never been compelled to disclose any documents which you wished to put
to a witness in cross-examination. This is cross-examination and
therefore it is perfectly open to Counsel for the Prosecution to put any
document without disclosing it beforehand; just as Defense Counsel could
have put any document to witnesses called on behalf of the Prosecution,
if they had wished to do so, in cross-examination.
I am sure that if counsel for the defendants wish to re-examine upon any
such document as this, a copy of it will be supplied to them for that
purpose.
The Tribunal now rules that this document may be put to the witness now.
DR. SIEMERS: Does the Defense also have the opportunity, now that it is
known to the entire Court, of receiving the document?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. SIEMERS: I should be thankful if I could have a copy now.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am frank to say I do not know whether we have
adequate copies to furnish them to all the Defense Counsel now.
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe you have not, but you can let them have one or more
copies.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But I do not think we should furnish copies until
the examination with reference to that document is completed, that is to
say . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: I should like to make one request that at least the technical
possibilities—that at least the counsel of these defendants who are
being cross-examined also be given the document that is submitted to the
defendant, so that they are in a position, just as the Tribunal is, to
follow the examination.
If Justice Jackson says that it is his opinion that it would be right
for the defense counsel−in this case my colleague Stahmer—to receive
this document only after the examination—in this case of Göring—has
ended, I beg earnestly, in the interest of the dignity and prestige of
the Defense, to take objection to this suggestion of Justice Jackson’s.
I do not believe that he means by that to insinuate that the Defense
Counsel would be able—having these documents in its hands at the same
time as the Tribunal and at the same time as the witness—somehow
through signs or otherwise to influence the defendant and thereby
disturb the cross-examination by Mr. Justice Jackson, or by the
prosecutor. Mr. Justice Jackson certainly did not mean that, but one
might draw that conclusion.
I therefore make this request: If in the cross-examination, for the
purpose of the cross-examination, in view of the altogether justified
element of surprise, a document is presented to a witness that at the
same time is presented to the Tribunal, that at least a copy of this
document be given at the same time to the defense counsel, the defense
counsel concerned, either the one who has called the witness or the one
whose defendant is in the witness box, so that he can have some idea of
what the witness is being confronted with, for Göring could read this
document, but Dr. Stahmer could not. In other words, he was not in a
position to follow the next part of Mr. Justice Jackson’s
cross-examination. That is certainly not intended, and would certainly
not be fair, and I should therefore like to ask Mr. Justice Jackson to
reply to my suggestion, and my application, in order to arrive at an
understanding and thereby to relieve the Tribunal of the decision on a
question that to me seems self-evident.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal is inclined to
think—the Tribunal certainly thinks—that you are perfectly right, that
there is no necessity at all, as I have already stated, to disclose the
document to the defendants before you use it in cross-examination. But,
at the time you use it in cross-examination, is there any objection to
handing a copy of it to the counsel for the defendant who is being
cross-examined?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In some instances it is physically impossible
because of our situation in reference to these documents. A good many of
these documents have come to us very lately. Our photostatic facilities
are limited.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not suggesting that you should hand it to all of
them, but only to Dr. Stahmer.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If we have copies, I have no objection to doing
that, but if we do not have them in German—our difficulty has always
been to get German copies of these documents.
DR. DIX: May I say something else. If it is not possible in German, then
it should at least be possible in English, for one English copy will
certainly be available. Furthermore, if it is a question of German
witnesses, such as Göring, the document will be shown him in German
anyhow; it will certainly be shown the witness in German. I believe that
will surely be possible.
[_Dr. Siemers approached the lectern._]
THE PRESIDENT: We do not really need to hear more than one counsel on
this sort of point. I have already ruled upon your objection, which was
that the document should be produced beforehand, but the Tribunal has
already ruled that objection should be denied.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I am sorry. My motion was that the Defense
Counsel should receive these documents at the same time the Tribunal
does. I am not of the opinion expressed by Dr. Dix, that only one
defense counsel should receive it. If it is a report regarding the Reich
Defense Council, then it is a document important to several defendants.
One copy is therefore not sufficient, but each defense counsel must have
one. I believe that Mr. Justice Jackson . . .
THE PRESIDENT: But not at this moment. There are, as we all know, the
very greatest difficulties in producing all these documents, and
extraordinary efforts have been made by the Prosecution and the
Translating Division to supply the defendants with documents, and with
documents in German, and it is not necessary that every member of the
Defense Counsel have these documents at the time the witness is being
cross-examined. I am sure the Prosecution will do everything it can to
let you have the documents in due course—any document that is being
used.
In the opinion of the Tribunal it is perfectly sufficient if one copy of
the document is supplied to the counsel for the witness who is being
cross-examined. As I say, the Prosecution will doubtless let you have
copies of these documents in due course.
You are appearing for the Defendant Raeder, and the Defendant Raeder, I
am afraid, at the present rate will not be in the witness box for some
time.
DR. SIEMERS: The result of that is that the defense counsel, who is not
momentarily concerned, cannot understand the cross-examination. As to
the technical question, I ask the Court to consider that I cannot follow
Justice Jackson on this technical point. The document is mimeographed by
means of a stencil. In mimeographing it makes no difference at all
whether 20, 40, 80, or 150 copies are produced. It makes no difference
from the point of view of time, except perhaps 4 or 5 minutes. I
consider for this reason that one can hardly refer to technical
difficulties in this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution will consider what you say,
but no rule has been made by the Tribunal that every document should be
supplied to every counsel during cross-examination.
GÖRING: I should like to say again in regard to the document that this
is not . . .
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I respectfully ask that the witness be
instructed to answer the question and reserve his explanations until his
counsel takes him on. Otherwise, this cross-examination cannot
successfully be conducted, in the sense of being reasonable in time.
THE PRESIDENT: I have already explained, on several occasions, that it
is the duty of defendants when they are in the witness box, and the duty
of witnesses, to answer questions directly, if they are capable of being
answered directly, in the affirmative or in the negative; and if they
have any explanation to make afterwards, they can make it after
answering the question directly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to Item 3, under II,
“Finances,” reading as follows:
“Very critical situation of the Reich Exchequer. Relief
initially through the milliard imposed on the Jews and through
profits accruing to the Reich from the Aryanization of Jewish
enterprises.”
You find that in the minutes, do you not?
GÖRING: Yes, that is there.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you find the minutes signed by Woermann, do you
not?
GÖRING: No, that is not true. I beg your pardon? Here on the photostat
Woermann has signed it, that is not Bormann. I know Bormann’s signature
well, it is quite different.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I said Woermann.
GÖRING: Woermann, yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right, my poor pronunciation. Well, was it not
a fact that you set up a working committee under the Reich Defense
Council which did meet from time to time and did carry on certain work?
GÖRING: I have already explained recently: That was the committee of
departmental chiefs.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I call your attention to Document Number
EC-405, minutes of a meeting of the Working Committee of the Reich
Defense Council, Meeting Number 10.
GÖRING: I understood the President to say before that when I have
answered the question, I can add an explanation that seems necessary to
me. Now that I have clearly answered your question with regard to the
first document, I want to stress once again that this was not a meeting
of the close Reich Defense Council but a general calling together of all
ministers, state secretaries and numerous other persons. And that I
began my statements as follows:
“I. Organization of the Reich Defense Council: The Reich Defense
Council was already, by decision of the Cabinet of 1933 and
1934, called into being; but it has never met. Through the Reich
Defense Law of 4 September 1938 it was re-established. The
Chairman is the Führer, who has appointed General Field Marshal
Göring his permanent deputy.”
Concerning the Reich Defense Council, about which we have been talking,
consisting of Schacht—or rather of the triumvirate—it is attested here
in writing once more, as I have correctly said, that this Council never
met. I ask to have the question about the second document repeated, as I
have forgotten it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You testified that the movement into the Rhineland
had not been planned in advance.
GÖRING: Only a short time in advance, I emphasized.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: How long?
GÖRING: As far as I recall, at the most 2 to 3 weeks.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to the minutes of the
10th meeting of the Working Committee of the Reich Defense Council,
Document Number EC-405 toward the end of that document, the discussion
on 6th month, 26th day of 1935, which reads as follows . . .
GÖRING: May I ask what page? This document is very long and is new to
me. What page, please, otherwise I shall have to read the whole
document.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Turn to the last paragraph and we will work
backwards.
“Commitment to writing of directives for mobilization purposes
is permissible only insofar as it is absolutely necessary for
the smooth execution of the measures provided for the
demilitarized zone. Without exception such material must be kept
in safes.”
Do you find that part?
GÖRING: This document that has been handed to me contains alternating
statements of various individuals, that is, a dialogue. May I ask once
more . . . The last paragraph contains nothing of what you have stated,
apparently there must be a difference between the German and English
texts. The last paragraph here is altogether irrelevant. Where, please,
am I to read in the document?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you find the third paragraph from the end? If my
document is correct we have got the same document.
GÖRING: You must tell me who was speaking, for different persons speak
here.
[_The place in the document was indicated to the defendant._]
Now it has been shown to me. Under the name Jodl; I have to read through
it first.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you find this:
“The demilitarized zone requires special treatment. In his
speech of 21 May 1935 and in other statements, the Führer and
Reich Chancellor declared that the stipulations of the
Versailles Treaty and the Locarno Pact regarding the
demilitarized zone would be observed.”
Do you find this?
GÖRING: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And do you find the next paragraph,
“Since at present international entanglements must be avoided
under all circumstances, all urgently needed preparations may be
made. The preparations as such, or their planning, must be kept
in strictest secrecy in the zone itself as well as in the rest
of the Reich.”
Do you find this?
GÖRING: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you also find,
“These preparations include in particular”—a) and b) are not
important to my present question—“c) Preparation for the
liberation of the Rhine.”
GÖRING: Oh, no, here you have made a great mistake. The original
phrase—and this alone is the point in question—is: “c) Preparation for
the clearing of the Rhine.” It is a purely technical preparation that
has nothing at all to do with the liberation of the Rhineland. Here it
says, first, mobilization measures for transportation and
communications, then “c) Preparation for the clearing of the Rhine,”
that is, in case of mobilization preparations the Rhine is not to be
overburdened with freighters, tugboats, _et cetera_, but the river has
to be clear for military measures. Then it continues: “d) Preparation
for local defense,” _et cetera_. Thus you see, it figures among small
quite general, ordinary and usual preparations for mobilization. The
phrase used by the Prosecution . . .
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Mobilization, exactly.
GÖRING: That, if you remember, I stressed clearly in my statement, that
in the demilitarized zone general preparations for mobilization were
made. I mentioned the purchase of horses, _et cetera_. I wanted only to
point out the mistake regarding “clearing of the Rhine,” which has
nothing to do with the Rhineland, but only with the river.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, those preparations were preparations for
armed occupation of the Rhineland, were they not?
GÖRING: No, that is altogether wrong. If Germany had become involved in
a war, no matter from which side, let us assume from the East, then
mobilization measures would have had to be carried out for security
reasons throughout the Reich, in this event even in the demilitarized
Rhineland; but not for the purpose of occupation, of liberating the
Rhineland.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You mean the preparations were not military
preparations?
GÖRING: Those were general preparations for mobilization, such as every
country makes, and not for the purpose of the occupation of the
Rhineland.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But were of a character which had to be kept
entirely secret from foreign powers?
GÖRING: I do not think I can recall reading beforehand the publication
of the mobilization preparations of the United States.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I respectfully submit to the Tribunal that
this witness is not being responsive, and has not been in his
examination, and that it is . . .
[_The defendant interposed a few words which were not recorded._]
It is perfectly futile to spend our time if we cannot have responsive
answers to our questions.
[_The defendant interposed a few words which were not recorded._]
We can strike these things out. I do not want to spend time doing that,
but this witness, it seems to me, is adopting, and has adopted, in the
witness box and in the dock, an arrogant and contemptuous attitude
toward the Tribunal which is giving him the trial which he never gave a
living soul, nor dead ones either.
I respectfully submit that the witness be instructed to make notes, if
he wishes, of his explanations, but that he be required to answer my
questions and reserve his explanations for his counsel to bring out.
THE PRESIDENT: I have already laid down the general rule, which is
binding upon this defendant as upon other witnesses.
Perhaps we had better adjourn now at this state.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 20 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]
EIGHTY-SIXTH DAY
Wednesday, 20 March 1946
_Morning Session_
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If the Tribunal please, the last question which I
asked last night referring to mobilization preparations in the
Rhineland, as shown in the official transcript, was this: “But of a
character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers?” The
answer was: “I do not believe I can recall the publication of the
preparations of the United States for mobilization.”
Now, representing the United States of America, I am confronted with
these choices—to ignore that remark and allow it to stand for people
who do not understand our system; or to develop, at considerable expense
of time, its falsity; or to answer it in rebuttal. The difficulty arises
from this, Your Honor, that if the witness is permitted to volunteer
statements in cross-examination there is no opportunity to make
objection until they are placed on the record. Of course, if such an
answer had been indicated by a question of counsel, as I respectfully
submit would be the orderly procedure, there would have been objection;
the Tribunal would have been in a position to discharge its duty under
the Charter and I would have been in a position to have shortened the
case by not having that remark placed.
The Charter in Article 18 provides that the Tribunal shall rule out
irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever. We are squarely
confronted with that question; we cannot discharge those duties if the
defendant is to volunteer these statements without questions which bring
them up. I respectfully submit that, if the ruling of the Tribunal that
the defendant may volunteer questions of this kind is to prevail, the
control of these proceedings is put in the hands of this defendant, and
the United States has been substantially denied its right of
cross-examination under the Charter, because cross-examination cannot be
effective under this kind of procedure. Since we cannot anticipate, we
cannot meet . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I quite agree with you that any reference to the United
States’ secrecy with reference to mobilization is entirely irrelevant,
and that the answer ought not to have been made, but the only rule which
the Tribunal can lay down as a general rule is the rule—already laid
down—that the witness must answer if possible “yes” or “no,” and that
he may make such explanations as may be necessary after answering
questions directly in that way, and that such explanations must be brief
and not be speeches. As far as this particular answer goes, I think it
is entirely irrelevant.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I must, of course, bow to the ruling of the
Tribunal, but it is to the second part, I quite recall the admonition of
the Court that there shall be answers “yes” or “no.” This witness, of
course, pays not the slightest attention to that, and I must say I
cannot blame him; he is pursuing his interests. But we have no way of
anticipating, and here we are confronted with this statement in the
record, because when these statements are volunteered they are in the
record before the Tribunal can rule upon them and I have no opportunity
to make objections, and the Tribunal have no opportunity to rule. And it
puts, as I said before, the control of these proceedings in the hands of
the defendant, if he first makes the charges and then puts it up to us
to ignore them or answer them by long cross-examination in rebuttal; and
I think the specific charge made against the United States of America
from the witness stand presents that.
Your Honor now advises the United States that it is an improper answer,
but it is in the record and we must deal with it. I respectfully submit
that unless we have . . .
THE PRESIDENT: What exactly is the motion you are making? Are you asking
the Tribunal to strike the answer out of the record?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, no; in a Trial of this kind, where propaganda
is one of the purposes of the defendant, striking out does no good after
the answer is made, and Göring knows that as well as I. The charge has
been made against the United States and it is in the record. I am now
moving that this witness be instructed that he must answer my questions
“yes” or “no” if they permit an answer, and that the explanation be
brought out by his counsel in a fashion that will permit us to make
objections, if they are irrelevant, and to obtain rulings of the
Tribunal, so that the Tribunal can discharge its functions of ruling out
irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever. We must not let
the Trial degenerate into a bickering contest between counsel and the
witness. That is not what the United States would expect me to
participate in. I respectfully suggest that if he can draw any kind of
challenge . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Are you submitting to the Tribunal that the witness has
to answer every question “yes” or “no” and wait until he is re-examined
for the purpose of making any explanations at all?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is the rule of cross-examination under
ordinary circumstances. The witness, if the question permits it, must
answer, and if there are relevant explanations they should be reserved
until later.
Now let me come back to the specific problem I have right here this
morning. Here is an answer given which the Tribunal now rules is
irrelevant. But we have no opportunity to object to it. The Tribunal had
no opportunity to rule upon it. The witness asks, “Did you ever hear of
the United States publishing its plan of mobilization?” Of course, we
would have objected. The difficulty is that the Tribunal loses control
of these proceedings if the defendant, in a case of this kind where we
all know propaganda is one of the purposes of the defendant, is
permitted to put his propaganda in, and then we have to meet it
afterwards. I really feel that the United States is deprived of the
opportunity of the technique of cross-examination if this is the
procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely it is making too much of a sentence the witness
has said, whether the United States makes its orders for mobilization
public or not. Surely that is not a matter of very great importance.
Every country keeps certain things secret. Certainly it would be much
wiser to ignore a statement of that sort. But as to the general rule,
the Tribunal will now consider the matter. I have already laid down what
I believe to be the rule, and I think with the assent of the Tribunal,
but I will ascertain . . .
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me say that I agree with Your Honor that as far
as the United States is concerned we are not worried by anything the
witness can say about it—and we expected plenty. The point is, do we
answer these things or leave them, apart from the control of the Trial?
And it does seem to me that this is the beginning of this Trial’s
getting out of hand, if I may say so, if we do not have control of this
situation. I trust the Tribunal will pardon my earnestness in presenting
this. I think it is a very vital thing.
THE PRESIDENT: I have never heard it suggested that the Counsel for the
Prosecution have to answer every irrelevant observation made in
cross-examination.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That would be true in a private litigation, but I
trust the Court is not unaware that outside of this courtroom is a great
social question of the revival of Nazism and that one of the purposes of
the Defendant Göring—I think he would be the first to admit—is to
revive and perpetuate it by propaganda from this Trial now in process.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Doctor Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: I just wanted to explain the following: An accusation has
been made as if we intended to make propaganda here for Nazism, or in
some other direction. I do not think this accusation is justified.
Neither do I believe that the defendant intended to make an accusation
against the United States. I think we have to consider the question that
was put to him. That is, it was pointed out to him by the Prosecution
that this document which was submitted to him was marked “secret.” Then
he stated that he had never heard that a document of that kind would
have been made public in the United States. If instead of the U.S.A, he
had said any other nation, then the remark would have been considered
harmless.
In my opinion the answer was quite justified. The witness should be
given the possibility not only to answer “yes” or “no,” but to give
reasons for his answer, as ruled by the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal considers that the rule
which it has laid down is the only possible rule and that the witness
must be confined strictly to answering the question directly where the
question admits of a direct answer, and that he must not make his
explanation before he gives a direct answer; but, after having given a
direct answer to any question which admits of a direct answer, he may
make a short explanation; and that he is not to be confined simply to
making direct answers “yes” or “no,” and leaving the explanation until
his counsel puts it to him in his re-examination.
As to this particular observation of the defendant, the defendant ought
not to have referred to the United States, but it is a matter which I
think you might well ignore.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I shall bow to the ruling, of course.
I wish to make a statement to the Tribunal about one of the documents.
At the conclusion of the session yesterday we were considering Document
Number EC-405. The Defendant Göring challenged the use of a word which
he said should have been translated “clearance” rather than
“liberation.” We have since had the translation checked and find that
the defendant is correct. This document was introduced under Exhibit
Number GB-160 on the 9th of January, at Page 2396 of the Tribunal’s
records (Volume V, Page 28), and since it has already been received in
evidence and it is before the Tribunal, we think it incumbent upon the
Prosecution to make that correction now for the record.
[_Turning to the witness._] You stated yesterday that the minutes of the
Reich Defense Council with which you were presented were not minutes of
a meeting of the Reich Defense Council as such?
GÖRING: Yes, I said that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And your testimony, notwithstanding that document,
still stands, I take it, that the Reich Defense Council never met?
GÖRING: I said that also, yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I now ask to have you shown a document which has
just come into our possession, the minutes of the second session of the
Reich Defense Council. I should have said, just come to us for
translation. We have not had it translated; we just discovered it among
our great collection of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Could Doctor Stahmer have a copy in English or not?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We have not even had a chance to get it into
English. I do not know what it says except that it is the minutes of
their meeting. We have a photostat.
[_Turning to the witness._] Are those not the minutes of the second
meeting of the Reich Defense Council held on the 23rd of June 1939?
GÖRING: I must read it first.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the fact that the chairman
is Minister President General Field Marshal Göring. You will find that
on Page 1.
GÖRING: I have never disputed that. It was fixed by law. This deals with
the second Reich Defense Council, not the first one. Besides, I was not
present at this meeting; and I point out that on the left is a list of
the authorities who took part in the meeting, and in my case it says
“Minister President Field Marshal Göring,” and on the right, as
representative for him, “State Secretary Körner and State Secretary
Neumann.” But I shall have to look through the document first in order
to find out whether I took part personally.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Does it not say on Page 1, directly under the place
of meeting, “Chairman: Minister President Göring”?
GÖRING: Yes. I have to read it first.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you deny the authenticity of those minutes?
GÖRING: I have not looked them through yet.
It seems to be an absolutely authentic copy of the minutes; I admit
that. But here again we are dealing with a meeting not, as I said when
answering my counsel, of the Reich Defense Council, but of a larger
meeting in which many other departments participated; and it is a matter
of the second Reich Defense Council, which was set up after 1938, not a
secret council such as was the case from 1933-38.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In other words, in interpreting your testimony, we
must understand that, when you say there was no meeting of the Reich
Defense Council, you mean only that there were no meetings at which no
other people were present?
GÖRING: No, that is not correct. There were two Reich defense laws
concerning the Reich Defense Council, which I tried to explain in my
statement: the Secret Council of 1933 to 1938, which was not made
public, and the Reich Defense Council which was created in 1938 and
converted into the Ministerial Council in 1939; the latter held meetings
which were in no way confined to its own members.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you say that this was not the Defense Council
that met under the ban of secrecy?
GÖRING: The Prosecution want me to answer first with “yes” or “no.” It
is hard to answer this question with “yes” or “no.” I assert that the
Secret Defense Council, which was not made public and which arose out of
a meeting of ministers in 1933, never met. After 1938 a new Reich
defense law created a new council. At that time it was clear that our
military sovereignty had already been declared. This first council,
which the Prosecution called the secret one, never met, and the document
of yesterday proved that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Will you refer to Page 19 of this document, please,
and tell me whether one of the very things with which this meeting
concerned itself was not the lifting of the secrecy ban from the Reich
defense law?
GÖRING: No, that is not the way it reads here. If I may translate it,
the last point on the agenda: Consequences resulting from the lifting of
the secrecy ban on the Reich defense law and measures to expedite
procedures have already been dealt with by a letter from the Reich
Defense Committee on 26 June: “Consequences resulting from the lifting
of the secrecy ban with a view to expediting written communications.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have stated that on the Jewish question, some
of the members of the government were more radical than you. Would you
state who these were?
GÖRING: Broadly speaking, when we took over the government, we only
demanded their removal from political and other leading positions in the
State.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is not what I asked you.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not a direct answer to the question. The question
was that you said some members of the government were more radical
toward Jews than you were. Would you tell us which of the members of the
government were more radical than you were?
GÖRING: Excuse me, I did not understand the question to mean who were
more radical, but in what way they were more radical. If you ask who,
then I would say that those were primarily Minister Goebbels and
Himmler.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you also include your co-defendant, Streicher,
as more radical than you?
GÖRING: Yes, but he was not a member of the government.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: He was the Gauleiter, was he not, for this very
territory in which we are sitting.
GÖRING: That is correct; but he had very little or no influence on
government measures.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What about Heydrich?
GÖRING: Heydrich was subordinate to Himmler. If I said Himmler, I, of
course, include Heydrich.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Heydrich is then included in the list of the more
radical ones to whom you refer?
GÖRING: That is right; yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What about Bormann?
GÖRING: It was only during the later years that I observed that Bormann
was becoming more radical. I do not know anything about his attitude in
the beginning.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I want to review with you briefly what the
Prosecution understands to be public acts taken by you in reference to
the Jewish question. From the very beginning you regarded the
elimination of the Jews from the economic life of Germany as one phase
of the Four Year Plan under your jurisdiction, did you not?
GÖRING: The elimination, yes; that is partly correct. The elimination as
far as the large industries were concerned, because there were continual
disturbances due to the fact that there were large industries, also
armament industries, still partly under Jewish directors, or with Jewish
shareholders, and that gave rise to a certain anxiety among the lower
ranks.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, do I understand that you want the Tribunal to
believe that all you were concerned about was the big Jewish
enterprises? That is the way you want to be understood?
GÖRING: I was not at first disturbed by the small stores. They did not
come into the Four Year Plan.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When did you become disturbed by the small stores?
GÖRING: When trade had to be limited, it was pointed out that this could
be done first by closing the Jewish stores.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, let us go through the public acts which you
performed on the Jewish question. First, did you proclaim the Nuremberg
Laws?
GÖRING: As President of the Reichstag, yes. I have already stated that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What date was that?
GÖRING: 1935, I believe; here in Nuremberg, in September.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That was the beginning of the legal measures taken
against the Jews, was it not?
GÖRING: That was a legal measure.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That was the first of the legal measures taken by
your government against the Jews, was it not?
GÖRING: No, I believe the removal from office was before.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When was that?
GÖRING: I could not state the exact date, but I believe that happened in
1933.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then on the first day of December 1936, you
promulgated an act making it a death penalty for Germans to transfer
property abroad or leave it abroad; the property of a culprit to be
forfeited to the State, and the People’s Court given jurisdiction to
prosecute, did you not?
GÖRING: That is correct; the “Decree Governing Restriction on Foreign
Currency.” That is to say, whoever had an account in a foreign country
without permission of the government.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, your third public act was on 22 April 1938
when you published penalties for veiling the character of a Jewish
enterprise within the Reich, was it not?
GÖRING: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then on 28 July 1939, you, Hermann Göring,
published certain prescriptions on the competence of the courts to
handle those matters by the decree, did you not?
GÖRING: Please, would you kindly read the law to me? I cannot recall it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will not take time reading it. Do you deny that
you published the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ law, 1939, found on Page 1370,
referring to the competence of the courts to handle penalties against
Jews? If you do not remember, say so.
GÖRING: Yes, I say that I cannot remember the law. If it is in the
_Reichsgesetzblatt_ and bears my name, then, of course, it is so; but I
do not remember the contents.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, on 26 April 1938 you, under the Four Year
Plan, published a decree providing for the registration of Jewish
property and provided that Jews inside and outside Germany must register
their property, did you not?
GÖRING: I assume so. I no longer remember it, but if you have the decree
there, and if it is signed by me, there cannot be any doubt.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: On 26 April 1938 you published a decree under the
Four Year Plan, did you not, that all acts of disposal of Jewish
enterprises required the permission of the authorities?
GÖRING: That I remember.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you published on 12 November 1938 a decree,
also under the Four Year Plan, imposing a fine of a billion marks for
atonement on all Jews?
GÖRING: I have already explained that all these decrees at that time
were signed by me, and I assume responsibility for them.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I am asking you if you did not sign that
particular decree? I am going to ask you some further questions about it
later.
GÖRING: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then on the 12th of November 1938, you also signed
a decree that, under the Four Year Plan, all damage caused to Jewish
property by the riots of 1938 must be repaired immediately by the Jews,
and at their own expense; and their insurance claims were forfeited to
the Reich. Did you personally sign that law?
GÖRING: I did sign a similar law. Whether it was exactly the same as you
have just read, I could not say.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You do not disagree that that was the substance of
the law, do you?
GÖRING: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And on the 12th of November 1938, did you not also
personally sign a decree, also under the Four Year Plan, that Jews may
not own retail stores, or engage independently in handicrafts or offer
goods, or services, for sale at markets, fairs, or exhibitions; or act
as leaders of enterprises or as members of co-operatives? Do you recall
all of that?
GÖRING: Yes. Those are all parts of the decrees for the elimination of
Jewry from economic life.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, on the 21st of February 1939, you personally
signed a decree, did you not, that the Jews must surrender all objects
of precious metals and jewels purchased, to the public office within 2
weeks?
GÖRING: I do not remember that, but without doubt, that is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I refer to Volume I of the _Reichsgesetzblatt_,
1939, Page 282. You have no recollection of that?
GÖRING: I have not the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ in front of me now, but if
there is a decree in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, or a law signed with my
name, then I signed that law and decreed it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not also, on the 3rd of March 1939, sign a
further decree concerning the period within which items of jewelry must
be surrendered by Jews—_Reichsgesetzblatt_, Volume I, 1939, Page 387?
GÖRING: I assume that was the decree for the execution of the decree for
surrender previously mentioned. A law sometimes requires regulations and
decrees for execution consequent upon the law. Taken together, this is
one single measure.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not also sign personally a decree under the
Four Year Plan, of the 17th of September 1940, ordering the
sequestration of Jewish property in Poland?
GÖRING: Yes, as I stated before, in that part of Poland which, I may
say, as an old German province, was to return to Germany.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not also, on the 30th day of November 1940,
personally sign a decree which provided that the Jews should receive no
compensation for damages caused by enemy attacks or by German forces,
and did you not sign that in the capacity of President of the Reich
Defense Council? I refer to the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Volume I, 1940,
Page 1547.
GÖRING: If you have it there before you, then it must be correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have no recollection of that?
GÖRING: Not of all the separate laws and decrees. That is impossible.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, it was you, was it not, who signed, on the
31st day of July 1941, a decree asking Himmler, and the Chief of
Security Police and the SS Gruppenführer Heydrich to make the plans for
the complete solution of the Jewish question?
GÖRING: No, that is not correct. I know that decree very well.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask to have you shown Document 710, Exhibit
Number USA-509.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that 710-PS?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 710-PS, Your Honor.
[_Turning to the witness._] That document is signed by you, is it not?
GÖRING: That is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it is addressed to the Chief of the Security
Police and the Security Service, and to SS Gruppenführer Heydrich, isn’t
it?
GÖRING: That is also correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am not certain whether the entire thing has been
read into the record, but I think it should be; and, that we may have no
difficulty about the translation of this, you correct me if I am wrong:
“Completing the task that was assigned to you on the 24th of
January 1939 . . .”
GÖRING: Here is a mistake already. It says: “Complementing” not
“completing” the task which has been assigned to you.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Very well, I will accept that.
“. . . which dealt with arriving at a thorough furtherance of
emigration and evacuation, a solution of the Jewish problem, as
advantageously as possible, I hereby charge you with making all
necessary preparations in regard to organizational and financial
matters for bringing about a complete solution of the Jewish
question in the German sphere of influence in Europe.”
Am I correct so far?
GÖRING: No, that is in no way correctly translated.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Give us your translation of it?
GÖRING: May I read it as it is written here?
“Complementing the task which was conferred upon you already on
24 January 1939, to solve the Jewish problem by means of
emigration and evacuation in the best possible way according to
present conditions, I charge you herewith to make all necessary
preparations as regards organizational, factual, and material
matters. . . .”
Now comes the decisive word which has been mistranslated: “for a total
solution,” not “for a final solution.”
“. . . for a total solution of the Jewish question within the
area of German influence in Europe. Should these come within the
competence of other governmental departments, then such
departments are to co-operate.
“I charge you further to submit to me as soon as possible a
general plan showing the organizational and material measures
for reaching the desired total solution of the Jewish
question. . . . Complementing the task assigned to you on 24
January 1939. . . .”
That was at a time when there was no war or prospect of a war.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now are you reporting the instrument or are you
making an explanation?
GÖRING: I wanted to add an explanation to the quotation and just to
point out the date.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. Well, I just did not want it to appear that it
was a part of the instrument. The last that is contained in the
instrument is:
“I charge you furthermore to send me, before long, an over-all
plan concerning the organizational, factual, and material
measures necessary for the accomplishment of the desired
solution of the Jewish question.”
Is that not a substantially accurate translation of your order to
Heydrich and Himmler?
GÖRING: To Heydrich and the other government departments which had
anything to do with it. That can be seen from the first part of the
letter, the last sentence.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us have no misunderstanding about this
translation now. This letter was directed to the Chief of the Security
Police and the Security Service, and SS Gruppenführer Heydrich. We are
right about that, are we not?
GÖRING: That is correct, but I have to make an explanation in connection
with that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right.
GÖRING: The reason I sent this letter to him was that, by the decree of
24 January 1939, Heydrich, or it may have been Himmler, had been given
the task of dealing with the emigration of the Jews. Therefore, this was
the government department concerned, and it was to the department which
had been given the task that I had to apply concerning all material and
economic matters arising therefrom.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And you ordered all other governmental
agencies to co-operate with the Security Police and the SS in the final
solution of the Jewish question, did you not?
GÖRING: There is nothing about the SS here; only about the
Sicherheitspolizei, a governmental agency. The fact that Heydrich was SS
Gruppenführer had no direct bearing on it, because it was sent to the
Chief of the Security Police—mentioning his rank as SS Gruppenführer
Heydrich.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And mentioning his rank in the SS was just
superfluous and has nothing to do with the case?
GÖRING: I have to explain that. For instance, if I write to the
Commander-in-Chief of the Army, then I write: “To the Commander-in-Chief
of the Army, Colonel General or Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch.” And if I
write to the Chief of the Security Police, then I must address it: “To
the Chief of the Security Police, SS Gruppenführer Heydrich.” That was
his rank and his title. However, that does not mean that the SS had
anything to do with it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, at the time that you issued this order you had
received complete reports as to the 1938 riots and Heydrich’s part in
them, hadn’t you?
GÖRING: At that time I had no knowledge of Heydrich’s part in the
riots—only Heydrich’s report on the riots, for which I had asked.
MR. JUSTICE, JACKSON: All right. Now we will show you Document Number
3058-PS, in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-508.
[_Document 3058-PS was submitted to the witness._]
That is the report written by Heydrich which you say you had received,
and it is dated 11 November 1938, is it not?
GÖRING: That is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it recited to you the looting of Jewish shops,
the arrest of 174 persons for looting, the destruction of 815 shops, 171
dwellings set on fire or destroyed, and that this indicated only a
fraction of the actual damage caused; 191 synagogues were set on fire,
and another 76 completely destroyed; in addition, 11 parish halls,
cemetery chapels, and similar buildings were set on fire, and 3 more
completely destroyed; 20,000 Jews were arrested; also, 7 Aryans and 3
foreigners—the latter were arrested for their own safety; 36 deaths
were reported, and the seriously injured were also numbered at 36. Those
killed and injured are Jews. One Jew is still missing. The Jews killed
include 1 Polish national, and those injured include 2 Poles.
You had that report on or about the 11th day of November 1938, did you
not?
GÖRING: That is correct. That is the report mentioned by me and which I
had asked the police to supply, because I wanted to know what had
happened up to then.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Exactly. And the note was made at the top of it,
“The General Field Marshal has been informed and no steps are to be
taken.” Was it not?
GÖRING: That is not quite correct. It says here, “General Field Marshal
has taken note. No steps are to be taken by any other office,” because I
myself wanted to take them.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you know that that is not true, do you not,
that steps were to be taken by some other office? I put it to you
squarely whether you are telling this Tribunal the truth when you say
that no steps were to be taken by anyone else.
GÖRING: This is a note by my staff department, that nothing was to be
done by that quarter, because I said I was going to deal with it
personally. In fact I went straight to the Führer with this report.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. Did you receive a report from the Chief
Party Judge of the Nazi Party, dated Munich, the 13th of February 1939,
concerning the proceedings taken by the Party in these matters?
GÖRING: That is correct. I received that report much later.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And at the time you appointed—I withdraw the
question. It is obvious from the dates of the documents. You
acknowledged the receipt of that document, did you not, to Party member
Buch?
GÖRING: That is also correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the only proceedings that were taken about
these riots were those taken by the Party Court, were they not?
GÖRING: Not quite; some were brought before the law courts. That is in
the report also.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask that he be shown the report, which is
Document 3063-PS. It is not in evidence. Since the document apparently
has not been brought here, I will ask you from your recollection.
GÖRING: I know it fairly well.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I thought so.
GÖRING: No, because it has been submitted to me before, here.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, it has not been kept from you. Now, in the
first place, the Party Court reported that it was probably understood—I
quote—“by all of the Party leaders present, from oral instructions of
the Reich Propaganda Director, that the Party should not appear
outwardly as the originator of the demonstrations, but in reality should
organize and execute them.” Was that the report of the Party Court?
GÖRING: The Party Court, as a result of its investigation, established
that the Propaganda Chief, Dr. Goebbels, had given these directives. May
I ask, if we are dealing with a report dated March or maybe April?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The 13th of February 1939, is the date.
GÖRING: Yes, that is correct; that is the result of investigations after
the incidents.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. Now, as a result of the riots, did
the Court, the Party Court, not also report this to you: that the
Supreme Party Court has reserved itself the right to investigate the
killings, also the severe mistreatment and moral crimes and will request
the Führer to drop proceedings against any person whom the Party Court
did not find guilty of excesses?
GÖRING: That is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the Party Court was made up of Gauleiter and
Group Leaders of the Party?
GÖRING: The Party Court changed. I cannot say just now, without having
the document, who made up the Party Court at that time. I see that I am
being given the document.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to Page 4, toward the bottom,
where the report says, “Gauleiter and Group Leaders of the branches
served as jurors at the trials and decisions.”
GÖRING: Yes, it was a matter of course that the jurors of the Party
Court were always taken from these categories according to their
importance. I wanted only to say I did not know which persons were
taking part here.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the Party Court found five persons guilty of
offenses, did they not? Number 1, a Party member, was guilty of a moral
crime and race violation and he was expelled. Is that right?
GÖRING: And turned over to the penal court. That is what it says in the
last sentence.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. Another Party member, Case Number 2,
was suspected of race violation and expelled from the Nazi Party.
GÖRING: Expelled for suspected race violation and theft, and turned over
to the ordinary court.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes; and Number 2, Gustav, was expelled from the
Party and SA for theft. Right?
GÖRING: You are at Number 3?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have Number 2, Gustav, the first name mentioned.
GÖRING: Gustav is the first name—Gerstner—yes, for theft, also turned
over to the ordinary court for suspected race violation.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, Number 3 dealt with two expulsions of Party
members on the grounds of moral crimes against a Jewess, and they are
now held in protective custody. Right?
GÖRING: Expelled from the NSDAP and taken into protective custody; they
were also turned over to the civil court later. I know that very well.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, we come to Cases 4 and 5, the first of which
was a man, a Party member and SA member, who was reprimanded and
declared unfit to hold office for 3 years because of a disciplinary
offense, namely, for killing the Jewish couple Selig, contrary to order.
Is that right?
GÖRING: That is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And in the last of these cases the offender was
reprimanded and declared unfit to hold office for 3 years for shooting a
16-year-old Jew, contrary to orders after completion of the drive. Is
that right?
GÖRING: That is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We now come to the cases of the killing of Jews,
where proceedings were suspended or minor punishments pronounced. I will
not go through those in detail, but it is a fact that only minor
punishments were pronounced by the Supreme Court of the Party for the
killing of Jews, were they not?
GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I now ask you to turn to Page 8.
GÖRING: One moment please.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the language in regard to
Cases 3 to 16.
GÖRING: Which page, please?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Nine, I believe it is. The Supreme Party Court asks
the Führer to quash the proceedings in the State criminal courts.
GÖRING: To quash them, to beat them down, that does not mean suppress. A
penal proceeding can be “niedergeschlagen.” In Germany that is a
different thing from “suppress.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you give us your version of it and tell us
what it is. What does beating down a proceeding mean? Does it mean that
it has ended?
GÖRING: That is what it means, but it can only be ordered by an office
which has authority to do it; that is to say, the Führer can at any time
“beat down” a proceeding by way of an amnesty. The Cabinet could at any
time pass a resolution to “beat down” a proceeding—suppressing it would
have been illegal. In Germany, “niedergeschlagen” is a legal term
meaning “to suspend.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And one further question. It was also reported to
you, was it not, in that report—I refer to Page 11:
“The public down to the last man realize that political drives,
like those of 9 November, were organized and directed by the
Party, whether this is admitted or not. When all the synagogues
burned down in one night, it must have been organized in some
way and can only have been organized by the Party.”
That also was in the report of the Supreme Party Court, was it not?
GÖRING: I have not found it yet. It is not the same page as mine.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us find it and not have any mistake about it.
Page 11. I should think it would be at the very bottom of Page 10,
perhaps, where it starts.
GÖRING: Yes, I have just found it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did I give a reasonably correct translation of it?
GÖRING: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off? Before we
break off, will you offer in evidence these documents that you have been
putting to the witness? Those which are not already in evidence?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, they should be, Your Honor, I will do that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think Document 3575-PS may have been offered yesterday,
but not strictly offered in evidence; and Document 3063-PS today; and
one other document the number of which I have not got.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I appreciate very much your calling my attention to
it.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. HORN: Mr. President: I ask you, Your Honor, to permit the Defendant
Von Ribbentrop to be absent from tomorrow’s session, as there are still
some fundamental questions I have to discuss with him in order to
prepare his counterevidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, your suggestion as I understand it, is that the
Defendant Ribbentrop should be absent from tomorrow morning’s sitting in
order that you may consult with him in reference to the preparation of
his defense. Is that right?
DR. HORN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to that course being taken
provided that you make arrangements with some other Defense Counsel to
look after Defendant Ribbentrop’s interests if any questions arise. The
Tribunal does not wish that you should come hereafter and say that you
and Defendant Ribbentrop were out of court and object to what may have
happened in your absence. You understand what I mean?
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, and I give you my assurance that I will
not use an objection of that nature, and shall ask one of my colleagues
to act on my behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to your taking that course
of action, but of course you realize that the Trial cannot be held up by
any delay which might be caused in the future by the fact that you were
not present.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, the purpose of my request is such that it will
help me to avoid future delays.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I quite understand that. I was only saying that in
allowing you to do this, which is perfectly reasonable, the Tribunal is
merely indicating they will not allow any future delays. The Trial must
continue.
DR. HORN: I understand that and I wish to thank you.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [_Turning to the witness._] Now, the _Völkischer
Beobachter_ of the 12th of March 1933 quotes a speech of yours delivered
at Essen on the 11th of March 1933, including the following—and I
refresh your recollection by calling it to your attention:
“I am told that I must employ the police. Certainly I shall
employ the police, and quite ruthlessly, whenever the German
people are hurt; but I refuse the notion that the police are
protective troops for Jewish stores. No, the police protect
whoever comes into Germany legitimately, but it does not exist
for the purpose of protecting Jewish usurers.”
Did you say that?
GÖRING: When did you say that was?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you say that on the 11th of March 1933 in a
speech at Essen, either that, or that in substance?
GÖRING: That is correct, but the circumstances were different. Before I
answer, I would like to ask whether you have finished with the document
in the book that was submitted to me previously. I gave no explanation
and will ask my counsel to have me questioned later in regard to that
document.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is satisfactory.
After the riots of November 9th and 10th, you have testified that you
called a meeting on the 12th of November and ordered all officials
concerned to be present, and that the Führer had insisted on Goebbels
being present.
GÖRING: Yes, all chiefs of the economic departments.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Could you tell us who was there in addition to
yourself and Goebbels?
GÖRING: As far as I recall, the following were there for the purpose of
reporting: The Chief of the Secret State Police, concerning the events,
the Minister of Economy, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the
Interior . . .
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Will you please state their names so that there
will not be any mistake about who was there at that time.
GÖRING: I can quote only from memory. There were present to draw up a
report: The leader of the Secret State Police in Berlin, Heydrich; the
Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick; Dr. Goebbels you have mentioned
already; the then Minister of Economy, Funk, was there; the Finance
Minister, Count Schwerin von Krosigk; and Fischböck from Austria.
Those are the only names I can recall at present, but there may have
been a few others there too.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Part of the time, Hilgard, representing the
insurance companies, was also present, was he not?
GÖRING: He was summoned and waited there. His views were asked on
special questions.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you have been shown the stenographic minutes
of that meeting which are in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-261, being
Document Number 1816-PS, have you not, in your interrogation?
GÖRING: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask that they be shown to you, and now, so
that we may have no misunderstanding about the translations.
You opened the meeting with this statement. I will read it: “Gentlemen
. . .” I think perhaps we had better be clear about which meeting it
was. This is the meeting held on the 12th day of November 1938 at the
office of the Reich Air Ministry. That is correct, is it not?
GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You opened the meeting:
“Gentlemen, today’s meeting is of a decisive nature. I have
received a letter written on the Führer’s orders by the
Stabsleiter of the Führer’s Deputy, Bormann, requesting that the
Jewish question be now, once and for all, co-ordinated and
solved one way or another.”
Is that correct?
GÖRING: Yes, that is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Further down, I find this:
“Gentlemen, I have had enough of these demonstrations. They do
not harm the Jews, but finally devolve on me, the highest
authority for the German economy. If today a Jewish shop is
destroyed, if goods are thrown into the street, the insurance
company will pay the Jew for the damages so that he does not
suffer any damage at all. Furthermore, consumer goods, goods
belonging to the people, are destroyed. If, in the future,
demonstrations occur—and on occasion they may be
necessary—then I ask that they be so directed that we do not
cut our own throats.”
Am I correct?
GÖRING: Yes, quite correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Skipping two or three paragraphs, I come to this
. . .
GÖRING: But the supplement has been omitted.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you can supplement it any way you want to.
GÖRING: “. . . then I ask that they be so directed that we do
not cut our own throats. For it is absurd to empty and set fire
to a Jewish store, when a German insurance company has to cover
the damage, and the goods which I sorely need are burned. I
might as well take and burn the raw materials when they come
in.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. You read any part of it that you
want to as we go along, in addition to what I read.
“I am not going to tolerate a situation in which the German
insurance companies are the ones to suffer. To prevent this, I
will use my authority and issue a decree. In this, of course, I
ask for the support of the competent government agencies, so
that everything shall be settled properly and the insurance
companies will not be the ones who suffer.
“But another problem immediately emerges: It may be that these
insurance companies have re-insurance in foreign countries. If
there are such re-insurances, I would not want to give them up,
because they bring in foreign exchange. The matter must be
looked into. For that reason, I have asked Mr. Hilgard from the
insurance company to attend, since he is best qualified to tell
us to what extent the insurance companies are covered by
re-insurance against such damage. I would not want to give this
up under any circumstances.”
Is that correct?
GÖRING: That is absolutely correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: “I do not want to leave any doubt,
gentlemen, as to the purpose of today’s meeting. We have not
come together merely to talk again, but to make decisions; and I
earnestly ask the competent departments to take trenchant
measures for the Aryanizing of German economy and to submit them
to me as far as is necessary.”
GÖRING: That is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I then skip a considerable portion, unless there is
more that you wish to put in, and come to this statement:
“The State Trustee will estimate the value of the business and
decide what amount the Jew shall receive. Naturally, this amount
is to be fixed as low as possible. The State Trustee will then
transfer the business to Aryan ownership. The aim is thus
accomplished, inasmuch as the business is transferred to the
right ownership and its goodwill and balance sheet remain
unimpaired.
“Then the difficulties begin. It is easily understandable that
attempts will be made on a large scale to get Party members into
all these stores and thus give them some compensation. I have
witnessed terrible things in the past; little chauffeurs of
Gauleiter have profited so much by these transactions that they
have raked in half a million. You gentlemen know it. Is that
correct?”
And they assented.
GÖRING: Yes, I said that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Would you care to read anything further in
connection with that?
GÖRING: Perhaps only the next sentence:
“These are, of course, things which are not permissible, and I
shall not hesitate to deal ruthlessly with such underhand
dealings. If a prominent person is involved I shall go straight
to the Führer and report these dirty tricks quite impartially.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is, if any individual was attempting to profit
by Jewish possessions—is that what you meant?
GÖRING: By Aryanization.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will quote another portion:
“In other words, it must be an ordinary business transaction.
One sells his business and another buys it. If there are Party
members among the would-be purchasers, they are to be given
preference if they fulfill the same conditions. First of all
should come those who have suffered damage. After that,
preference should be given on grounds of Party membership.”