. NMT02-T0731
Volume II · Page 731
war of offense, but only because, understanding the international situation, he was convinced that England would fight against the Nazi regime.
Up to that time, your Honor, nobody can find any inconsistency in the defendant's outlook. It was no offense if he requested a Wehrmacht for his country in view of the world situation, and therefore he favored a reasonable rearmament. As long as all nations were peace-minded and maintained armies, Germany had the right to maintain armed forces as well. I beg you to remember that the defendant demanded from his superiors that rearmament should be effected in a slow and reasonable manner and that he had differences with them on account of this.
It was not for nothing, your Honor, I repeat that. Only for one to keep all these things in mind will it be possible to judge whether or not the defendant's statement regarding the conference of 23 May 1939 is correct. A man who loves peace and works for peace was present at that conference and states today, or testified that the speech in question did not contain any mention of aggressive war against Poland or any other country. He even testified in this courtroom that this speech did not have the contents as it is laid down in the Schmundt protocol.
I realize that the International Military Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Schmundt protocol is V correct. All defendants and witnesses who were heard at that time declared that the contents of the speech were not of so aggressive a nature as it is laid down in the minutes. The defense counsel made a mistake at that time of not calling all the witnesses which I requested. Nobody went to the trouble of critically examining the text of the record. I can understand why the IMT reached a different conclusion, having heard only the defendants' general objection, which remained unsubstantiated in detail. Nowhere is it yet permissible in law to maintain the verdict of a previous court when new and better evidence has been submitted.
The witnesses Warlimont, Schniewind, Engel, and Raeder stated that several passages of the Schmundt record contained a number of false assertions regarding Hitler's words. Warlimont testified that he was not present, although he is listed as among those present. Milch's testimony made it absolutely definite that Goering was not present. If there were only so few persons present and there were mistakes made concerning the presence of persons, the record must have been made up a long time after the event, otherwise no faults of that kind would have been possible. Schniewind testified that a number of points contained in the Schmundt record were never discussed at that time at all. He had the opinion that many ideas laid down in the record were borne out
841684 — 49 — 47
