that my efforts could not
possibly succeed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, there is one other point. I
ask your Lordship's indulgence. Dr. Stahmer asked for the
names of these English industrialists. My Lord, I am very
anxious, as representative of the British Government, that
there should be no concealment about this matter at all, and
I should, therefore, ask, with all humility, that your
Lordship would allow me to ask Mr. Dahlerus to give the
names, simply for that reason.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, if you wish to.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. Mr. Dahlerus, will you tell us the names of the gentlemen
whom you met on your wife's estate in Schleswig-Holstein?

A. Shall I read them or hand them in?

Q. Read them if you will.

A. The Honourable Charles McLarn, S. W. Rossen, A. Holden,
Sir Robert Renig, Bryon S. Mountain, C. F. Spencer, T.
Menceford.

Q. Thank you very much.


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.