Mr. Jack Alberti's Reply to Admiral King
| In reply refer to Initials | ||||||||||||||
| and No. | ||||||||||||||
NAVY DEPARTMENT |
||||||||||||||
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS |
||||||||||||||
WASHINGTON |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
1. Enclosure (A) is forwarded to you for such statement as you may care to make. |
||||||||||||||
2. It is desired that papers be returned via the Director of Naval Intelligence. |
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
27 July 1945 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. The following statements is made upon consideration of reference (a). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
2. In pursuit of written orders from CNO (DNI), I proceeded to the District Intelligence Office, First Naval District, Boston, Mass., and reported there on 13 May 1945. The DIO, First Naval District, directed me to proceed by air to Portland, Maine, on 14 May, which I did, embarking there in the USS ARGO. That vessel went to sea and at 0630 on 15 May met the U-805. Surrender of that submarine was accepted by Commander S. Moffatt, USNR, and at his direction, Lt. Cdr. Hatton, USNR, Lieut. Maxwell, USNR, (who had come out from Portsmouth in the USS ELSINORE) and I boarded the U-805. We proceeded with the interrogation of the crew. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
3. On arrival at Portsmouth, 15 May, the prisoners of war were taken to the U.S. Naval Prison and we continued with the interrogation of subject prisoners there on that day until approximately 2330. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
On 16 May, the same procedure was followed and repeated with respect to the crew of the U-1228 and on 17 May with the crew of U-873. At the request of the Commandant, Navy Yard, Portsmouth, we selected appropriate and reliable members of the crews of those submarines to remain aboard them in order to assist the maintenance crews detailed thereto. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
4. When the Captain of the U-1228 was brought before me for interrogation, I noticed that he was still wearing an Iron Cross as well as the U-boat badge. These were ordered to be removed in accordance with the usual custom and because of past experience, as such decorations have very sharp edges and can readily be used as a weapon or a means of suicide. I acceded to the request of the Commanding Officer of the Prison that he be permitted to retain at Iron Cross because there was a plentiful supply thereof among the captured equipment and it would be possible, therefore, eventually to return an Iron Cross to the U-boat Commander. Iron Crosses have no marks of individuality on them and may be freely substituted. Every U-boat carried a supply of Iron Crosses and decorations generally in their safes which the Commanding Officer thereof may distribute on authorization, and the plentiful supply above-mentioned came from such source. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
- 2 - |
|||||
5. No irregularities of any kind occurred in the handling of the above mentioned prisoners or their possessions by the personnel of the U.S. Naval Prison at Portsmouth. This comment covers U-805, U-1228 and U-873. |
|||||
6. As for the manner in which we performed our duties, I refer to an oral statement to us by Lieut. Comdr. John O. Ives, USNR, Yard Intelligence Officer of Portsmouth, to the effect that the Commandant of that Navy Yard was so well pleased with our manner of performance that he had prepared a letter of commendation which he planned to send to the Chief of Naval Operations. Also I am confident that Comdr. Moffatt will likewise bear witness to the excellent manner in which we performed our duties and carried on interrogations. |
|||||
7. Since May, 1942, all possessions of prisoners have been screened by Op-16-Z. After items of Intelligence value have been removed and forwarded eventually to the interested bureaus, personal possessions such as rings, photographs, etc., have been returned to the prisoners. The remaining items consisting of material considered suitable as souvenirs and having neither intelligence nor technical value have then been returned to the capturing vessel for distribution to the crew thereof. In view of the great mass of material received a Portsmouth, we simply carried out our usual practice there, making some spot distributions of souvenirs instead of forwarding all of it to Washington. We have done this before. Attention is respectfully invited to Section O, Article 2, of reference (b) which is as follows: |
|||||
| |||||
All material taken from prisoners of all four boats, including recovered looted material from the U-234 was taken to the Yard Intelligence Office. Here, Lt. Comdr. Hatton and I segregated the vast quantity of this material into (a) material of technical, intelligence or intrinsic value for shipment to Washington; (b) personal property, such as wallets, watches, etc., for forwarding with the prisoners to the Provost Marshall General at the Prisoner of War Camp; and (c) souvenir material not falling into the above categories for distribution to the crews of the capturing vessels. |
|||||
The quotation from Reference (b) "No souvenirs may be taken" is for the purpose of insuring that no items of possible intelligence value will be lost and not brought to the attention of ONI interrogators. It does not prevent distribution of souvenirs by the Division of Naval Intelligence but actually authorizes it, and Op-16-Z personnel have made on the spot distributions on occasion, since it is actually the cognizant section of ONI. |
|||||
|
|
|
- 3 - |
||
8. In carrying out my duties as interrogator, I have nowise exceeded my authorities and functions. In have been an interrogator since May, 1942, and am at present one of the most experienced interrogators in Op-16-Z. Actually, I have been quite active as instructor in interrogation to a number of the officer interrogators in this Branch. Moreover, as early as October, 1942, I delivered lectures to the Foreign Intelligence School of ONI on this subject. See Enclosure (A). In addition, I have operated successfully and favorably with Military Intelligence Service. See Enclosure (B). Furthermore, Op-20-G has favorably known of my work. See Enclosure (C). |
||
9. Under the direction of Lt. Comdr. Hatton, USNR, senior interrogation officer present, I assumed the duties of direct interrogation of prisoners at the Naval Prison while Lt. Comdr. Hatton was engaged in matters of interest to the Yard authorities and recovery of documents and equipment of intelligence values plus a detailed check of the reliability of German personnel aboard the captured U-boats, all of which was carried out on the boats themselves. It is emphasized that all Op-16-Z personnel were busy at different tasks, removed from one another and which had to be performed simultaneously because of urgency and number of U-boats and personnel involved. And we were all busy from morning until late at night working under high pressure. |
||
10. In regard to the Commander of the U-873, it is true that I caused him to be slapped ONCE by a marine guard. The Commander wa of considerable physical proportions, threatening in his attitude and insolent in his demeanor. I was in the uniform of a Lt. Comdr. and his attitude was not in keeping with the terms of the surrender nor was it respectful to the uniform. He alone could furnish the answers to certain questions, replies to which we had been directed to obtain by CNO secret dispatch 151716 of 15 May 1945. In the course of the interrogation of the prisoner which was done by me and at a time when Lt. Cmdr. Hatton was engaged in interrogating another prisoner from U-873 in a different part of the prison, the prisoner became extremely menacing and hysterically arrogant. In keeping with well-known psychological principles, I instructed the guard to slap him once. It was done entirely because of his menacing attitude and arrogance, which ceased after the slapping and I was thereafter treated with the respect of the Commander. The interrogation of the crews of these 4 submarines elicited full and detailed replies to all the questions propounded by CNO. In particular, interrogation of the Captain of U-873 produced the information (of which there was absolutely no previous knowledge) that this U-boat was filled with mercury flasks and optical glass to a value in excess of one million marks. |
||
11. The looting in question, resulting in the possible loss of important intelligence material, occurred only in the case of the U-234. In accordance |
||
|
|
|
- 4 - |
||
with CNO secret dispatch 162153 of 16 May 1945, Lt. Maxwell and I accompanied the passengers from U-234 to the Naval Prison at Portsmouth where we supervised their processing and search in the office of the Commanding Officer of the Naval Prison. We also conducted a short preliminary interrogation there of those passengers. Speed was of the essence because a special plane was waiting to take those passenger prisoners to Washington. Only 9 passengers had been found whereas previous intelligence indicated there should be 10. I interrogated General Kessler and from him obtained the information that the tenth passenger was concealed among the crew. I went to the cell-block located this passenger and had him removed in preparation for sending him to Washington with the others. At this time I saw the crew of U-234 in process of being searched and since 4 or 5 marine officers were present thereat, I had no reason to assume that any irregularities would take place, particularly since none had so taken place in the cases of the earlier three U-boats. It appears, however, as was subsequently learned, that a considerable amount of looting must have taken place at the prison on that day, but Lt. Maxwell and I were occupied with the passengers, who were highly important, in the office of the Commanding Officer of the Prison, and, therefore, did not see the looting. Of course, it was not our duty to search the officers and crew but merely to examine the material resulting from the search to see whether it had intelligence value and to interrogate the officers and crew. |
||
12. Lieut. Maxwell took the special 10 passenger party on the plane to Washington at about 1500 on 19 May. Shortly after the passengers left the Naval Prison a number of pieces of luggage belonging to the above-mentioned passengers arrived at the prison and were deposited in the lobby directly in front of the office of the Officer of the Day. Lt. Cdr. John O. Ives, Navy Yard Intelligence Officer of Portsmouth, arranged for two officers from the office of the DIO, 1ND, who had been detailed to assist us, to examine this luggage which was thought to contain, among other things, an important suitcase belonging to General Kessler. Lt. Cdr. Ives at about this time, and prior to the examination of the luggage, transmitted to me an urgent request to go immediately aboard the U-234. This I did and Lt. Cdr. Hatton (who had been working aboard the U-234 all during the above-mentioned time on 19 May) and I worked aboard the U-234 until after 2400, 19 May. THe examination of the above-mentioned luggage took place after Lt. Maxwell and I had left the prison and while Lt. Comdr. Hatton and I were on board the U-234. The luggage was in custody of U.S. Marines and I had no reason to believe it was not in perfect safety. Later during the evening of Saturday, 19 May, Lt. Cdr. Ives reported to us that no items of value or interest had been found in the luggage and that we were presumably in error in assuming that one of the suitcases belonged to General Kessler. |
||
13. On Sunday morning, 20 May, Lt. Cdr. Hatton and I went to the Naval Prison to continue interrogation of the officers and crew of the U-234. The Commanding Officer of the Naval Prison had on his desk a large studio photograph |
||
|
|
|
- 5 - |
||
of General Kessler bearing the name of a German photographer. Realizing that this photograph could only have come from the General's luggage, Lt. Cdr. Hatton immediately called Lt. Comdr. Ives, and all of us discussed the matter with the Commander of the Naval Prison. It plainly appeared to all of us that securing the return of the looted material could only be possible if we allowed the marines at the prison to retain those items "not of intelligence or technical value." See Section O, Article 2 of CNO directive, 19 May 1942, quoted in paragraph 7 hereof. Lt. Comdr. Ives tried to communicate with the Commandant, Navy Yard, who could not be reached that day. The Commanding Officer of the prison, therefore, gave his authorization for us to try to recover important intelligence material by permitting those who had taken them to retain the items which would be of neither technical or intelligence value. On 21 May, we reported to the Commandant, who approved our action and authorized us to continue the investigation along those lines. He stated that if within 48 hours results obtained were not satisfactory, he would take other measures in effecting the recovery of the looted material. |
||
14. The method employed was effective, the response thereto was widespread, and numerous items of intelligence value were recovered. The results certainly appeared to justify the means. Among other things, a number of diaries, papers of intelligence value, cameras, binoculars, surgical instruments and 2950 Swiss Francs were recovered. Incidentally, the Commandant of the Yard and the Commanding Officer of the Naval Prison agreed that only by the means employed would it have been possible to recover the material as promptly as we did. To the best of my knowledge and belief, other than the return of looted materials to personnel involved therein, pursuant to the method employed in recovering same, no items of personal property belonging to prisoners of war were distributed as souvenirs. |
||
15. We felt, however, that much important material had disappeared and in view of this communicated with Op-16-Z by telephone on 20 May 1945, suggesting that one of us be recalled to report the situation. On 21 May 1945, I was recalled to Washington by dispatch and on 22 May, reported to my commanding officer the events that had occurred at Portsmouth. This report seems to have formed the basis of the investigation conducted by the Inspector General. |
||
16. The interrogation of the prisoners of war at Portsmouth was merely an incident in their capture, custody and detention, not the reverse. Op-16-Z personnel did not capture the U-boats nor were they responsible for the receiving, custody or detention of the U-boats or the officers, crews and passengers thereon. Moreover, interrogation was only one of the functions going on at Portsmouth with respect to the U-boats and the personnel on them. |
||
17. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the facts and discussion submitted by the Naval Inspector General referred to in Reference (a) which appeared to reflect on me seem to overlook, first, the nature of the duties and |
||
|
|
|
- 6 - |
||
responsibilities of Op-16-Z personnel and, second, the condition and not theory which was presented as a result of the looting. The means employed were realistic and achieved, a realistic result. All the answers to the questions which the CNO propounded were fully and satisfactorily obtained and valuable material was located through the interrogation. |
||
Very respectfully, |
||
J. H. ALBERTI |
||
|
|
|