Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-14/tgmwc-14-129.04
Last-Modified: 2000/03/09

Q. Yes, 526-PS. I am having the document handed to you. In
the third paragraph you will find a reference to the fact
that this commando unit was carrying a thousand kilogrammes
of explosives. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you understand my question?

A. I answered "yes".

Q. I am sorry, I did not hear you.

In the fifth paragraph you will find that the commando unit
had orders to carry out sabotage against strong-points,
battery positions, troop barracks and bridges, and to
organize a system for the purpose of further sabotage. Is
that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did these assignments have anything to do with the Navy?

A. No.

Q. Can you see any indication in the whole document which
would suggest that the Navy had anything at all to do with
the capture or the treatment of this commando unit?

A. No, the document does not contain an indication of that
sort.

Q. You were asked this morning about the case of the Monte
Gorbea. In connection with a court martial ruling against
the Commander, the Supreme Commander of the Navy, Admiral
Raeder, sent a wireless message at that time to all
Commanders. This radiogram is recorded in Document Donitz 78
in the Document Book, Vol. 4, Page 230. I shall read that
wireless message to you:-

                                                   [Page 13]

  "The Supreme Commander of the Navy has personally and
  expressly renewed his instructions that all U-boat
  Commanders must adhere strictly to the orders regarding
  the treatment of neutral ships. Any infringement of these
  orders has incalculable political consequences. This
  order is to be communicated to all Commanders
  immediately."

Do you see any suggestion here that the order is restricted
to Spanish ships?

A. No, there is no such suggestion in this order.

Q. I am having submitted to you a document which was used
yesterday, D-807. It deals with notes to the Norwegian
Government on the sinking of several steamers, and contains
the drafts of these notes of the Supreme Command of the
Navy. Does this document yield any indication at all that
the notes were actually sent, or is it impossible to tell
from the drafts that the notes themselves were ever
despatched?

A. Since there are no initials or signatures on either of
these letters, they may be drafts. At any rate, proof that
they were actually sent is not apparent from this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the Page number of it?

DR. KRANZBUHLER: It was submitted yesterday, Mr. President.
It is not in any document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.

DR. KRANZBUHLER: I now read to you the first sentence from
another document which was put to you yesterday. Its number
is D-846 and it concerns a discussion with the German
Ambassador to Denmark, Renthe Fink, on 26th September, 1939.
I shall read the first sentence to you:-

  "Sinking of British and Finnish ships by our submarines
  has caused considerable concern here on account of the
  Danish food transports to Great Britain."

Does this report give any indication that these sinkings
took place without warning, or were these ships sunk because
contraband was captured on them in the course of a
legitimate search?

A. The sentence which you have just read does not show how
these ships were sunk. As far as I remember the document
from yesterday, it does not contain any reference to the way
in which these ships were sunk, so that it must be assumed
as a matter of course that they were sunk when contraband
was found on them.

Q. You were asked yesterday whether you considered the
German note to the neutral countries of 24th November, 1939,
a fair warning against entering certain waters, and you
answered the question in the affirmative. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you were asked whether we had deceived the
neutrals and you answered that question with "No". Did this
negative answer apply to the previous question on the
warning against sailing in certain waters, or did it refer
to all the political measures with regard to neutral states
which the German Government took in order to conceal its own
political intentions?

A. The answer in that context referred to the previous
questions which had been asked about warning the neutrals
promptly of the measures which we adopted for the war at
sea.

Q. I want to make this point quite clear. Do you have any
doubt whatever that the pretence of minefields in the
operational zones around the British coast served not only
the purpose of deceiving the enemy defence, but also the
political purpose of concealing from the neutrals the
weapons which we employed in the war at sea.

A. Yes, I expressly confirm this twofold purpose.

Q. The twofold purpose of secrecy?

A. Yes.

                                                   [Page 14]

Q. Do you have any doubt whatever that the German Government
denied to neutral governments that certain ships were sunk
by U-boats, although they had in fact been sunk by U-boats?

A. Yes. Or rather, no. I have no doubt that the denials were
formulated in that way, a generally accepted political
measure, adopted wherever suitable.

Q. Yesterday you admitted the possibility that Admiral
Donitz, as the Commander of all U-boats, may have received
knowledge from the Naval Operations Command of the handling
of political incidents caused by U-boats. Can you, after
careful recollection, name a single instance when he did in
fact receive from the SKL, information on the political
measures adopted?

A. No, I do not remember such an instance.

DR. KRANZBUHLER: I have no further questions.

DR. WALTER SIEMERS (for the defendant Raeder).

BY DR. SIEMERS:

Q. Admiral, you have explained the basis of the commando
order, as far as the Naval Operations Command is concerned,
by referring to Hitler's definite assertions that he had in
his possession enemy orders saying that prisoners were to be
killed. In connection with this commando order Colonel
Phillimore dealt with the case of the British sailor Evans
in great detail. In my opinion that case has not so far been
clarified. Colonel Phillimore spoke of the murder of a
soldier. I think that in spite of the soundness of the
documents the prosecution is mistaken about the facts, also
in a legal respect. Will you once more look at both
documents, Document D-864 ...

Mr. President, that is Exhibit GB 457, discussed by Colonel
Phillimore this morning.

THE WITNESS: I have no more documents here.

BY DR. SIEMERS:

Q. This is an affidavit by Gerhard Flesch. The prosecution
quoted the sentence which states that the Commanding Admiral
of the Northern Coast of Norway had interrogated Evans
personally. Admiral Wagner, does that sentence show that
Evans was a prisoner of the Navy?

A. No.

Q. What was the situation according to the Flesch affidavit?
Will you please clarify it?

A. According to the second paragraph of that affidavit,
Evans must have been in the hands of the SD.

Q. That is right.

DR. SIEMERS: And, Mr. President, may I add that at the
beginning of the affidavit Flesch is stating that he was the
Commander of the Security Police. The Security Police had
captured Evans, he was therefore a prisoner of the SD.

BY DR. SIEMERS:

Q. Is it correct, therefore, that the British sailor Evans
was available to the German Admiral in Norway for the sole
purpose of being interrogated?

A. Undoubtedly.

Q. And the Admiral was interested in interrogating him
merely to obtain purely factual information on the attack on
the Tirpitz. Is that correct?

A. Quite correct.

Q. May I ask you to look at the next paragraph of the
affidavit D-864? There it mentions Evans's clothes, and
says:-

  "It is not known to me that Evans wore a uniform. As far
  as I can remember, he was wearing blue overalls."

                                                   [Page 15]

Does this mean that Evans was not recognizable as a soldier?

A. No, probably not.

Q. Will you now pass on to the Document UK-57, submitted by
Colonel Phillimore?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, this is Exhibit GB 164 and
should be in the original Document Book Keitel, but I think
it was newly submitted today.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you say the number of it is?

DR. SIEMERS: Document UK-57, Exhibit G13 164.

BY DR. SIEMERS:

Q. You have a photostat copy, have you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you, please, turn to the fourth page. First, a
question: Is it possible that this document was known to the
Naval Operations Command? Does the document indicate that it
was sent to the Naval Operations Command?

A. These are informal conference notes of the OKW which were
apparently not sent to the Naval Operations Command.

Q. If I understand it correctly then, this is a document of
the intelligence service of the OKW, is it not?

A. Yes. That is correct.

Q. Under (2) it says "attempted attack on the battleship
Tirpitz"; the first part was read by Colonel Phillimore:-

  "Three Englishmen and two Norwegians were held at the
  Swedish frontier."

Can one, on the strength of this, say that they were
presumably apprehended by the police, and not by the
Wehrmacht?

A. Presumably, yes. Certainly not by the Navy, but probably
by the police who controlled the frontiers, so far as I
know.

Q. Don't you think, Admiral, that this is not only probable,
but certain, if you think back to the affidavit of 14th
November, 1945, by Flesch, the Commander of the Security
Police, who brought Evans from the frontier to Oslo?

A. If you take the two together, then in my opinion it is
certain; I don't think there is any doubt about it.

Q. Will you then look at the following sentence?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, that is under (2), the last
sentence of the first paragraph.

BY DR. SIEMERS:

Q. I quote:

  "It was possible to keep only the civilian-clothed
  British sailor Robert Paul Evans, born 14th January,
  1922, under arrest. The others escaped into Sweden."

Therefore, I think we may assume with certainty that Evans
was not recognizable as a soldier.

A. Yes. No doubt.

Q. Then, will you look at the following sentence. There it
says, I quote:

  "Evans had a pistol holster used in carrying weapons
  under the shoulder, and he had a knuckle-duster."

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it says nothing about
civilian clothes in the English copy. I don't want to make a
bad point, but it is not in my copy.

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I have not got the document
before me.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the English copy that I
have simply says "However, only the British seaman, Robert
Paul Evans, born 14th January, 1922, at London, could be
arrested. The others escaped into Sweden."

                                                   [Page 16]

My Lord, I think it can be checked afterwards.

THE PRESIDENT: By exact reference to the document?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that was Document UK-57,
and it is a report of the OKW, Office for Auslands Abwehr,
of 4th January, 1944.

THE PRESIDENT: Did Colonel Phillimore put it in this
morning?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I put it in, my Lord, I think it was
... certainly, in cross-examining the defendant Keitel. It
has been in before, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: I see, it has already been put in with this
lot.

DR. SIEMERS: I should be grateful to the Tribunal if the
mistake were rectified in the English translation. In the
German original text the photostatic copy is included,
therefore the wording "civilian-clothed" must be correct.

BY DR. SIEMERS:

Q. Witness, we were discussing the sentence, I quote:-

  "Evans had a pistol holster, used in carrying weapons,
  tinder the shoulder, and he had a knuckle-duster."

How does this bear on the fact that he was wearing civilian
clothes?

A. It shows that he -

DR. SIEMERS: Sir David would like me to read the next
sentence, too:-

"Acts of force contrary to International Law could not be
proved against him. Evans made detailed statements regarding
the action and, on 19th January, 1943, in accordance with
the Fuehrer Order, he was shot."

BY DR. SIEMERS:

Q. How does this bear on the fact that he was wearing
civilian clothes?

Does this show that he did not act as a soldier in enemy
territory should act?

THE PRESIDENT: just a moment. The Tribunal consider that
that is a question of law which the Tribunal has to decide,
and not a question for the witness.

DR. SIEMFRS: Then I shall forgo the answer.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor