Читать книгу The Nuremberg Trials (Vol. 1-14) - International Military Tribunal - Страница 241
Afternoon Session
ОглавлениеMR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal. I should like to ask the Tribunal to note the presence and appearance, on behalf of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of Mr. A. I. Vishinsky of the Foreign Office, and General K. P. Gorshenin, Chief Prosecutor of the Soviet Republic who has been able to join us in the Prosecution only now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal notes what Mr. Justice Jackson has said, and observes that Mr. Vishinsky has taken his seat with the Soviet Delegation of Chief Prosecutors.
DR. SIEMERS: In the meanwhile during the lunch hour I have seen the minutes. I should like to observe that I don’t think it is very agreeable that the Prosecution should not depart from their point that the Defense should only receive the documents during the proceedings, or just before the proceedings, or at times, even after the proceedings. I should be grateful if the Prosecution could see to it in the future that we are informed in good time.
Yesterday a list of the documents which were to be presented today was made in our room, number 54. I find that the documents presented today are not included in yesterday’s list. You will understand that the task of the Defense is thereby rendered comparatively difficult. On principle, I cannot in my statement of today, give my agreement to the reading of minutes of interrogations. In order to facilitate matters, I should like to follow the Court’s suggestion, and declare that I am agreeable to the minutes presented here being read. I request, however—and I believe I have already been assured by the Prosecution to that effect—that only the part be read which refers to Document C-156, as I had no time to discuss the remaining points with the defendants.
As to the remaining points, five other documents are cited. Moreover I request that the part which refers to the book by Kapitän zur See Schüssler, should be read in full, and I believe that the prosecutor agrees with this.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood from the counsel for Raeder that you were substantially in agreement as to what parts of this interrogation you should read. Is that right, Mr. Alderman?
MR. ALDERMAN: If I understood the counsel correctly, he asked that I read the entire part of the interrogation which deals with Document C-156, but I understood that he did not agree for me to read other parts that referred to other documents. I handed counsel the original of my copy of the interrogation before the lunch hour, and when he returned it to me after the lunch hour, I substituted in his hands a carbon copy. I didn’t quite understand his statement about documents being introduced which hadn’t been furnished to the defendant. We did file the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this document in the document book?
MR. ALDERMAN: My understanding is that the document book contains all the documents except these interrogations. They did not contain the interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Then he is right in saying that.
MR. ALDERMAN: He is right as to the interrogation, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you in agreement with him then, that you can read what you want to read now, and that it is not necessary for you to read the parts to which he objects.
MR. ALDERMAN: I think so. I understand he objects to my reading anything other than the part concerned with C-156. I would anticipate that he might be willing for me to read the other parts tomorrow.
This deals with the book which I offered in evidence this morning, Document C-156, Exhibit USA-41. The Defendant Raeder identified that book, and explained that the Navy tried to fulfill the letter of the Versailles Treaty and at the same time make progress in naval development. I refer to the interrogation of the Defendant Raeder at the part we had under discussion:
“Q. I have here a Document C-156, which is a photostatic copy of a work prepared by the High Command of the Navy and covers the struggle of the Navy against the Versailles Treaty from 1919 to 1935. I ask you initially whether you are familiar with the work.
“A. I know this book. I read it once when it was edited.
“Q. Was that an official publication of the German Navy?
“A. This Captain Schüssler (indicating the author) was a commander in the Admiralty. Published by the OKM, it was an idea of this officer to put all these things together.
“Q. Do you recall the circumstances under which the authorization to prepare such a work was given to him?
“A. I think he told me that he would write such a book as he tells here in the foreword.
“Q. And in the preparation of this work he had access to the official Navy files and based his work on the items contained therein?
“A. Yes, I think so. He would have spoken with other persons, and he would have had the files which were necessary.
“Q. Do you know whether, before the work was published, a draft of it was circulated among the officers in the Admiralty for comment?
“A. No, I don’t think so. Not before it was published. I saw it only when it was published.
“Q. Was it circulated freely after its publication?
“A. It was a secret object. I think all upper commands in the Navy had knowledge of it.
“Q. It was not circulated outside of Navy circles?
“A. No.
“Q. What then is your opinion concerning the comments contained in the work, regarding the circumventing of the provisions of Versailles?
“A. I don’t remember very exactly what is in here. I can only remember that the Navy had always the object to fulfill the word of the Versailles Treaty, but in order to have some advantages. But the flying men were exercised 1 year before they went into the Navy. Quite young men. So that the word of the Treaty of Versailles was filled. They did not belong to the Navy, as long as they were exercised in flying, and the submarines were developed, but not in Germany and not in the Navy, but in Holland. There was a civil bureau, and in Spain there was an industrialist; in Finland, too, and they were built only much later, when we began to act with the English Government about the Treaty of 35 to 100, because we could see that then the Treaty of Versailles would be destroyed by such a treaty with England, and so, in order to keep the word of Versailles, we tried to fulfill the word of Versailles, but we tried to have advantages.
“Q. Would a fair statement be that the Navy High Command was interested in avoiding the limiting provisions of the Treaty of Versailles regarding personnel and the limits of armaments, but would attempt to fulfill the letter of the Treaty, although actually avoiding it?
“A. That was our endeavor.”
MR. ALDERMAN: Now the rest of this is the portion that counsel for the defendant asked me to read: