Chapter I: N T H E (23)

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And his Air Forces and the troops were all in position to carry that out?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you now to come to the question of the meeting at which the terms were given to Sir Nevile Henderson. That was at 7:15 in the evening, on the 29th of August, and the meeting went on for some time. Do you remember that meeting?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And then, as I think one of the counsel has elicited from you, the difficulty arose over the demand for a plenipotentiary to be back in 24 hours, as you have explained.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I think Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes told you that that meeting had gone very badly, and then at 11:30 you saw Göring, and Göring said much the same as Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes as to how the meeting had gone.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And he said, that what had upset the Chancellor was that Sir Nevile Henderson had characterized or implied that this demand that the plenipotentiary should come within 24 hours was equivalent to an ultimatum.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you remember at that time that Göring underlined certain of the terms?

Will you turn to the preface of your book . . .

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see the facsimile. Have you a copy?

DAHLERUS: I have the original here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you will just look at it. Now, it is in German. If you follow the German, I want just to read the bits which Göring has underlined, and I will read it in English and you check to see that I have got the right piece:

“For the rest, in making these proposals the German Government
has never had any intention of touching Poland’s vital interests
or questioning the existence of an independent Polish State. The
German Government, accordingly, in these circumstances, agrees
to accept the British Government’s offer of its good offices in
securing the dispatch to Berlin of a Polish emissary with full
powers. It counts on the arrival of this emissary on Wednesday,
30 August 1939. The German Government will immediately draw up
proposals for a solution acceptable to itself and will, if
possible, place these at the disposal of the British Government
before the arrival of the Polish negotiator.”

That is the bit which the Defendant Göring has underlined, just before the bit about the sending of the plenipotentiary.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that there was no doubt that the Defendant Göring was associating himself with the importance of that point.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you remember that at that time, during that interview, that is, the night of the 29th, the Defendant Göring made a great tirade against the Poles.

DAHLERUS: That is right.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not going to go into that in detail; but then he said to you that the Führer was preparing what I think in English is a “magnanimous offer.”

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And to show you the nature of the “magnanimous offer,” he hedged in a portion of the bits of Poland. That is also in the preface to your book.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

Sir DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, there are two points about what he hedged in. In fact, it was much more than had been taken from Germany under the Treaty of Versailles.

Secondly, it was entirely different from what was cabled over by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to Sir Nevile Henderson the next night.

DAHLERUS: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And, Mr. Dahlerus, I do not think I can put it better than in your own words, if you will turn to Page 75. Is this how you record it in your book, the second break:

“This map, a reproduction of which is given in this book, is
extraordinarily interesting because it illustrates the rapidity
and recklessness with which the decisions in this question were
reached. I had the map with me when I left for London a few
hours later, but it turned out that the boundaries drawn up on
it differed very considerably from those given the well-known
‘Project Ribbentrop,’ presented at top speed to Henderson on the
night between the 30th and 31st of August.”

That is rather less than 24 hours later.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And then you go on to describe what it showed. Well, it showed this quite clearly, that 24 hours before that was cabled over to Sir Nevile Henderson the German Government had never seriously considered what portion of the Corridor it was going to claim and what portion it was not going to claim. Is that so? Göring was putting an entirely different thing to you the night before, was he not?

DAHLERUS: The first proposal I brought with me on Sunday morning, the 27th. Yes, there it was only the small Corridor, and they extended the claims according to this last plan.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They extended the claim, so that the effect of what was put to you, what you were sent to announce—that a “magnanimous offer” was coming—was actually an extension of claims, and, equally actually, quite different from what was suggested the next night by the Defendant Ribbentrop.

DAHLERUS: That is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I just want to ask you one word about an interview which took place on the 31st of August. You will find it at Page 87. It is the interview at which Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes gave you an account of what M. Lipski had said. I want you just to tell me this: You did meet M. Lipski, did you not?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And, of course—obviously, the same could be said of everyone, I am sure of yourself also—M. Lipski was suffering from considerable strain in that most critical time?

DAHLERUS: He was very nervous.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very nervous. And did not Sir George Forbes tell you that M. Lipski made his opinion quite clear that the German offer was a breach of Polish sovereignty; and that, in his view, Poland and France and England must stand firm and show a united front; and that Poland, if left alone, would fight and die alone? That was M. Lipski’s mood, was it not, at the time?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to the other matter, I am not going into the details, but there is a considerable and significant difference between the Polish version of the telegram of instructions to M. Lipski and the version which the Defendant Göring showed to you?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, on the morning of the 1st of September I think you saw Göring at 8 o’clock. Would it be a correct description of the way in which he broke the fact that he had attacked Poland to say that it was very gradual or slow, with Göring almost walking backwards, when he broke the news to you that the attack had taken place?

DAHLERUS: Well, so much so that I immediately phoned London and got in contact with the Foreign Office and informed somebody that, according to the information I had received, the Poles had been attacked, and they naturally wondered what was happening to me when I gave that information.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, but he did eventually admit that they had attacked Poland, and then you had a further interview with Hitler. There is just one point I want you to clarify. I do not think you told the Tribunal about the time when he said he would fight for 10 years. Look at Page 98.

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see there, after saying: “‘Will ich zehn Jahre kämpfen,’ he brandished his fist and bent down so that it nearly touched the floor.”

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So I take it, he was in the same state as at the time of your previous interview.

DAHLERUS: Well, if possible, more nervous.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, there is just one final matter, if you would look at Page 102, and then I shall leave your book.

You remember you saw the Defendant Göring on the morning of Saturday, 2d September?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you say this:

“To my surprise he was more inclined to listen to the viewpoints
which I maintained, for, as soon as we had sat down in his
private drawing-room car, he told me that there was talk of a
mediation sponsored by Mussolini. Mussolini was said to be
fervently trying to stop the war, and especially to prevent it
from spreading.”

The next sentence is:

“Göring said that he wanted to inaugurate a new Munich.”

I do not want to put it unfairly, and therefore I ask you, Mr. Dahlerus, does the “he” in that sentence refer to Göring or to Mussolini?

DAHLERUS: I think it refers to Mussolini.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You think it refers to Mussolini. That is what I suspected, and therefore I will not trouble you further about it, except to ask you this:

I have taken you briefly—I hope you will agree, fairly—through the points on this matter, and on these facts that I have put to you, and with which you will agree, are they the basis of your opinion that the aim of the German Government, including Göring, was to split Poland and Great Britain and to occupy Poland with the consent of Great Britain?

DAHLERUS: Well, if I had known the facts that I heard later . . .

DR. STAHMER: I believe that this question goes too far. Therefore, I have to object to this question. It refers in general to the government and to a definite number of persons. Besides, it is an expression of opinion and not a fact about which the witness is to testify.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The question was: Are these facts the basis of your opinion?

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks it is a perfectly proper question and arises directly out of the examination in chief.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr. Dahlerus, you were answering. I had asked you are these facts . . .

DR. SAUTER: But then I should like to ask, Mr. President, that it be clarified what is to be understood under the term “German Government,” of which the prosecutor speaks constantly. The German Government consists of quite a number of ministers, and if one speaks here continuously of the German Government, without saying who is meant individually, the impression is created, that each and every one of the ministers was responsible and had participated in these negotiations, although, in fact, he knew nothing about it. I am representing one of these ministers who knew nothing about these negotiations, and therefore it would be of interest to me if the prosecutor would be kind enough to clarify who actually is meant by the term “German Government.” That is to say, whether the Minister of Economics, Funk, for instance, is also included, or whether it refers only to two or three other gentlemen.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I do not suppose . . .

THE PRESIDENT: We do not agree at all with what Dr. Sauter has said. We have already heard the Defendant Göring at considerable length about what the government consisted of, and it will be upon the defendants’ counsel, when the time comes to argue the case, to argue that the government did not include the members whom they represent.

Defendants’ counsel do not seem to understand that, what they call clarification is a matter which can be done in re-examination. Dr. Stahmer will have the opportunity of re-examining, and then can ask any questions that arise out of the cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will put it, Mr. Dahlerus, in this way: Are these facts which you have heard and agreed with this afternoon, are they the basis of the view which you expressed in answer to Dr. Stahmer’s question this morning?

DAHLERUS: Yes. At the time I thought I could contribute something to preventing a new war; I could definitely prove that nothing was left undone by the British, by His Majesty’s Government to prevent war. But had I known what I know today, I would have realized that my efforts could not possibly succeed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is one other point. I ask Your Lordship’s indulgence. Dr. Stahmer asked for the names of these English industrialists. My Lord, I am very anxious, as representative of the British Government, that there should be no concealment about this matter at all, and I should, therefore, ask, with all humility, that Your Lordship would allow me to ask Mr. Dahlerus to give the names, simply for that reason.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, if you wish to.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr. Dahlerus, will you tell us the names of the gentlemen that you met on your wife’s estate in Schleswig-Holstein?

DAHLERUS: Shall I read them or hand them in?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Read them if you will.

DAHLERUS: The Honorable Charles McLarn, S. W. Rossen, A. Holden, Sir Robert Renig, Bryon S. Mountain, C. F. Spencer, T. Menceford.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?

Dr. Stahmer, do you not wish to re-examine?

DR. HORN: Mr. President, I should like to put a question. May I ask, without being misunderstood, why these names could not be read this morning when Dr. Stahmer asked for them?

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you ask that question? What has it to do with the case of Von Ribbentrop?

DR. HORN: The witness Dahlerus was also approved for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, and I had reached an agreement with Dr. Stahmer as to certain questions. I, too, was interested in these questions this morning and also in the question about the people who had been there.

THE PRESIDENT: The reason why the names were not given this morning was because we wished to get on with this Trial, and we thought that the names of these gentlemen were irrelevant. But as Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe asked that they might be introduced in order that there could be no suggestion of concealment, the Tribunal has allowed them to be given.

DR. HORN: Thank you.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus, you said this morning that on 23 August you were called up by Göring in Stockholm and that he told you that the situation had become serious, and that, therefore, he was absolutely obliged to talk to you. Did he tell you for what reasons he considered the situation at that moment serious?

DAHLERUS: No.

DR. STAHMER: And you did not ask him about it?

DAHLERUS: No.

DR. STAHMER: You came then to Berlin on the 24th and conferred at once with Göring. Did Göring tell you on this occasion what had made the situation more serious in the meantime?

DAHLERUS: Not clearly.

DR. STAHMER: What did he tell you about the danger? In what did the seriousness of the situation consist?

DAHLERUS: He indicated that the fact that the Polish question was not yet solved, and that there was no indication that it would be solved, made the situation serious. He also said that it depended entirely on the British attitude and initiative whether a solution could be found.

DR. STAHMER: From this answer then you learned that Poland was the point of danger?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: You did transmit proposals then on 27 August which had as their main object the solution of the Polish question?

DAHLERUS: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: In reply to my question with reference to the events of 26 September, you said this morning, according to my notes, that you were of the opinion at that time that Hitler’s plans were not quite clear. Then this afternoon you spoke of Göring. How do you account for that difference in your answer?

DAHLERUS: At the time I had to assume that the leading members of the German Government worked in close collaboration.

DR. STAHMER: Then you concluded that from this fact? You also said before, if you had known what you know today, you would not have intervened. What has brought about your change of opinion?

DAHLERUS: The facts disclosed, chiefly during the proceedings in this court, and as published.

DR. STAHMER: Which facts are these?

DAHLERUS: The incidents I quoted, the declaration of 11 April, 23 May, and 22 August.

DR. STAHMER: You have no further facts, have you?

DAHLERUS: Yes, but those are the main points.

DR. STAHMER: What are the minor points? What are your other misgivings?

DAHLERUS: One is the experience on 26 September 1939, the speech by Hitler on 6 October 1939, and a number of declarations made since.

DR. STAHMER: You mentioned before a plane crash, if I understood you correctly, which was to have been brought about by Ribbentrop. Were you really serious about that?

DAHLERUS: Well, I corrected my statement to say that I assumed that it was Ribbentrop, because his name had just been mentioned about a minute before.

DR. STAHMER: I have one more question for the witness. What about the map of Poland which had just been shown and which allegedly was drawn by Göring?

DAHLERUS: I have the original of that map in my possession.

DR. STAHMER: And what was the explanation given to you?

DAHLERUS: That it was a territory that held a majority of Germans, and not Poles.

DR. STAHMER: How do you explain, then, the difference between the later offer and that map?

DAHLERUS: I can only assume that the question had not been thoroughly discussed and various proposals had been made before the definite proposal was submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire; and the Tribunal will adjourn.

[_The witness left the stand._]

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, you will continue your cross-examination, will you not?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have assumed, Your Honor, that, since Göring’s testimony was suspended in order to hear Dahlerus, on the ground that it might change some of his examination, Dr. Stahmer would complete any direct examination he may have on this subject with the Witness Dahlerus before I finish my cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, yes. Dr. Stahmer, will you ask any questions of the Defendant Göring that you wish to ask, arising out of the evidence of the Witness Dahlerus.

DR. STAHMER: I can ask him these questions only after I have spoken with him. I therefore consider it appropriate for Mr. Justice Jackson to continue his cross-examination, and after the cross-examination I can deal with these questions as well.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal considers that you ought to be prepared to go on now. It is you who asked for the evidence of Dahlerus to be interposed, and Dahlerus was your witness, not the Prosecution’s witness, and therefore presumably you knew what Dahlerus was going to say.

DR. STAHMER: Then I ask for the opportunity to discuss the matter with the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: The Court has just been adjourned for 10 minutes.

DR. STAHMER: I was not able to finish the matter in that short period of time.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that you must ask these questions now and go on with the examination. If you wish to examine the Defendant Göring on these matters you must do it now.

DR. STAHMER: Very well.

[_The Defendant Göring resumed the stand._]

DR. STAHMER: [_Turning to the defendant._] A map was mentioned previously which is supposed to have been drawn up by you and which is contained in Mr. Dahlerus’ book, the authenticity of which he confirmed this morning in answer to my question. I am having this map, which is to be found on Page 53 of his book, shown to you and I ask for your explanation of it.

GÖRING: In the discussion that took place in the night of 29-30 August between Dahlerus and me, I believe at the Führer’s, I tore a map from an atlas on the spur of the moment and outlined with a red pencil, and I believe a blue or green pencil, those regions—not the regions which we would demand, as declared here before by the Prosecution—but those regions of Poland in which Germans live. That the witness Dahlerus was also of this opinion can be seen most clearly from the fact that he repeated the same markings on another map and then wrote as follows, next to the marked section: “German population according to Göring;” and next to the dotted section: “Polish inhabitants according to Göring.”

He then goes on writing and draws boundaries: “Göring’s first proposal for the boundary” which agrees with the markings of the regions of German and Polish populations. That was not a boundary proposal, but a separation of the two populations. And then he writes: “Hitler’s proposal;” that is the final, the correct, and the only proposal transmitted to the Polish as well as to the British Government. If one compares my map one sees that here quite spontaneously and in a great hurry, with a two-color pencil, a quite superficial marking off of the approximate zones of population is made, that is, one in which the majority are Germans and one in which there are exclusively Poles. From the beginning Mr. Dahlerus was given only the broad outlines of the boundary proposal, which was later made more exact. That is the only one in question, the same one which was published, which was read to Ambassador Henderson, and which, as Henderson did not understand it, I had telephoned to the Embassy by Dahlerus during the night, and checked the next day.

DR. STAHMER: Will you please repeat the last sentence? I believe it did not come through.

GÖRING: I said, the boundaries of the Corridor, as outlined here at Hitler’s suggestion, were the official proposal which the Führer, as the only person entitled to make final proposals, had worked out. It is the same proposal that was read to Ambassador Henderson, and as he did not understand it, I turned the note which was read to Henderson, over to Dahlerus for him to dictate it so that I could be sure that the English Ambassador was informed of it in its entirety.

To do this was, as I have already said, actually an enormous risk, since the Führer had forbidden this information being made public at the moment, and, as I have stated already, only I could take that risk. But for the rest, as far as my markings are concerned, they show clearly on the map: “German population according to Göring; Polish population according to Göring.” But that was only approximate and done in a great hurry during the night, merely for his information, and on a map torn from an atlas.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. Dahlerus said that you called him up on the 23rd of August and asked him to come to Berlin immediately because in the meantime the situation had become serious. What made you consider the situation serious?

GÖRING: Through the statements of the Führer at the Obersalzberg on that 22d of August it was clear to me that the tension had reached its peak. The Führer had stated that he would have to bring about a solution of the problem, if it were not possible to obtain one diplomatically. On that occasion, since it was simply an address, without discussion, before the higher officers of troop formations which would be used in case of war, I, as senior officer present, confined myself to saying to the Führer at the end: “The Wehrmacht will do its duty.” Of course it has to do its duty, if it is called upon. At the same time, however, I wanted to exert every effort in order to make as soon as possible—it was now a matter of days; a definite date, the 25th or 26th, as decided at first, had not yet been set on this day—to make one more attempt at negotiations. I wanted to be able to say to the Führer, if such negotiations were successfully underway, that there were still prospects of and chances for a diplomatic solution.

Hence, the concurrence of events on the afternoon of the 22d: the Führer’s speech and my immediate reaction of sending for Dahlerus from Stockholm. I, of course, did not tell him, and I could not, of course, as a German, tell him, a foreigner—and especially not as an officer—that my reason lay in these factors which I have explained. Things are now being represented as if there could never have existed in Germany such an idea as “secret military matter,” or “secret,” or “top secret,” in German politics and in military life at all; as though we were obligated to make known every military and political step to the foreign press in advance. I therefore point out that we, of course, had the same procedures as those adopted in every other country of the world.

DR. STAHMER: How was it that you handled the negotiations personally and that the negotiations were not handled through the Foreign Office?

GÖRING: I was bent on having this question settled peacefully as far as it was at all possible. The work of the Foreign Office is official. Here we were working at it anyhow, and according to the guiding principles laid down by the Führer. I could make my influence felt only in a way which was as direct as possible but not expressly official, because for official action I did not hold the official position of Minister for Foreign Affairs as far as foreign countries were concerned. And at this time it was clear to me that it was not a question of formalities, but rather a question of the most practical and the quickest way of accomplishing something. If I wanted to influence the Führer, that was possible only if I had something in my hand, that is, if I could say to him: “On my own responsibility, but with your knowledge and without committing you and your Reich policy, I am conducting negotiations in order, circumstances permitting, to create an atmosphere which will facilitate official negotiations in the direction of a peaceful solution.”

In addition, it would be faster.

DR. STAHMER: This clear fact, that it was a personal step on your part that was being taken alongside official diplomatic negotiations—was that clear also to the British Government?

GÖRING: It must have been clear from the entire action that this was a nonofficial negotiation which only at one or two points touched the official negotiations, or overlapped them. For instance, the phase where Ambassador Henderson, instead of returning immediately to Berlin, remained 1 or 2 days in London in order, first of all, through the unofficial negotiator, Dahlerus, to explain to the British Government the basis of these intentions, or for the negotiations, or to explain the note, as I shall call it; and when that had been done, the preparation for entering into these conferences was thereby considerably improved. And that not I alone was of the honest conviction on that day that a considerable step had been taken in the direction of a peaceful solution at that time—I believe it was the 28th—is demonstrated by the fact that the same view was held at the British Embassy at that moment, as the Embassy Councillor, Sir Ogilvie-Forbes, has very clearly stated. The situation did not become worse until the 29th.

During all these negotiations it was not a question, as far as I was concerned, of isolating Poland and keeping England out of the matter, but rather it was a question, since the problem of the Corridor and Danzig had come up, of solving it peaceably, as far as possible along the lines of the Munich solution. That was my endeavor until the last moment. If it had been only a question of eliminating England from the matter, then, first of all, English diplomacy would surely have recognized that immediately—it certainly has enough training for that. However, it did enter into these negotiations. And, secondly, I probably would have used entirely different tactics.

It is not that I am reconstructing things in retrospect; I am speaking of what actually happened in those days, of what I thought and wanted. The descriptions given by the Witness Dahlerus today, and in his book regarding his talks with the Führer, by no means represent the way these talks took place. His descriptions are rather subjective, for the Führer probably would not long have been party to such talks.

There are also other subjective interpretations in the book, which perhaps are purely unessential, but which have been brought forward by the Prosecutor, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, that I, in a theatrical fashion, had handed to two collaborators two swords so that they might accomplish bold actions with them. One of those who allegedly received a sword from me was my civilian State Secretary Körner, not a soldier. The most I could have given him was a pen, since he had to draft decrees for the Four Year Plan. The second person was the chief of my office staff, a ministerial director, who also was no soldier and was not to earn any war laurels, but whose main task during the war was exclusively that of keeping my civilian, not my military, staff in order, and of insuring the functioning and progress of that work. For both these matters these gentlemen needed neither a sword nor any incitement, to behave in a military way.

DR. STAHMER: Is it correct that it was first intended to undertake aggressive action against Poland on the 26th of August, and that this date was later postponed?

GÖRING: It was provided that if by this time—official negotiations were being carried on before this, that must not be forgotten—if by then these negotiations had not led to a solution of the problem, as a consequence of the general mobilization of Poland and the deployment of troops which had likewise taken place, and as a consequence of very serious border incidents that had actually occurred—I remind you of the bloody Sunday of Bromberg, of the more than 70,000 Germans who had fled, and of the Germans slain—in other words, the atmosphere at this time was such that the Führer would have wanted to bring about a solution by means of war. Then this delay came about, precisely because one believed that a diplomatic solution could still be found, and thus I took it as a matter of course that I should intensify to the utmost the unofficial course which I had already pursued in my previous efforts and see it through. This explains Dahlerus’ frequent conferences in London and in Berlin, the frequent changes in those conferences, and the frequent flying to and fro.

When the last attempt was suggested by me on the 3rd of September, the situation was as follows, and it also has not been described quite correctly. The British Government at first did not send any ultimatum after the 1st of September, but it sent a note in which it demanded the withdrawal . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Will the interpreter please tell the Tribunal what the last question asked by counsel was? Perhaps the interpreter would not know it. Does the shorthand writer know what the last question was?—It does not seem to me that any answer has been given; it related to the 26th of August.

[_The interpreter repeated the question._]

DR. STAHMER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that was the question, and as far as I have heard there has been no answer to it yet.

DR. STAHMER: I did not understand that, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: The question that you asked was whether the date of the 26th of August was arranged for the action to take place against Poland, and the Defendant Göring has been speaking for some considerable time and has not answered that question yet as far as I have heard.

GÖRING: The question—my answer to this question was that actually the 26th of August was at first planned by the Führer as the date for the invasion, since he considered this date necessary, in view of the situation that I have described. It was then possible, however, to persuade him once more to postpone this date, in order to carry on further negotiations.

DR. STAHMER: How is it to be explained that Hitler’s proposal failed?

GÖRING: Which proposal?

DR. STAHMER: The last proposal of 27 August, that Dahlerus delivered to London.

GÖRING: This proposal was, of course, an unofficial one and was followed by an official proposal that was read to the British Ambassador in the form of a note; that is, the British Government was informed what demands Germany would make on Poland. This proposal was not entirely understood, and was then unofficially—but _de facto_—made known not only to the British Government but also, to the Polish Ambassador, exactly and precisely, in the unofficial way that Dahlerus has described. It came to naught because the Polish Government did not agree to discuss this proposal. First there was a prolongation for a plenipotentiary to be appointed—I believe until the 30th or the 31st; but nevertheless we waited even longer for a plenipotentiary. On the intimation that the Polish Ambassador might be this plenipotentiary, circumstances permitting, we waited for a conference with him; when he declared that he was not authorized to accept any terms, the Führer decided on invasion the next day. This telegram I also sent to the British Ambassador via Dahlerus—the telegram of the Polish Government to their Ambassador, in which they forbade him, in a postscript, to conduct any negotiations regarding proposals, or to accept any proposal, or any note on the subject.

I immediately gave Dahlerus the decoded telegram, which I received from the investigation office mentioned the day before yesterday, so that he could hand it to Henderson, and I told him in addition, despite any scruples I might have had, that, since it was a matter of extraordinary importance, the British Government should find out as quickly as possible how intransigent the Polish attitude was, so that it might, circumstances permitting, influence the Polish Government in the direction of a conference. I thus gave away the key, that is, I showed that we had the Polish diplomatic code key and thus spoiled for Germany a real and important source of information. This was a unique step, that I could justify only by my absolute wish and determination to avert the conflict at the last moment. I should, therefore, like to read the appendix to the official dispatch; it is brief and runs: “From the Polish Government to the Polish Ambassador Lipski in Berlin.” I skip the first part and read only the following:

“As a particular secret instruction for the Ambassador, he is in
addition informed that he should refrain from conducting
official negotiations under any circumstances. In the event of
oral or written proposals being made by the Reich Government,
please state that you have no plenipotentiary powers to respond
to or discuss them, and that you are empowered only to convey
the above message to that Government and that you must have
further instructions first.”

It is clearly seen from this that the Ambassador was not, as we had been told, authorized to do anything at all in the other direction, and this telegram, which the Führer also read, probably indicated to him very clearly the hopelessness of arriving at an understanding with Poland.

DR. STAHMER: Were these negotiations begun and carried out by you with the earnest intention of maintaining peace?

GÖRING: If one reads these writings in their context, that can be seen from this document; but I should not like to rely on the evidence of this book but on what I have to say here under oath. It was my firm determination to do everything to settle in a peaceful way this problem that had arisen. I did not want war; consequently I did everything I possibly could to avoid it. That has nothing to do with the preparations which I carried out as a matter of duty in my capacity as a high-ranking soldier.

DR. STAHMER: A matter was brought up here concerning a flying accident which might possibly have befallen Mr. Dahlerus. What about this remark?

GÖRING: The witness Dahlerus said at the conclusion of his testimony that he must correct himself, that he had not received this absurd information from me, but that this was a conclusion of his because I had mentioned Ribbentrop’s name shortly before in an entirely different connection. I had only one concern and that I indicated: Dahlerus flew in my own plane to London at that time; the tension was already very acute, and in all states mobilization and a threatened state of war had been proclaimed. Official air communications had been cut off long before. So it was possible that under certain circumstances a German plane flying to London with a courier or, vice versa, a British plane flying to Berlin at that time might incur danger from our anti-aircraft batteries or the like, and I wanted to obviate this danger as far as possible by telephoning Dutch and English authorities, as far as I remember. This was the only reason for my telling Dahlerus that I hoped he would arrive and return safely, because in those times an accident might easily have taken place.

Herr Von Ribbentrop knew nothing whatsoever about the fact that Dahlerus was being sent. During the whole time I never discussed the matter of Dahlerus with Herr Von Ribbentrop. Thus he did not know at all that he was flying, that he went back and forth between me and the British Government. All that is an absolute concoction.

DR. STAHMER: On 26 September 1939 were you present at the conference between Dahlerus and Hitler?

GÖRING: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: What did Hitler say then about Poland?

GÖRING: It is correct that he made statements to the effect that a restoration of Poland as she existed before the outbreak of war could no longer be considered after the course taken by the battle, but that he would now, of course, keep the old German provinces that had been taken in 1918. But even at that time he indicated that the Government General in Warsaw would not interest him and pointed out very emphatically to Dahlerus that this was a question which was to be settled chiefly and decisively by Germany and Russia, and that there could thus be no question of a unilateral settlement with England because the greater part of Poland was already occupied by Russia. And these were agreements that he could no longer make unilaterally with England. That was the gist of the Führer’s statements.

DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the testimony which you gave yesterday and ask you if it is correct.

“I think I was Deputy Chairman”—referring to the Reich Defense
Council—“I do not even know, I heard about that, but I assure
you under my oath, that at no time and at no date did I
participate in a single meeting when the Council for the Defense
of the Reich was called together as such.”

Is that a correct transcription of your testimony?

GÖRING: Yes, I said that in no single . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is all. That is all I asked you.

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I ask to have your attention called to Document Number 3575-PS (Exhibit Number USA-781) which is the minutes of the Reich Defense Council of 18 November 1938, with you presiding.

I call your attention to the statement that the “meeting consisted solely of a 3-hour lecture by the Field Marshal. No discussion took place.”

Is that correct?

[_Document 3575-PS was submitted to the defendant._]

GÖRING: I have to read it first, this is the first time I have seen the document.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You did not know when you testified yesterday that we had this document, did you? Would you kindly answer that question?

GÖRING: I have not seen this document before. I have to look at it first. It says here: “Notes on the session of the Reich Defense Council on 18 November 1938.”

The Reich Defense Council, as it was described here, comprised few people. Here there were present, however, all Reich ministers and state secretaries, also the commanders-in-chief of the Army and the Navy, the chiefs of the General Staff, of the three branches of the Armed Forces, Reichsleiter Bormann for the Deputy of the Führer, General Daluege, SS Gruppenführer Heydrich, the Reich Labor Führer, the Price Commissioner, the President of the Reich Labor Office, and others.

When I gave my testimony I was thinking only of the Reich Defense Council as such. This is dealing with the Reich Defense Council within the framework of a large assembly. Nevertheless, I was not thinking of that; this concerns, over and beyond the Reich Defense Council, an assembly that was much larger than that provided for under the Reich Defense Council.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I call your attention to the fact that the “Field Marshal stated it to be the task of the Reich Defense Council to correlate all the forces of the nation for accelerated building up of German armament.”

Do you find that?

GÖRING: Yes, I have it now.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The second paragraph?

GÖRING: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Under II, “The Physical Task: The assignment is to raise the level of armament from a current index of 100 to one of 300.”

GÖRING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: I cannot quite see the reason why it repeatedly happens that the Defense does not receive documents that are discussed in Court and that are submitted to the Court. The document now discussed is also not known to us, at least not to me.

During the last few days I have noticed that several times documents were suddenly presented by the Prosecution without any effort having been made to inform us of their existence.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is perfectly true, and I think every lawyer knows that one of the great questions in this case is credibility, and that if we have, in cross-examination, to submit every document before we can refer to it in cross-examination, after we hear their testimony, the possibilities of useful cross-examination are destroyed.

Now, of course, he did not know; and we have had the experience of calling document after document to their attention, always to be met with some explanation, carefully arranged and read here from notes. No defendant has ever had better opportunity to prepare his case than these defendants, and I submit that cross-examination of them should not be destroyed by any requirement that we submit documents in advance.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you wish to say something?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I should like to make two points. First, I am entirely agreed if Mr. Justice Jackson wants to make use of the element of surprise. I should merely be thankful if the Defense then were also permitted to use the element of surprise. Yet we have been told heretofore that we must show every document we want to submit weeks ahead of time, so that the Prosecution has several weeks to form an opinion on it.

Secondly, if the element of surprise is being used, I believe that at least we, as Defense Counsel, should not be given this surprise at the moment when the document is submitted to the Court and to the witness. I have at this moment neither today’s documents nor the documents of the previous days.

THE PRESIDENT: What you have just said is entirely inaccurate. You have 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: