A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
little grey rabbit
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 05:26

A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#1

Post by little grey rabbit » 22 Apr 2010, 10:47

This question could fit in a number of branches, but as it relates to the Nuremberg trials I will try it here

I was reading AJP Taylor's The Origins of the Second World War revised edition of 1963

On page 301 and 304 he discusses a document that in the revised edition he says has been exposed as not genuine.

I quote from page 301
Note to p 269: This speech of Hitler's, discussed at greater length on p.304, conflictswith other statements at this time and I had doubts about it from the first. It is now known to be a forgery, probably concocted by some member of the German general staff in order to frighten the British. Hitler gave no speech on 23 May and most of those alleged to have been prsent were not even in Berlin
From Page 304
On 23 May,however, he spoke with less reserve to a gathering of generals: "There will be war. Our task is to isolate Poland....It must not come to a simultaneous showdown with the West." This sounds clear enough
[,,,,,,,]
Hence on 23 May he talked not only of war against Poland, which he may have seriously intended; but even of agreat war against the Western Powers, which was undoubtedly not part of his plan. Hitler's calculation worked: no sooner was the conference of 23 May ended than the generals, from Göring downwards, were imploring the Western Powers to bring Poland to reason while there was still time
I believe this document was entered in as L-79 and googling I find Mr Thompson has this to say about it
Norman Rich, in his book Hitler's War Aims: Ideology, the Nazi State, and the Course of Expansion, W.W. Norton & Co., London/New York: 1973, p. 292, has this footnote on the document:

9. A document introduced in evidence at Nuremberg purporting to be a record of a Hitler conference of May 23, 1939 (IMT, 79-L, 37:546-56) makes it appear as though Hitler had definitely decided on war by this time—against Poland, if he could be sure Britain and France would remain neutral; otherwise in the first instance against the West. The authenticity of this document is suspect, however, in particular its date, which was written on a covering note listing the names of the participants at the conference, some of whom, as was proved later, were not present. The document is typewritten and unsigned; it is not entered in the government document record, as was customary; and Hitler's statements recorded therein are at variance with other expressions of his opinions at this time found in documents of proven authenticity. See Hans-Günther Seraphim, "Nachkriegsprozesse und zeitgeschichtliche Forschung," in Mensch und Staat in Recht und Geschichte. Festschrift fur Herbert Kraus (Kitzingen am Main, 1954), pp. 448-50. Admiral Raeder, General Milch, Captain von Below (Hitler's adjutant), who admitted being present at this May 23 conference, all testified after the war that the existing record of the conference was spurious. Their testimony does not mean much in itself, but it helps substantiate suspicions raised by the nature of the document. IMT 14:38-39, 134; NOKW 3518.
and he also provided a link to the text
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 69#p620869

This is the first I have ever heard of it, does anyone know anything more about the providence of this document or if it is now believe such a conference did or did not take place?

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#2

Post by bf109 emil » 22 Apr 2010, 11:31

This is the first I have ever heard of it, does anyone know anything more about the providence of this document or if it is now believe such a conference did or did not take place?
yup here is the actual 7 page document in question, the name of the interpreter and his certifying it was authentic on the last page by Schmundt, Lt Col..http://library2.lawschool.cornell.edu/d ... V_8_04.pdf
I believe this document was entered in as L-79 and googling I find Mr Thompson has this to say about it
copy of the L-79 document which was written IMHO afterwords and a summary to the real document showing the actual minutes of the meeting in the original 7 pages as sourced above...here is the document in question L-79 as shown and used at nuremberghttp://library2.lawschool.cornell.edu/d ... _02_19.pdf
Last edited by bf109 emil on 22 Apr 2010, 11:41, edited 1 time in total.


little grey rabbit
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 05:26

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#3

Post by little grey rabbit » 22 Apr 2010, 11:40

Thanks emil, but does anyone know why or how the forged document entered into the Nuremberg system in the first place. AJP Taylor provides speculation, but for his speculation to substantiated there would have to be some evidence that it was leaked to the British before the outbreak of war. Is there any evidence that happened?

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#4

Post by bf109 emil » 22 Apr 2010, 11:50

little grey rabbit wrote:Thanks emil, but does anyone know why or how the forged document entered into the Nuremberg system in the first place. AJP Taylor provides speculation, but for his speculation to substantiated there would have to be some evidence that it was leaked to the British before the outbreak of war. Is there any evidence that happened?
problem is it is not a forgery, other then a summary of the actual meeting which took place in Nuremberg as documented by the actual minutes and summed up in L-79 and presented as evidence of the actual meeting, and was described as such at Nuremberg by being listed..."L-79 / Extracts from translation of Memorandum entitled:' Minutes of a conference on 23 May 39." hence it was never deemed nor intended to be sought as the actual document written during may23 1939, but a briefing of it as used in a legal trial...simply an incorrect conclusion of a matter of controversy written so as to intrigue his readers.

No not really any factual source of this document being leaked other then Taylor speculation as cited in his autobiography...

Taylor's own statements such as "in principle and doctrine, Hitler was no more wicked and unscrupulous than many a contemporary statesman" outraged very many people who thought of the racial imperialism, and of the death camps, that had been evident in the Second World War as being monstrously evil.
Taylor does however say of Hitler that "in wicked acts he outdid them all."

Fellow historian Hugh Trevor-Roper--Taylor's antagonist in the fierce debates over Hitler that roiled the intellectual world after Origins was published--once remarked, "The sad fact is that Taylor is really too independent to have any support from any Establishment." Taylor managed to annoy just about everybody in the British historical profession, and his interpretive daring, while sometimes strikingly original, often seemed willfully perverse to his peers and colleagues.

Taylor's initially 'outrageous' revisionism was increasingly, but not fully, accepted by British historians and by a majority amongst the rising generation of German historians.
sourced from A.J.P. Taylor
From his autobiography
A Personal History

little grey rabbit
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 05:26

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#5

Post by little grey rabbit » 22 Apr 2010, 13:46

b109 emil, the error was mine, not AJP Taylor.

L-79 is indeed a genuine document, it is a typed and edited copy of a forged (or suspected of being forged) document. Your correction, if a trifle pedantic, is valid.

So accepting L-79 is a true copy of a forged original, is there any further work or knowledge regarding the original?

AJP Taylor suggests the motive was to frighten the British, but one can only assume such a suggestion would be valid only if there was some record of it being available to the British by leak etc, before the outbreak of war?

Led125
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: 27 Jan 2010, 12:31

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#6

Post by Led125 » 22 Apr 2010, 20:56

Firstly on Hans Guenther Seraphim's critique of the document: Gerhard Weinberg, in a footnote in volume 2 of his book on the Foreign Policy of Nazi Germany, dismisses Seraphim's critique. He cites two other authorities, however I am not in a position to actually look at his sources and so am taking what he says in good faith.

Secondly, here is what Hitler's Adjutant, Nicolaus von Below , wrote about it in his memoirs:
Schmundt hatte sich während der Besprechung laufend Notizen gemacht und diese am folgenden Tag handschriftlich zu einem Bericht ausgearbeitet. Er deponierte ihn mit anderen Niederschriften in einem Panzerschrank. In späteren Jahren hat Schmundt alle derartigen Akten an den „Beauftragten für Geschichtsschreibung“ General Scherff, abgegeben. In dessen Archiv wurde der „Bericht 23. Mai 1939“ von den Alliierten gefunden und diente 1946 der Anklage im Nürnberger Prozess als Schlüsseldokument („Kleiner Schmundt“). Es war verständlich, das verschiedene Angeklagte versuchten, die Echtheit des Dokuments anzuzweifeln und einzelne Angaben in dem Bericht als falsch hinzustellen. Ich selbst habe mich als Zeuge in Nürnberg vorsichtig im Sinne der Angeklagten geäußert. Heute besteht kein Grund, die Echtheit von Schmundts Niederschrift zu verheimlichen. Die aufgeführten Teilnehmer waren alle anwesend, auch Göring und Oberst Warlimont. Es ist völlig ausgeschlossen anzunehmen, dass Schmundt den Bericht erst sehr viel später, etwa 1940 oder 1941, abgefaßt hätte. Ich kannte Schmundts Gewohnheit, solche Aufzeichnungen so schnell wie möglich nach den jeweiligen Ereignissen anzufertigen. Schmundt war als Generalstabsoffizier gewissenhaft und verantwortungsbewußt genug, um die Bedeutung solcher Gesprächswiedergaben richtig zu erkennen. Im übrigen entsprach der Inhalt der Niederschrift Hitlers Gedanken aus jener Zeit, wie ich sie nicht nur aus der Besprechung vom 23. Mai her kannte, sondern auch aus einzelnen anderen Gesprächen Hitlers im Kreise der Militärs
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmundt-Protokoll

Google translate translation:

Schmundt had continuously made during the meeting notes, and they worked out the next day by hand to a report. He deposited it with other writings in a safe. In later years Schmundt has any such document to the "officers of history" General Scherff lodged. In the archive, the "23rd May Rerport 1939 "found by the Allies in 1946 and served for the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials as a key document. It was understandable that various defendants attempted to doubt the authenticity of the document and the details in the report as false portray. I myself have expressed myself cautiously in Nuremberg as a witness within the meaning of the defendants. Today there is no reason to question the authenticity of Schmundt minutes to hide. The listed participants were all present, including Göring and Colonel Warlimont. . It's impossible to believe that Schmundt had drafted the report until much later, about 1940 or 1941. I knew Schmundt habit, such records as quickly as possible to make the respective events. Schmundt was a staff officer conscientious and responsible enough to recognize the importance of such dialogue reproduction right. In the other corresponded to the contents of the transcript of Hitler thought of the time, as I not only from the meeting of 23 May knew her, but also from each other in the circle of Hitler's talks of the military.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#7

Post by bf109 emil » 22 Apr 2010, 21:14

So accepting L-79 is a true copy of a forged original, is there any further work or knowledge regarding the original?
None as the original was neither a forgery as well, but a 7 page record of the minutes, of the actual meeting with actually took place. L-79 was written as a brief 2 page summary of the original minutes of the said meeting between Hitler and his staff regarding Poland, and recorded by the attendant on duty Lt Col. Schmundt. The same person whom wrote L-79 summarizing the original non forged document, but done as a summary to the original minutes which Schmundt recorded.

original document-http://library2.lawschool.cornell.edu/d ... V_8_04.pdf
found in Nuremberg archives which describes this original document in it's abstract as...

This document illustrates the level of premeditation involved in Hitler's invasion of Poland and in his willingness to fight a general European war, particularly against England. The abiding concern for living space and food supplies is present and continues, at least ostensibly, to fuel Hitler's drive to establish German hegemony in Europe. Terse, somewhat repetitious, these minutes seem to reflect a state of heightened tension, as Hitler and the Nazi High Command realize that the time is ripe to launch the first campaign (that is, the invasion of Poland) of what Hitler foresees as a protracted war—a "life-and-death struggle" in the case of France and England, which might last 10-15 years. In general, the Fuehrer calls for secrecy and study: that no one know anything beyond his sphere of concern, that all possible plans be reviewed and precautions seen to that will tend to ensure success. The first page of this document, which is obviously an English translation of the German original, is marked "TOP SECRET," with the additional directive, "To be transmitted by officer only." Above "TOP SECRET” are two handwritten words enclosed by parentheses; it is not clear whether these words are a person's name or the name of a place, for the words themselves are not quite legible. This document is a typewritten photostatic copy, i.e., white letters on a black background.

or in other words a photo copy captured in Germany of the actual minutes which where recorded by Schmundt.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#8

Post by David Thompson » 22 Apr 2010, 22:33

I'm glad this subject came up, since it gave me the incentive to check the claims out for myself, instead of relying on secondary sources.

To start with, the typescript was apparently made from Lt-Col. (later General der Infanterie) Schmundt's handwritten notes. Schmundt died of complications following injuries he received in the 20 Jul 1944 assassination plot on Hitler, so he wasn't around to testify after the war. The handwritten notes were undated, but there was a typewritten page which prefaced the notes, giving the date as 23 May 1939 and providing a list of the persons supposedly present.

While A.J.P. Taylor may have said:
Hitler gave no speech on 23 May and most of those alleged to have been prsent were not even in Berlin
five witnesses at the IMT proceedings disagree. According to Led125's post above (at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1457709 ), a sixth participant -- von Below -- also thought Schmundt's notes were accurate. Here's what the IMT witnesses had to say about Document L-79 and the Hitler conference on 23 May 1939:

(1) Gen. Bodenschatz (at IMT proceedings vol. 9, pp. 38-39):
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask that you be shown Document Number L-79, United States exhibit in evidence, Number USA-27. You have seen that before, witness?

BODENSCHATZ: A copy of this document was shown to me by Colonel Williams, and I told him that I myself could not remember having been present. But if my name is on the minutes, then I was there.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But your name is on the document, is it not?

BODENSCHATZ: Then I was there. I cannot remember the subject of this conference. I told Colonel Williams that that must have been discussed because Colonel Schmundt, whose handwriting I know -- I was shown a copy -- I told him that Colonel Schmundt was a man who was very conscientious in making his notes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is all in his handwriting?

BODENSCHATZ: That is it as I see it here.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it is signed by Colonel Schmundt?

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, it is signed by Colonel Schmundt -- Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt. The corrections are not in his handwriting.

MR.JUSTICE JACKSON: But the body of the document is his handwriting?

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, that is his own handwriting. I know it; yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And when you were asked about that by Colonel Williams, you took time to read it, and then you said, did you not: "I think that the thoughts are right as they are expressed here; these are the thoughts that the Fuehrer usually voiced to us in a small circle." You made that statement?

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, I did say that, yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you said: "I cannot remember whether these things were expressed on that day. However, it is possible that the thoughts which are put down here are the thoughts of Adolf Hitler." You said that to Colonel Williams, did you not?

38

8 March 46

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, I said that to Colonel Williams.

39

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#9

Post by David Thompson » 22 Apr 2010, 22:51

(2) Field Marshal Milch

(a) (at IMT proceedings vol. 9, pp. 47-48):
DR. STAHMER: Did you take part in a discussion with the Führer on 23 May 1939?

MILCH: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: In what way did that happen?

47

8 March 46

MILCH: I was suddenly ordered to come on the morning of that day, because the Reich Marshal was not there.

DR. STAHMER: Do you remember the course of this conversation?

MILCH: The Fuehrer made a long speech to the three commanders-in-chief of the Anny, Navy, and Air Force, and their chiefs of staff. Several other persons were also present. The gist of it was that Hitler declared he had decided to solve in one way or another the question of a corridor across the Corridor to East Prussia, and in connection with that he discussed the possibility of complications which, in consequence, might arise in the West. It was only a speech, not a discussion or a conversation.

DR. STAHMER: Was anything else discussed or presented by him, any further details?

MILCH: Yes, it was just the question whether the West -- probably he was thinking primarily of France -- would keep quiet or whether it would interfere.

DR. STAHMER: Was anything said of the possibility of an attack on Poland or, as I remember, was only the solution of this Corridor problem mentioned?

MILCH: Actually, I understood him to say that he would solve this problem in any case, so his first thought was probably of negotiations, but if these negotiations did not produce results, then a military solution would probably have to be considered.

DR. STAHMER: Were there any further discussions about that?

MILCH: No, it was expressly ordered that any discussion by the participants, even among themselves, was forbidden. I, for instance, was forbidden to inform the Reich Marshal, who was not there. Hitler declared that he himself would inform Göring. I remember that at that time there was also issued the famous order which has been mentioned previously, and which as Fuhrer Order Number 1 had to be displayed in every one of our offices, to the effect that nobody should tell anybody anything he need not know; that nothing should ever be told sooner than was necessary; and that only just as much should be told as was necessary for the other person to know.

DR. STAHMER: Then you did not inform the Reich Marshal about this conference?

MILCH: No; I was forbidden to do so.

DR. STAHMER: When did he find out about it?

MILCH: I do not know.
(b) (IMT proceedings vol. 9, p. 58):
DR. LATERNSER: Witness, in particular during the critical days of 1939 you were in close official contact with Defendant Göring. Did you ever hear through him about a large-scale plan for waging an extensive war?

MILCH: No.

DR. LATERNSER: In your opinion, did the other high military leaders hear or would they have heard more about it?

MILCH: No. All measures taken by Hitler -- beginning with the occupation of the Rhineland -- came very suddenly, as a rule after only a few hour's preparation. That applies to Austria; that also applies to Czechoslovakia and to Prague. The only time that we were told anything beforehand was the affair with Poland, which I mentioned before, where we had a conference on 23 May.


(c) (IMT proceedings, vol. 9, p. 116):
MR. ROBERTS: . . . I now want to come to my second point. You were present at the conference of chiefs of the services in the Chancellery on 23 May 1939?

MILCH: What was the date please?

MR. ROBERTS: I would like you to see the document, which is L-79. You did see it on Friday, I think.

MILCH: On 23 May, was it not?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, that is right. I just want to remind you who else was present. There were the Führer, Göring, Raeder, von Brauchitsch, Keitel, yourself, Halder, General Bodenschatz, Warlimont -- was Warlimont the deputy for Jodl?

MILCH: I cannot say for whom he was there.

MR. ROBERTS: Very well -- and others; I will not mention the names. Now, Witness, those were leaders of the German Armed Forces?

MILCH: May I say, as far as I can remember Field Marshal Göring was not present. I cannot remember.

MR. ROBERTS: He is down there as being present. You think he was not there?

MILCH: Yes. I cannot remember, but to my recollection I was sent there at the last moment to represent him.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, then, apart from Göring, if he was not there, those were mostly the leaders of the German forces, is that right?

MILCH: Yes. It was the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, and the OKW, yes.


(d) (IMT proceedings vol. 9, pp. 117-118):
MR. ROBERTS: . . . Do you remember that at that conference Hitler said these words, which are well known to the Tribunal:
"The Dutch and Belgian air bases must be occupied by the Armed Forces. Declarations of neutrality must be ignored. . . . An effort must be made to deal the enemy a heavy or decisive final blow right at the start. Considerations of right or wrong, or treaties, do not enter into the matter."
Do you remember those words being said?

MILCH: I cannot remember exactly what the words were. I know that it was a question of the Polish Corridor and Danzig, that in this connection Hitler explained what complications might follow in the West, and what he intended to do about it; but what he said in detail I can no longer remember.

MR. ROBERTS: Was any protest made by any of these honorable men at the breach of Germany's pledged word?

MILCH: During this meeting it was impossible for anyone present to speak at all. Hitler addressed us from his desk, and after the speech he left the room. A discussion did not take place; he did not allow it.

MR. ROBERTS: You say it is impossible for an honorable man to protect his honor, Witness?

MILCH: I cannot remember Hitler's actual words shown here.

MR. ROBERTS: Can you give the Tribunal your opinion of it?

MILCH: At this meeting I did not have the impression that Hitler said anything contrary to the obligations entered into. That I cannot remember.

MR. ROBERTS: Are you now saying that those minutes are wrong?

MILCH: No, I cannot say that either. I can only say I have no recollection of the exact words used. Whether the minutes are

117

11 March 46

completely correct I do not know either. As far as I know they were recorded subsequently by one of the adjutants present.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#10

Post by David Thompson » 22 Apr 2010, 23:02

(3) Field Marshal Keitel (at IMT proceedings vol. 10, pp. 513-14):
DR. NELTE: I want to establish only this. Now, on 23 May 1939, there was a conference at which Hitler addressed the generals. You know this address? What was the reason for and the contents of this address?

KEITEL: I saw the minutes of it for the first time in the course of my interrogations here. It reminded me of the situation at that time. The purpose of this address was to show the generals that

513

4 April 46

their misgivings were unfounded, to remove their misgivings, and finally to point out that the conditions were not yet given and that political negotiations about these matters still could and perhaps would change the situation. It was however simply to give encouragement.

DR. NELTE: Were you at that time of the opinion that war would actually break out?

KEITEL: No, at that time -- and this was perhaps rather naïve -- I believed that war would not break out, that in view of the military preparations ordered, negotiations would take place again and a solution would be found. In our military considerations a strictly military point of view was always dominant. We generals believed that France -- to a lesser extent England -- in view of her mutual-assistance pact with Poland would intervene and that we did not at all have the defensive means for this. For this very reason I personally was always convinced that there would be no war because we could not wage a war against Poland if France attacked us in the West.
According to the prosecution's opening statement at the IMT trial:
The authenticity and accuracy of Schmundt's record of the meeting of 23 May 1939 has been admitted by Keitel in a pretrial interrogation.
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression vol. 1, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946, p. 390.

I have not yet located this document, however.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#11

Post by David Thompson » 22 Apr 2010, 23:08

(4) Grand Admiral Raeder (at IMT proceedings vol. 13, pp. 37-39):
Then I come to the second key document which the Prosecution submitted -- namely, Document L-79, the so-called "Little Schmundt.' It is Exhibit USA-27, Number 10 in the document book of the British Delegation, Page 24. The document in spite of its astonishing length was also presented in full by the Prosecution, so that I shall not read from it. May I remind the Court that it states that further successes could not be achieved without bloodshed, and

37

18 May 46

on 23 May 1939 with reference to Poland it states that not Danzig but the readjustment of Lebensraum was the issue at stake.

It speaks of the readjustment of Lebensraum and of the fact that the Polish problem could not be separated from the conflict with the West. Thereupon Hitler said that the only way out was to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. Unfortunately, this is again a document which is undated.

Do you know when Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt prepared this report?

RAEDER: No, unfortunately I cannot say that.

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say it is undated?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, there is no date stating when the document was prepared. There is only the date referring to the minutes of the conference of 23 May. In the case of the Hossbach Document the conference was on 5 November, but it was written down by Hossbach 5 days later from memory, on 10 November. In the case of Schmundt, we do not know whether it was written down after 1 day, 5 days, or 4 weeks.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it in evidence that the document of 5 November was written down 5 days later?

DR. SIEMERS: No. The document of 5 November shows that it was prepared 5 days later. The document is dated at the top, "Berlin, 10 November 1937; Notes of the Conference in the Reich Chancellery on 5 November 1937.. .."

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is right, then there is evidence.

DR.SIEMERS: [Turning to the defendant.] In the case of Schmundt, there is no indication?

RAEDER: No.

DR. SIEMERS: You do not know when it was written down?

RAEDER: No, I never heard when.

DR. SIEMERS: Did you ever see this document before this Trial?

RAEDER: No.

DR. SIEMERS: Does this document contain a correct reproduction in all points of Hitler's speech, or does what you said about the Hossbach Document apply here also?

RAEDER: It applies even more here. In my opinion it is the most abstruse document concerning a Hitler speech in existence, for a large part of the statements in my opinion makes no sense whatsoever, as I have tried to show. The adjutant stated that he was only paraphrasing.

DR. SIEMERS: This is on the first page in the center where it is written, "Reproduced in Substance."

38

16 May 46

Please explain to the Court what impression this speech made on you at the time and why you believed, in spite of this speech, that Hitler was not planning any war of aggression.

RAEDER: I should like to point out again here that the trial brief makes the comment that consultation took place regarding the scale on which the plan should be executed. Particularly in this case this does not at all represent the character of the speech correctly. The meaning of the whole first part of the speech, as I said, is extremely vague. Whereas in the 1937 speech he gave 1943 to 1945 as the latest deadline and the possibility of an earlier date under certain improbable circumstances, here Hitler speaks of a solution as being possible in 15 to 20 years. He says that Poland is always on the side of the enemy, in spite of the treaty of friendship, that her secret intention is to take advantage of any opportunity to act against us, and that he, therefore, wants to attack Poland at the first opportunity. The Polish problem cannot be separated from the conflict in the West, but a conflict in the West must not be permitted to arise simultaneously. If it is uncertain as to whether a war with the West will or will not take place in the wake of the German-Polish conflict, then a line of battle first against England and France is perhaps of greater importance. Then again, he says that we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into a war with England on account of Poland, a war on two fronts such as the incapable men of 1914 had brought about.

Then again, England -- and that is comparatively new here -- is the driving force against Germany. We must prepare for a long war in addition to a surprise attack, obviously against England. It is astonishing that we were to endeavor, at the beginning of such a war, to strike a destructive blow against England. The goal is to force England to her knees. Then follows quite a new part. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the defendant appears to be reading from a document in argument about this document. That is not giving evidence. If he can tell us anything about what happened at this meeting, it is open to him to do so.

DR. SIEMERS: He is repeating, with the aid of this document, the involved thoughts which Hitler expressed at that time, and he is pointing out the contradictions contained in Hitler's speech at that time.

THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of argument, to point out that there are conflicts between one part of the document and another. That is not the subject of evidence. He has already told us that Hitler's speeches generally were that one speech generally contradicted another, but we can see for ourselves from the document if one part of it conflicts with another.

39

16 May 46

DR. SIEMERS: Is it not of importance, Mr. President, that the abstruse statements of Hitler at that time had such an effect on the witness that he says so and so many points are false? Then the whole tendency which we read out of it cannot be true. As I understand the witness, Hitler must have had mental reservations back of such conflicting remarks to commanders. But I believe we can shorten this.

Herr Grossadmiral, according to the wish of the Court, just explain what the effect was on you and what in your opinion were the special designs connected with this document.

RAEDER: By contrasting these sentences, I wanted only to show how muddled the speech was. At the end there is a second part in which a number of doctrinaire, academic opinions on warfare are expressed and a conclusion to the effect that it was also a wish of Hitler to have formed in the OKW a research staff to work out all these plans for war preparation, evaluation of individual weapons, et cetera, without the participation of the general staffs, with which he did not like to collaborate. He wanted these things to be in his own hands. Thus it was the formation of a research staff which motivated this speech.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#12

Post by David Thompson » 23 Apr 2010, 00:17

(5) Reich Marshal Göring (at IMT proceedings vol. 9, pp. 308-309):
DR. STAHMER: On 23 May 1939 a conference took place with the Fuhrer, which was briefly discussed in connection with the examination of the witness Milch.

A report of that was also made, Document Number L-79. According to the wording of that report, you participated in this meeting, but the witness Milch stated that you were not present.

GÖRING: Actually I was not present. Milch was called in at the last moment to represent me. But, of course, if the witness says that he had not received any permission from the Fuehrer to inform me, then you must understand that the Fuehrer did not want to have me informed of this matter by way of my state secretary, but wanted rather to inform me himself. But; no, I was actually present at this meeting -- I see that now from another clue. But even if I had not been present, I think Milch must have been thinking of another meeting. That would not be one of any importance, for it is out of the question that the Fuehrer would have had a conference with such gentlemen without notifying me either before, or afterwards if I myself were absent. It is, therefore, not at all important. It is quite obvious that in such cases I was informed either previously or, if I was not present, afterwards in great detail by the Fuehrer. But I see now that Milch must have made a mistake here, and he is probably thinking of another meeting, for at the very end I asked some questions with respect to the armament program which I now recall very well.

DR. STAHMER: What was the significance of this meeting?

GÖRING: It was a conference held by the Fuehrer at which he once more stated his views with regard to the situation and the tasks demanded of the Wehrmacht as a result of this situation. Once more the main point was to inform the Armed Forces concerning armament and preparedness, that he was considering all possible developments, political and otherwise, and that he himself wanted to have complete freedom of decision.

Looking back, in regard to the events which have occurred up to this moment -- and I need not emphasize how easily matters

308

14 March 46

viewed in retrospect, in the light of their development, are seen and presented differently to what they actually were when they occurred -- but I can now easily say that even at that time I wanted this or that, since I have in the meantime achieved it. I can easily say also -- this involuntarily suggests itself -- that this or that was always my intention, even though one knows perfectly well that one was originally very dependent on other factors, and that under certain circumstances one's intentions at that time might have been quite different.

Generally speaking, this is another case where there are misconceptions on the part of the adjutant; but, on the whole, it is typical of the conferences which the Fuehrer used to hold when he had some particular purpose in mind which he wanted to achieve and wanted to give this aim the necessary emphasis.

PFLB
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 05 Apr 2010, 11:21

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#13

Post by PFLB » 23 Apr 2010, 03:53

Seems unlikely to me that Keitel, Raeder and Göring would have implicated themselves by lying and saying the conference took place when it didn't. As it turned out, they weren't on trial for their lives in that respect but they didn't know that at the time.

kiseli
Member
Posts: 273
Joined: 03 Dec 2007, 15:00

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#14

Post by kiseli » 23 Apr 2010, 11:09

Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression vol. 1, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946, p. 390.

I have not yet located this document, however.

Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: A forged Nuremburg Document of a Hitler conference

#15

Post by David Thompson » 23 Apr 2010, 14:22

Thanks, kiseli. I was looking for the interrogation report/affidavit by Keitel in which he admitted the authenticity and accuracy of L-79.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”