—I suppose that is not the Tennessee Valley Authority; the translator’s note calls it the Technical Research Establishment.—

Interestingly enough, that memorandum by the Defendant Raeder, written in 1932, was talking about “as soon as the situation of the political control allows it.” The seizure of power was the following year.

Along similar lines the Navy was also carrying on the concealed preparation of auxiliary cruisers, under the disguised designation of ‘Transport Ships 0’. The preparations under this order were to be completed by 1 April 1935. At the very time of construction of these ships as commercial ships, plans were made for their conversion.

We have the original German document, again top secret, identified by our Number C-166, order from the Command Office of the Navy, dated 12 March 1934, and signed in draft by Groos. It has the seal of the Reichswehrministerium, Marineleitung, over the draft signature. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-48. I think the Defendant Raeder will admit, or at least will not deny, that this is an official document.

The short paragraph says: “The preparations are to be arranged, so that they can be completed by 1. 4. 35.”

Among official Navy files, OKM files, which we have, there are notes kept year by year, from 1927 to 1940, on the reconstruction of the German Navy, and in these notes are numerous examples of the Navy’s activities and policies of which I should like to point out some illustrations.

One of these documents discloses that the displacement of the battleships “Scharnhorst-Gneisenau” and “F/G”—whatever that is—was actually greater than the tonnages which had been notified to the British under the Treaty. This document, our C-23, I offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-49. That is a set really of three separate documents joined together. I read from that document:

And then there is a table with reference to different ships, and two columns headed “Displacement by Type”: one column “Actual Displacement” and the other column “Notified Displacement.”

On the “Scharnhorst” the actual was 31,300 tons; the notified was 26,000 tons. On the “F”—actual 41,700 tons, the notified 35,000. On the “HI”—actual 56,200 tons, notified 46,850, and so down the list. I need not read them all.

On the second document in that group towards the end, Page 2 on the English version, is the statement:

The German Navy constantly planned and committed violations of armament limitation and with characteristic German thoroughness had prepared superficial explanations or pretexts to explain away these violations.

Following a conference with the chief of “A” section, an elaborate survey list was prepared and compiled, giving a careful list of the quantity and type of German naval armament and ammunition on hand under manufacture or construction, and in many instances proposed together with a statement of the justification or defense that might be used in those instances where the Versailles Treaty was violated or its allotment has been exceeded.

The list contained 30 items under “Material Measures” and 14 items under “Measures of Organization.” The variety of details covered necessarily involved several sources within the Navy, which must have realized their significance. As I understand it, the “A” section was the military department of the Navy.

We have this very interesting document among the captured documents identified by our Number C-32. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-50. It again is Geheime Kommandosache and it is headed “A Survey Report of German Naval Armament after Conference with Chief of ‘A’ Section”, dated 9 September 1933, and captured among official German Navy files.

This is a long document, if the Tribunal please, but I should like to call attention to a few of the more interesting items.

There are three columns, one headed “Measure”, one headed “Material Measures, Details,” and the most interesting one is headed “Remarks.” The remarks contain the pretext or justification for explaining away the violations of the Treaty. They are numbered, so I can conveniently refer to the numbers:

—Here is one that is rather amusing—“Number 13. Exceeding the number of machine guns et cetera, permitted.” Remarks: “Can be made light of.”

I think quite obviously that must have been used as a guide for negotiators who were attending the Disarmament Conference as to the position that they might take.

Now to Paragraph IV (F) 2 (b) of the Indictment: the allegation that “On 14 October 1933 they led Germany to leave the International Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations.”

That is an historical fact of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice. The Nazis took this opportunity to break away from the international negotiations and to take an aggressive position on an issue which would not be serious enough to provoke reprisal from other countries. At the same time Germany attached so much importance to this action, that they considered the possibility of the application of sanctions by other countries. Anticipating the probable nature of such sanctions and the countries which might apply them, plans were made for military preparations for armed resistance on land, at sea, and in the air, in a directive from the Reichsminister for Defense Blomberg, to the Head of the Army High Command Fritsch, the Head of the Navy High Command Raeder, and the Reichsminister of Air Göring.

We have this captured document in our series C-140, which I offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-151. It is a directive dated 25 October 1933, 11 days after the withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations.

I think that makes the point without further reading. One of the immediate consequences of the action was that following the withdrawal from the League of Nations, Germany’s armament program was still further increased.

I introduced this morning document C-153, as Exhibit USA-43, so that is already in. From that, at this point, I wish to read Paragraph 5. That, as you recall, was a document dated 12 May 1934.

Then the next allegation of the Indictment, if the Tribunal please: “On 10 March 1935 the Defendant Göring announced that Germany was building a military air force.”

That is an historical fact of which I ask the Court to take judicial notice, and I am quite certain that the Defendant Göring would not dispute it.

We have a copy of the German publication known as Das Archiv—the number of March 1935; and it is Page 1830 to which I refer, and I would offer that in evidence, identifying it as our number 2292-PS; I offer it as Exhibit USA-52. It is an announcement concerning the German Air Force:

Then, at the end of that section of the article in Das Archiv:

General Göring replied to that exactly as follows:

As I said; I believe, this morning, when we cite assurances of that kind from Nazi leaders, we take it that we are not foreclosed from showing that they had different intentions from those announced.

The next allegation of the Indictment is the promulgating of the law for compulsory military service, universal military service.

Having gone as far as they could on rearmament and the secret training of personnel, the next step necessary to the program for aggressive war was a large-scale increase in military strength. This could no longer be done under disguise and camouflage, and would have to be known to the world. Accordingly, on 16 March 1935, there was promulgated a law for universal military service, in violation of Article 173 of the Versailles Treaty.

I ask the Court to take judicial notice of that law as it appears in the Reichsgesetzblatt, which is the official compilation of laws, in the Title I of Volume I, yearly volume 1935, or Jahrgang, at Page 369 and I think I need not offer the book or the law in evidence.

The text of the law itself is very brief and I might read that. It is right at the end of the article. I should refer to that as our Document Number 1654-PS, so as to identify it:

It is signed first by the Führer and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and then many other officials, including the following defendants in this case:

Von Neurath, Frick, Schacht, Göring, Hess, Frank.

Does the Court contemplate a short recess?

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for 10 minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

COL. STOREY: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution expects, on tomorrow, to offer in evidence some captured enemy moving pictures and in order to give Defense Counsel an opportunity to see them before they are offered in evidence—and in response to their request made to the Tribunal some time ago—the showing of these films for Defense Counsel will be held in this court room this evening at 8 o’clock, for the Defense Counsel.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Colonel Storey.

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I have reached now Paragraph IV, F, 2 (e) of the Indictment, which alleges:

As a part of their program to weaken resistance in possible enemy states, the Nazis followed a policy of making false assurances, thereby tending to create confusion and a false sense of security. Thus on the same date on which Germany renounced the armament provisions of the Versailles Treaty, Hitler announced the intent of the German Government to respect the territorial limitations of Versailles and Locarno.

I offered in evidence this morning, as Exhibit USA-38, our Document 2288-PS, the pertinent volume of the issue of the Völkischer Beobachter of 21 May 1935, containing Hitler’s speech in the Reichstag on that date. In that speech he said:

For convenient reference, the territorial limitations in the Locarno and Versailles Treaties include the following: The Rhine Pact of Locarno, 16 October 1925, Article 1:

That has reference, of course, to the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland.

Then from the Versailles Treaty, 28 June 1919, Article 42:

The next allegation of the Indictment (f):

The demilitarized zone of the Rhineland obviously was a sore wound with the Nazis ever since its establishment, after World War I. Not only was this a blow to their increasing pride, but it was a bar to any effective strong position which Germany might want to take on any vital issues. In the event of any sanctions against Germany, in the form of military action, the French and other powers would get well into Germany, east of the Rhine, before any German resistance could even be put up. Therefore, any German plans to threaten or breach international obligations or for any kind of aggression, required the preliminary reoccupation and refortification of this open Rhineland territory. Plans and preparations for the reoccupation of the Rhineland started very early.

We have a document, a German captured document, in German script, which we identify as C-139, and which appears to be signed by the handwriting of Blomberg. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-53.

The document deals with what is called “Operation Schulung”, which means schooling, or training. It is dated 2 May 1935 and even refers to prior Staff discussions on the subject dealt with. It is addressed to the Chief of the Army Command, who at that time, I believe, was Fritsch, the Chief of the Navy High Command, Raeder, and the Reich Minister for Air, Göring.

It does not use the name “Rhineland” and does not, in terms, refer to it. It is our view that it was a military plan for the military reoccupation of the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Rhine Pact of Locarno.

I read from the first part of the document which is headed “top secret”:

The rest of the order deals with military details and I think it is unnecessary to read it.

There are certain points, in the face of this order, which are inconsistent with any theory that it was merely a training order, or that it might have been defensive in nature. The operation was to be carried out as a surprise blow at lightning speed (Schlagartig als Überfall).

The air forces were to provide support for the attack. There was to be reinforcement by the East Prussian division. Furthermore, this document is dated 2 May 1935, which is about 6 weeks after the promulgation of the Conscription Law on 16 March 1935, and so it could hardly have been planned as a defensive measure against any expected sanctions which might have been applied by reason of the passage of the Conscription Law.

Of course the actual reoccupation of the Rhineland did not take place until 7 March 1936, so that this early plan would necessarily have been totally revised to suit the existing conditions and specific objectives. As I say, although the plan does not mention the Rhineland, it has all of the indications of a Rhineland operation plan. That the details of this particular plan were not ultimately the ones that were carried out in reoccupying the Rhineland does not at all detract from the vital fact that as early as 2 May 1935 the Germans had already planned that operation, not merely as a Staff plan but as a definite operation. It was evidently not on their timetable to carry out the operation so soon if it could be avoided. But they were prepared to do so, if necessary, to resist French sanctions against their Conscription Law.

It is significant to note the date of this document is the same as the date of the signature of the Franco-Russian Pact, which the Nazis later asserted as their excuse for the Rhineland reoccupation.

The military orders on the basis of which the Rhineland reoccupation was actually carried into execution, on 7 March 1936, were issued on 2 March 1936 by the War Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Blomberg, and addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army Fritsch, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Raeder, and Air Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force Göring. We have that order signed by Blomberg, headed, as usual, “top secret,” identified by us as C-159. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-54.

The German copy of that document bears the Defendant Raeder’s initial in green pencil, with a red pencil note: “To be submitted to the C-in-C of the Navy.”

The first part of the order reads:

There follow the detailed orders for the military operation.

We also have the orders for naval cooperation. The original German document, which we identify as C-194, was issued on 6 March 1936, in the form of an order on behalf of the Reich Minister for War, Blomberg, signed by Keitel, and addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Raeder, setting out detailed instructions for the Commander-in-Chief of the fleet and the admirals commanding the Baltic and North Sea. I offer the document in evidence as Exhibit USA-55.

The short covering letter is as follows:

That is signed “Keitel”.

The rest of the documents are detailed naval orders—operational orders—and I think I need not read further.

For the historical emphasis of this occasion, Hitler made a momentous speech on 7 March 1936. I have the volume of the Völkischer Beobachter, Berlin, Sunday, 8 March 1936, our Document 2289-PS, which I offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-56.

This is a long speech which the world remembers and of which I shall only read a short portion:

The whole matter of the German reoccupation of the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland caused extensive international repercussions and study. As a result of the protests lodged with the League of Nations, the Council of the League made an investigation and announced the following finding, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice, as being carried in the League of Nations Monthly Summary, March 1936, Volume 16, Page 78; and it is also quoted in an article by Quincy Wright, in the American Journal of International Law, Page 487, 1936.

The finding is this:

At the same time, on 7 March 1936, as the Germans reoccupied the Rhineland in flagrant violation of the Versailles and Locarno Treaties, they again tried to allay the fears of other European powers and lead them into a false sense of security by announcing to the world: “We have no territorial demands to make in Europe.”

That appears in this same speech of Hitler’s, which I have offered in evidence as Exhibit USA-56, which is Document 2289-PS. The language will be found on Page 6, Column 1:

Most of the acts set forth in the paragraph of the Indictment which I have been discussing, I think do not need judicial proof because they are historical facts. We have been able to bring you a number of interesting documents illuminating that history. The existence of prior plans and preparations is indisputable from the very nature of things. The method and sequence of these plans and their accomplishment are clearly indicative of the progressing and increasingly aggressive character of the Nazi objectives, international obligations and considerations of humanity notwithstanding.

The detailed presentation of the violations of treaties and international law will be presented by our British colleagues, in support of Count Two of the Indictment.

In clear relief, there is shown the determination of the Nazi conspirators to use whatever means were necessary to abrogate and overthrow the Treaty of Versailles and its restrictions upon the military armament and activity of Germany. In this process, they conspired and engaged in secret rearmament and training, the secret production of munitions of war, and they built up an air force. They withdrew from the International Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations on October 14, 1933. They instituted universal military service on March 16, 1935. On May 21, 1935 they falsely announced that they would respect the territorial limitations of Versailles and Locarno. On March 7, 1936 they reoccupied and fortified the Rhineland and at the same time, falsely announced that they had no territorial demands in Europe.

The objectives of the conspirators were vast and mighty, requiring long and extensive preparations. The process involved the evasion, circumvention, and violation of international obligations and treaties. They stopped at nothing.

The accomplishment of all those things, together with getting Versailles out of the way, constituted an opening of the gates toward the specific aggressions which followed.

I pass next, if the Tribunal please, to the presentation of the story of the aggression against Austria. I do not know whether Your Honor desires me to start on that or not. I am perfectly willing to do so.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to use this volume of documents marked “M” tomorrow?

MR. ALDERMAN: There will be a new one marked “N”.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 28 November 1945 at 1000 hours.]

Morning Session

THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the United States.

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, at this point we distribute document book lettered “N”, which will cover the next phase of the case, as I will now undertake to present it. Of the five large phases of aggressive warfare, which I undertake to present to the Tribunal, I have now completed the presentation of the documents on the first phase, the phase lasting from 1933 to 1936, consisting of the preparation for aggression.

The second large phase of the program of the conspirators for aggression lasted from approximately 1936 to March 1939, when they had completed the absorption of Austria and the occupation of all of Czechoslovakia. I again invite the Court’s attention to the chart on the wall. You may be interested in glancing at it from time to time as the presentation progresses.

The relevant portions of the Indictment to the present subject are set forth in Subsection 3, under Section IV (F), appearing on Pages 7 and 8 of the printed English text. This portion of the Indictment is divided into three parts: First, the 1936 to 1938 phase of the plan, planning for the assault on Austria and Czechoslovakia; second, the execution of the plan to invade Austria, November 1937 to March 1938; third, the execution of the plan to invade Czechoslovakia, April 1938 to March 1939.

As I previously indicated to the Tribunal, the portion of the Indictment headed “(a) Planning for the assault on Austria and Czechoslovakia” is proved for the most part by Document Number 386-PS, which I introduced on Monday. That is Exhibit USA-25. That was one of the handful of documents with which I began my presentation of this part of the case. The minutes taken by Colonel Hossbach of the meeting in the Reich Chancellery on 5 November 1937, when Hitler developed his political last will and testament, reviewed the desire of Nazi Germany for more room in central Europe, and made preparations for the conquest of Austria and Czechoslovakia as a means of strengthening Germany for the general pattern of the Nazi conspiracy for aggression.

I shall present the material on this second, or Austrian phase of aggression, in two separate parts. I shall first present the materials and documents relating to the aggression against Austria. They have been gathered together in the document book which has just been distributed. Later I shall present the material relating to the aggression against Czechoslovakia. They will be gathered in a separate document book.

First, we have the events leading up to the autumn of 1937, and the strategic position of the National Socialists in Austria. I suggest at this point, if the Tribunal please, that in this phase we see the first full flowering of what has come to be known as Fifth Column infiltration techniques in another country, and first under that, the National Socialist aim of absorption of Austria.

In order to understand more clearly how the Nazi conspirators proceeded, after the meeting of 5 November 1937, covered by the Hossbach minutes, it is advisable to review the steps which had already been taken in Austria by the Nazi Socialists of both Germany and Austria. The position which the Nazis had reached by the fall of 1937 made it possible for them to complete their absorption of Austria much sooner and with much less cost than had been contemplated at the time of the meeting covered by the Hossbach minutes.

The acquisition of Austria had long been a central aim of the German National Socialists. On the first page of Mein Kampf Hitler said: “German Austria must return to the Great German Motherland.” He continued by stating that this purpose of having common blood in a common Reich could not be satisfied by a mere economic union. Moreover, this aim of absorption of Austria was an aim from 1933 on and was regarded as a serious program which the Nazis were determined to carry out.

At this point, I should like to offer in evidence our Document Number 1760-PS, which, if admitted, would be Exhibit USA-57. This document is an affidavit executed in Mexico City on 28 August of this year by George S. Messersmith, United States Ambassador, now in Mexico City. Before I quote from Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit, I should like to point out briefly that Mr. Messersmith was Consul General of the United States of America in Berlin from 1930 to late spring of 1934. He was then made American Minister in Vienna where he stayed until 1937.

In this affidavit he states that the nature of his work brought him into frequent contact with German Government officials, and he reports in this affidavit that the Nazi Government officials, with whom he had contact, were on most occasions amazingly frank in their conversation and concealed none of their aims.

If the Court please, this affidavit, which is quite long, presents a somewhat novel problem of treatment in the presentation of this case. In lieu of reading this entire affidavit into the record, I should like, if it might be done in that way, to offer in evidence, not merely the English original of the affidavit, but also a translation into German, which has been mimeographed. This translation of the affidavit into German has been distributed to counsel for the defendants.

DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen): An affidavit of a witness who is obtainable has just been turned over to the Court. The content of the affidavit offers so many subjective opinions of the witness, that it is imperative we hear the witness personally in this matter.

I should like to take this occasion to ask that it be decided as a matter of principle, whether that which a witness can testify from his own knowledge may, without further ado, be presented in the form of an affidavit; or whether if a witness is living and can be reached the principle of oral proceedings should be applied, that is, the witness should be heard directly.

MR. ALDERMAN: If the Tribunal please, I should like to be heard briefly on the matter.

THE PRESIDENT: You have finished what you had to say, I understand?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will hear Mr. Alderman.

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I recognize, of course, the inherent weakness of an affidavit as evidence where the witness is not present and subject to cross-examination. Mr. Messersmith is an elderly gentleman. He is not in good health. It was entirely impracticable to try to bring him here; otherwise, we should have done so.

I remind the Court of Article 19 of the Charter:

Of course, the Court would not treat anything in an affidavit such as this as having probative value unless the Court deemed it to have probative value; and if the defendants have countering evidence, which is strong enough to overcome whatever is probative in this affidavit, of course the Court will treat the probative value of all the evidence in accordance with this provision of the Charter.

By and large, this affidavit and another affidavit by Mr. Messersmith which we shall undertake to present cover background material which is a matter of historical knowledge, of which the Court could take judicial notice. Where he does quote these amazingly frank expressions by Nazi leaders, it is entirely open to any of them, who may be quoted, to challenge what is said, or to tell Your Honors what they believe was said. In any event, it seems to me that the Court can accept an affidavit of this character, made by a well-known American diplomat, and give it whatever probative value the Court thinks it has.

As to the question of reading the entire affidavit, I understand the ruling of the Court to be that only those parts of documents, which are quoted in the record, will be considered to be in the record. It will be based upon the necessity of giving the German counsel knowledge of what was being used. As to these affidavits, we have furnished them complete German translations. It seems to us that a different rule might obtain where that has been done.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Alderman, have you finished what you had to say?

MR. ALDERMAN: Yes, sir.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The representative of the Prosecution takes the point of view that the age and state of health of the witness makes it impossible to summon him as a witness. I do not know the witness personally. Consequently, I am not in a position to state to what extent he is actually incapacitated. Nevertheless, I have profound doubts regarding the presentation of evidence of such an old and incapacitated person. I am not speaking specifically now about Mr. Messersmith. I do not think the Court can judge to what extent old age and infirmity can possibly influence memory and reasoning powers; so, personal presence would seem absolutely indispensable.

Furthermore, it is important to know what questions, in toto, were put to the witness. An affidavit only reiterates the answers to questions which were put to the person. Very often conclusions can be drawn from unanswered questions. It is here a question of evidence solely on the basis of an affidavit. For that reason we are not in a position to assume, with absolute certainty, that the evidence of the witness is complete.

I cannot sanction the intention of the Prosecution in this case to introduce two methods of giving evidence of different value; namely, a fully valid one through direct evidence of a witness, and a less complete one through evidence laid down in an affidavit. The situation is this: Either the evidence is sufficient, or it is not. I think the Tribunal should confine itself to complete and fully valid evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Alderman, did you wish to add anything?

MR. ALDERMAN: I wish to make this correction, perhaps of what I said. I did not mean to leave the implication that Mr. Messersmith is in any way incapacitated. He is an elderly man, about 70 years old. He is on active duty in Mexico City; the main difficulty is that we did not feel we could take him away from his duties in that post, combined with a long trip and his age.

THE PRESIDENT: That is all, is it?

MR. ALDERMAN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has considered the objection which has been raised. In view of the powers which the Tribunal has under Article 19 of the Charter, which provides that the Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence, but shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value, the Tribunal holds that affidavits can be presented, and that in the present case it is a proper course.

The question of the probative value of an affidavit as compared with a witness who has been cross-examined would, of course, be considered by the Tribunal. If, at a later stage, the Tribunal thinks the presence of a witness is of extreme importance, the matter can be reconsidered. I add this: If the defense wish to put interrogatories to the witness, they will be at liberty to do so.

MR. ALDERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I offer then our Document 1760-PS as Exhibit USA-57, affidavit by George S. Messersmith. Rather than reading the entire affidavit, unless the Court wishes me to do so, I intend to paraphrase and state the substance of what is covered in various parts of the affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think it would be better to adhere to the rule which we have laid down: That only what is read in the court will form part of the record.

MR. ALDERMAN: I shall read then, if the Tribunal please, from the fourth paragraph on the third page of the English copy, the following list of names, headed by President Miklas of Austria and Chancellor Dollfuss: