“The building of battleships will be extended as far as
possible, so as to keep the naval yards at Wilhelmshaven
occupied continuously. The ideal time of construction is about
three years; and it is then explained that, working on the
principle of giving as long employment as possible, the building
time is prolonged as much as possible.”
I believe this shows there was no aggressive intention, since otherwise
the building program would have been speeded up.
Then I ask you to take judicial notice of Page 30, the construction cost
of an armored ship having a tonnage of 10,000 tons, where it mentions
that it was about 75 million marks. This figure is important to me as
evidence in view of the further course of the testimony, where the cost
of the breaches of the Versailles Treaty will be shown.
Finally may I quote from Page 30 a few lines which give the principle
for the employment of the Wehrmacht. I quote:
“Since carrying out the disarmament program, which so far the
German Republic alone among all the Great Powers has effected,
for the Wehrmacht, which serves to protect the borders and
peace, the following eventualities for the taking up of arms
comes into consideration: (a) defense against the stealing of
territories, (b) defense of neutrality in conflicts among third
parties.”
[_Turning to the defendant._] I should like to refer to the individual
breaches of the Treaty of which the Prosecution has accused you. In this
connection, I submit Exhibit Raeder-1, in Document Book 1, Page 1, and I
refer to Page 3, Article 191. It concerns the accusation that Germany,
contrary to the Versailles Treaty, constructed submarines. Article 191
reads, and I quote, “The construction and acquisition of all submersible
craft, even for commercial purposes, is forbidden to Germany.”
I will soon put a question to you in regard to the established fact that
the Navy was interested in a firm which dealt with the designing of
submarines in Holland and in a general construction program for ships
and submarines, which was being carried out in Holland; but in order to
save time, it will be simpler if I read from the Lohmann affidavit which
I submit as Exhibit Raeder-2, in Document Book 1, Page 4. I quote a
short paragraph under 1:
“According to the Treaty of Versailles, the German Reich was
neither to build nor to acquire U-boats. When in July, 1922, the
firm N. V. Ingenieurskantoor Voor Scheepsbouw was established in
the Hague, the Navy acquired an interest in it in order to keep
informed on modern U-boat construction. The intention was to use
the experience gained thereby for the German Navy, when later on
the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles would be annulled by
negotiations and Germany would be again permitted to build
U-boats. Moreover, the Navy wanted, for the same purpose, to
train a small nucleus of skilled personnel. The Dutch firm was
strictly a designing bureau.”
May it please the Tribunal, as a precaution I should like to point out
in this passage that there is a translation mistake in the English copy.
The word “Konstruktion” has been translated “construction,” and
construction means “building” in German. It was not a construction
bureau. As far as I know, “Konstruktion” must be translated “design.”
Since in view of Article 191 this point is important, I want to correct
this.