Q Do you remember that meeting, Doctor?
A Yes. I remember this meeting very well, only it is my opinion that it took place much later and not in the year of 1942. In effect there was a conference between Sievers, Mrugowsky, and me, at the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS. My tasks were discussed at that time, that is, the combat against flies and against mosquitoes.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
DR. WEISGERBER: Would you permit me to put one question to the witness, Mr. President:
BY DR. WEIS GERBER:
Q In connection with the sea water experiment I should like to clarify the following point: When Sievers at that time told you that you would furnish a room at your institute temporarily, did you have tho impression from Sievers remarks that he know the details about the planned experiments?
A NO; Sievers himself had no idea of those experiments.
Q When a little later chemical experiments were carried out at your institute, were they just analysis?
A Yes, pure analysis.
Q Inmates of the camps were not employed?
A No, of course not. There wasn't any space for that. There was no possibility for it. There were three or four gentlemen sitting at a table who were analyzing their substances.
DR. WEISGERBER: I have no further questions to tho witness, Mr. President.
MR. HARDY: I have one question, Your Honors.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q You stated Dr. Sievers had no knowledge whatsoever of those sea water experiment. How do you know that?
A Otherwise, he probably would have told me what it was all about.
MR. HARDY: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further question of tho witness, counsel for tho defense may proceed.
The witness will be excused from the stand.
DR. WEISGERBER: With the approval of the high Tribunal I should now like to call the witness, Dr. Franz Borkenau.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will call the witness Dr. Franz Borkenau. 5889
JUDGE SEBRING: You will please hold up your right hand and be sworn: Repeat after me:
I Swear by God, the Almight and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You my be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q If you prefer to answer in the English language, please do so. Your name is Franz Borkenau?
A Yes.
Q You were born in Vienna on 15 December 1900?
A Yes.
Q And you now live at Marburg on the Lahn?
A Yes.
Q You hold a degree?
A Yes.
Q What degree?
A In philosophy.
Q Witness, you nay give replies in English if you like. You are now a lecturer at the Marburg University?
A Yes.
Q Would you please describe your career very briefly?
A I was born in Vienna, and went to school there. Then I went to the University in Vienna and at Leipsig, and graduated at Leipzig. Then I lived in Berlin a few years, and accepted a research fellowship at Frankfurt University Institute of social Research, which is now in New York, and while I had this fellowship I was working in Paris first and in Vienna then and then I was surprised by Hitler's advent to power in Vienna; so I just didn't go back; and I didn't spend a day in Nazi Germany or in any other country dominated by the Nazis.
I went to London in 1934 and lived there first as a free lance political writer, published a number of books on political and sociological subjects and from 1938 onwards I taught International Affairs as an adult education lecturer for London-Cambridge Universities at Steton. I took up war work in the proper sense in 1943. Only until then I was teaching international affairs. In 1943 I joined the BBC monitor service, and in 1944 I changed over to the African service of the OWI German policy department, and from there to the American broadcasting station in Europe as a German Editor. I was scheduled to go to Luxembourg at the end of 1944, and then that didn't come off owing to the Rundstedt offensive, so I only got to the continent at the end of July 1945 with the Allied Press Service at Luxembourg as an Allied employee accompanying the American forces. I might state that I was born in Austria and am stateless now, so I worked in Luxembourg first, still in American civilian uniform, and then went to Bad Nauheim where I helped build up tho Press Agency Dana, for a time had under me Foreign Affairs in the Dana, and then on the suggestion of the American University Officer Dr. Hartsherne, I took up a lectureship in social science and history in Marburg which I hold at present. Of course, I had a sort of idea I would do that if possible when I left England and returned to the Continent.
Q Witness, the defendant Wolfram Sievers, whom I am representing here is relying on the fact in his defense that already prior to 1933 and then during the entire subsequent period of the national socialist regime he was a member of the resistance groups headed by Dr. Hielscher. Now I have been attempting to give the High Tribunal the possibility to gain a picture of Dr. Hielscher's personality. Do you know Dr. Friedrich Hielscher?
A Yes
Q When did you make his acquaintance?
A I met Dr. Hielscher first in the spring of 1928. I was then still a Communist. I left the Communist Party a year after and I was a Communist member of the Students' Representation at Berlin University. We had inter-party students' debates and I not Dr. Hielscher there as a speaker for the Right. Also we had a snail shoot from our Communist Students' group, and there once, from reading Hielscher's "Vormarsch", we started debating briefs with him which led us to personal contact. That must have been, I should say, perhaps February or March 1928.
Q. During the later period did you get into any close contact with Friedrich Hielscher?
A I should say no. IN the year after I left Berlin. Although I left Berlin the year after and that, of course, limited my contact with Hielscher to the periods when I was in Berlin, but that was on very frequent visits, and before that, one year I was still living in Berlin, so all through that time I got into increasingly close contact with him. That, of course, was made still easier when I left the Communist Party and so I was no longer in the Party discipline and could say and talk what I liked and see whom I liked. So, all through that time, we talked at length about many subjects, politics and also nonpolitical things end I got increasingly interested in Hielscher because he was so utterly untypical, as a man coming from the right. First of all, he was just an interesting man, to chat with, but apart from that I started to wonder more and more and I found points where our opinions touched and perhaps even met, despite the fact that we had come from extremely opposite wings of the political rainbow.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this testimony of the witness thus far is merely covering the period from 1929 to 1933. The charges here in the indictment include the years from 1939 to 1933 in the first instance; and secondly, I point to the objection by the prosecution to calling this witness. The Prosecution objected on the grounds that the witness is merely to testify as to the personality of Hielscher, and it appears that that is all he is going to do. If that is the case, I think this testimony is irrelevant here. If he is going to testify to the personality of the Defendant Sievers, he may continue, but this manner of examination I don't think is taking up the valuable time of the Tribunal correctly. Your Honor, I would further request that the Tribunal asks if this witness knows the defendant Sievers.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, may I shortly define my attitude to that? When making my written application I already pointed out that Dr. Borkenau will be a witness for the resistance activity of Dr. Hielscher and will testify in that regard. I believe that the Tribunal two weeks ago when the prosecutor already raised objection against these witnesses, Dr. Borkenau and Dr. Topf, I had heard the same arguments as just new.
At that time I defined my attitude and my attitude now is completely the same. If I am calling Dr. Hielscher as the principal witness for Dr. Sievers activity in his resistance movement, I cannot expect the High Tribunal to have a complete picture about Dr. Hielscher's activity in Germany. Now, in order toenable the Tribunal to gain some picture about Dr. Hielscher, I called Dr. Borkenau and Dr. Topfas I already stated at an earlier date. I therefore ask that those two witnesses be approved, which has already happened, and you permit me to continue questioning these witnesses.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it was my understanding that the objection of the prosecution to the calling of these two witnesses was overruled on the grounds that it was the understanding of the Tribunal that their testimony would go over and beyond that of testifying as to the personality of Hielscher, and this man here is merely testifiying as to the personality of Hielscher and the resistance movement and that is not an issue in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has assumed that the testimony of the witness heretofore was largely preliminary. The witness will be entitled to testify, within reasonable limit, to the fact that there was, at the time testified to by the Defendant Sievers, a genuine resistance movement in Germany, and testify to some extent concerning what that movement was and what it did and anything he knows if any thing, about the activities of the defendant Sievers.
The objection to that will be overruled.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, may I briefly add that the witness, Dr. Borkenau, as well as the witness, Dr. Topf, know as well as nothing about Dr. Sievers activity within the framework of the resistance movement where Dr. Hielscher was active. But about Dr. Hielscher.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel. Very well, counsel. I wasn't sure whether the witness knew anything about that or not. The witness may testify as to the existence of non-existence of a genuine, bonafide resistance movement in Germany during the years testified to by the Defendant Sievers.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, may I interpose a question here to defense counsel that, inasmuch as Dr. Topf, his next witness to be called, will testify substantially the same things as this witness is testifying to, the prosecution will be in a position to stipulate that if they submit an affidavit by the witness to be called, Topf, concerning the background and the history of the resistance movement, and inasmuch as Topf has no knowledge about the defendant Sievers, that we will stimulate that we will not wish to crossexamine Topf, if that be the case, and that will save considerable time, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel would not be required to cross examine the witness if he didn't desire to do so.
At this time the Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning at which time counsel may proceed with the examination of tne witness.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 0930 HOURS, 15 APRIL 1947).
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 15 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in the court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in court with the exception of the defendant Rose who was excused by the Tribunal yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Rose, who is excused in order to spend the day consulting with his counsel.
The Tribunal desires to announce that when a recess is taken tomorrow at 12:30 o'clock the Tribunal will not reconvene until ten minutes after 10:00 o'clock on Thursday morning. There will be no session of the Tribunal tomorrow afternoon.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. FRANZ BORKENAU - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers):
Q Witness, I remind you that you are still today under oath. At the conclusion of yesterday afternoon's session you briefly told us when you made Friedrich Hielscher's acquaintance and for what reasons you established a close contact with him. My question is, did you clearly realize Hielscher's attitude toward the National Socialism at that time--that was around 1930?
A I don't think Hielscher at that time took the Nazis very seriously, as in fact few people did. I think he regarded Hitler as a mountebank, almost as a sort of a harlequin. His whole interest at that time was concentrated upon Italian Fascism, and that was just one of the reasons why I got so interested in and that he was violently hostile to Italian Fascism in all its aspects. That, of course, was exceptional because practically everybody of the right had at least some mild sympathy for Mussolini, and Hielscher made definite an exception on all grounds. First of all, I must say he was very much opposed to big business and to large landed property, and he regarded Italian Fascism as an agent of these social forces. Also he was opposed to the whole atmosphere, to the whole spirit of the thing. I remember if I may just give one incident-I remember on the evening when when the news came through of that miserable failure of that grandiloquent North Polo expedition of General Nobile, and I and one or two of my friends were sitting together with Hielscher and, I believe, one of his friends somewhere-perhaps a beer garden I don't remember exactly-they were just exalted about that failure and about the blow it was to Fascist prestige.
Well, from 1931 onwards Nazism of course started to become important, and we talked about it a few times--we met in 1931--and Hielscher was getting more and more bitter about the prospect of that sort of thing getting important in Germany. Now there is one talk, in fact, the last time we met--I met him again in 1945--the last time I met him before Hitler--they must have been the beginning of September 1332, perhaps it was the end of August: I was with my friend Loewental who is now at Router's. Incidentally, I should say one of the reasons why Hielscher could never have any truck with National Socialism was his definite friendliness with Jews. I myself am a case in point and so is Richard Loewental whom I just mentioned. And as far as I know that I know only indirectly--he had quite a close contact with Martin Bober, a well-known Zionist philosopher.
I could give a number of other instances about that if that should be necessary.
Well, to come back to that talk in 1932. It was just towards the end of the Papen regime, and we discussed of course the prospects of that. He being very definite that that thing could not stand, that that thing would not last, that it had no basis. I remember that we were very eager to get details about his views. He drew out of his cupboard a list of the members of the Harren club which was then the real power behind the scene. We saw that, and he said something like, "Well, now look at that crowd", and, "Do you think that cant last?" Now, starting from that assumption he insisted that he was certain that in the very near future now National Socialism would win. That made a deep impression upon me because I had taken in a public debate which went through political periodicals and so on. I had taken a very definite stand on the opposite side.
I was still convinced at that time, in September 1932, that Nazism would not win, and at that time and in that talk we had a long argument about it. I don't remember the details. I suppose I said what I always said then, and I have already given his main argument; and then the talk turned to the methods to combat national socialism, and that point of the talk is the reason why I offered myself to Dr. Weisgerber as a witness, because in that part of our talk, then, Hielscher developed precisely the methods which were, as I understand it now, carried out by Sievers. Of course, we were all very interested in problems of underground work on the Left as much as on the Right, in view of the possibility of a coming dictatorship; and, in fact, there was at that time, and also later, a strong disagreement between my friend Loewenthal and myself; because I at that time was still believing in a sort of an idea of a mass underground resistance on quasi-democratic lines, even under a dictatorship; and the problem was whether that was possible, whether under a totalitarian regime of the Italian type, which then was the set pattern still, but, of course, under the assumption that a Nazi dictatorship in Germany would be even much more cruel and more thorough than Mussolini's dictatorship, whether under such conditions, some kind of organized underground mass resistance would be the right principle, or whether for quite a long time the main task would be to work from within the core of the Nazi machine. I remember that discussion particularly well, as I say, because that really was not only an argument between Hielscher and us two boys from the Left, but because Loewental and myself had debated that point - I don't know how many times; and new suddenly Hielscher without knowing it, hit our problem directly, so we sat there, not saying much or really saying very little, because it was already an atmosphere where discussing underground techniques on a possibly near future -one wouldn't say more than was necessary and also Hielscher did not mention any names. In fact if he had I think we should have been done with him, because that would have shown an utter lack of seriousness, but he pointed out one thing to us, which was highlyinteresting then, just as a piece of information.
He pointed out the extreme importance of the SS which was still a relatively small body, after all until the Roehm Putsch of 1934, rather the Roehm massacre, it was the SA which was the most interesting to the public; but Hielscher pointed out he had contacts - he proved to be well informed - he pointed out that the SA was not the important thing but that the SS was the real core, and in that connection he mentioned the importance of Himmler, who then probably, I don't remember, was known to me from an occasional notice in the papers, but certainly was not the personality he grew to be later. Now Hielscher developed a two-pronged idea: the only possible attack upon a compact totalitarian regime was working within the highest attainable stratum of that regime, and he predicted the core of it would be mainly the SS; and then he said quietly: "Well I am pushing as many people as I can as high up as possible in the SS machine," Of course, we didn't discuss the details. I only remember - skeptical as I was about the whole assumption of a Nazi victory - despite that skepticism, I remember my feeling of envy, thinking: "Well, of course, if we on the left had those contacts and could push people up that way, that would be a fine thing, but we haven't."
At the same time I kept my basic reserve on both points, the first on the question of a victory of Nazism and, second, on Hielscher's views about the impossibility of overthrowing such a regime by mass pressure. Now, when in January 1933, Hitler came to power, and the mass movement went smash, and within a year it was easy to see that most of these underground movements attempting to work among the masses also went smash - well, this would of course be a long story, describing all the accumulating evidence about the impossibility of developing any type of mass resistance to a regime of the Nazi type. Then, in retrospect, that talk with Hielscher assumed quite different proportions in my mind.
Q Now during this very important conversation that you had with Hielscher, the details of which you so well remember, took place in the fall of 1932?
A It was my last holiday I spent in Berlin.
Q You were surprised at the very sharp attitude and the very precise method of combatting the danger as Hielscher described it to you?
A Well, if you mean by "Scharfe Einstellung" - "sharp attitude", Hielscher's hostility to Nazism, that did not surprise me at all, after knowing him four years, that was a matter of course, and that we shouldn't have talked confidentially with him if we hadn't been sure of that; but it made me think a lot at the time, and it impressed me deeply afterwards, that somebody had said with such perfect assurance what was going to come, what he was going to do, and made his measures well in advance; and I may add, that in the light of all disasters of various underground groups, which have cost the lives of several of my close friends, I grew increasingly impressed with that feat of conspiratorical technique, and conspiratorial technique assumes gigantic proportions in the fight against a dictatorship and pushes somewhat back proper political considerations in the democratic sense; and when I learned that practically not a man had been killed of that organization, I thought that was ready the hundred percent maximum of what an underground organization could achieve. Now that, of course, I learned only when I returned to Germany, but I do trace it back - I do trace it back to this correct prognosis and timely preparation of measures.
Q Doctor, what did you find out about Hielscher and his activities during your voluntary emigration, which you began in 1933?
A. I had of course contact with people who had stayed in Germany and then as underground workers, who could no longer continue, went out to London where I lived, in particular again. Dr. Lowental, who of course knew about Hielscher. And when he came out for the last time, I believe in 1935, I asked him, "So, what about Hielscher?" Of course, not only about him but about dozens of people, but also about Hielscher. "Oh,Hielscher continues not saying much about what he does but saying a lot of what he thinks of Hitler and the Nazis". Then, after the ropes tightened news ceased. Only during the War we had a false rumor that he had escaped to China, and that was the last. And I really thought either he was dead or he was in Chunking; except that after 20th July, after the attempt on Hitler's life, a few of us who knew him once asked, "Well, if he is alive he has certainly been in it." That, of course, was guess work. That was not based on any news. Until I met him again when I returned -
Q. Doctor, after you returned to Germany, did you find that your judgment, respectively views abroad, about Hielscher was confirmed in any way?
I met Hielscher again, or more exactly I ran into him in the office of the Dean of Philosophical Faculty at Marburg. He had thinned so much, he had physically decayed so that I didn't recognize him. Then when he happened to mention his name we nearly fell into each other's arms out of pleasure that we were still alive and from that time onwards, as we now both lived in Marburg, we had numerous and close contacts ranging over every imaginable subject. But, before I really decided to allow a personal intimacy to develop, though I really had little doubt in my mind about the man, I took references, and I found out that the man who knew the most was Professor Reiler in Marburg, theologian, and I really don't know whether the technical head but the leading man of the Una Sancta, evangelical church movement in Germany, and Heiler is a Christian pacifist and through the Confessional Church and through a Church paper he issued he carried out active resistance throughout the regime.
Now Heiler had a long tale about Hielscher, and the two main points were that he, Heiler, had cooperated with Hielscher under the Nazis since Hielscher was in Marburg, that he had helped Hielscher to go to Sweden and take up contacts with the allies, especially English contacts with Bishop of Chichester. That was one thing. So he just testified to the continued underground activities of Hielscher, and secondly, he told me about his arrest after 20th July and about Hielscher's repeated floggings which explained to me his really rather sad and frightening looks, and that, despite this repeated torture had not denounced anybody. Now, If I may say only one thing about Hielscher's development and his political opinions as I found them now: The point which created a continued sharp disagreement between us had disappeared, that was the question of the Prussian tradition. Hielscher who has had an education in a typical Prussian University fraternity was a very strong Prussian when we knew one another before Hitler. Under the experiences of Nazidom Hielscher has become an extreme Federalist of the Pan European version maintained that he sees no use for any kind of Germany as a whole in a wider European framework but that the individual regions and Laenders of Germany should be directly integrated into some Pan European organization so that not only Prussia but also Germany as a State would be superfluous. That, of course, in his case is founded on very strong views about decentralization in general. He had always been an adversary of large towns and large industries. I don't follow him on that point and his view about political federalization hangs together - belongs to his views about industrial and demographic decentralization. Any any rate the political disagreement which made us look at one another before Hitler as two fellows who could agree on many thing but not on essentials, had partly vanished because he had leaned under Nazism what Prussian traditions and authoritarianism meant in practice and in its effect.
Q. Doctor, after you returned to Germany you saw it confirmed that Hielscher had taken up the fight against the National Socialist regime until the very end without going into any compromise?
A. Yes, I have heard that.
Q. One final question. You got acquainted with Hielscher personally from the time before your immigration and from the time you returned to Germany. Is it now your opinion that this man, this fighter against National Socialism, would stand up for person of whom he is not confined that he was waging that very fight with the same definite attitude and was his follower in this fight against the National Socialist's regime?
A. With respect to that may I say a work to what Hielscher told me about the death of his father, who was, according to what he told me, an old Silesian peasant, and who gave to his son as his dieing wish, knowing about Hielscher's underground work, that he should kill as many Nazis as he could get. Also I know that Hielscher out of a feeling of shame of the ignominy which Hitler and Naziism have brought over Germany is filled with thirst, if I may say blood-thirsty, hatred of the Nazis, and the very idea that he could try to shield any of these boys would seem absurd to me from all I could gather over the now nineteen years of our acquaintance. Of course, there was ----
Q. Now, if Dr. Hielscher stands up for anyone person he would only choose somebody who has followed him in his fight with full faithfulness.
A. I am sure of that.
Q. Mr. President, I have no further questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Doctor, was this Hielscher Resistance Movement, about which you speak, merely a secret movement which confined itself only or largely to debate, to oral discussion, to perhaps secret desimination of literature and arguments against the regime, or was it an actual physical, organized movement with leaders, arms, ammunition, and supplies prepared under an organized plan of attack to liquide the Nazi leaders and to take over the Government?
A I was never a member of that organization, for reason of basic political differences if no other.
Q Can you say how many people were members of this Hielscher Resistance Movement?
A No. I couldn't. No such details were ever given in talks with outsiders, I am quite sure, I can answer one thing, they certainly didn't issue publications.
Q Even secret publications?
A That was just the point that those things could not reach anybody effectively and only help the Gestapo, to trace people Q Can you say what happened to the Hielscher movement after Hitler came to power?
A Well if - may I just come back to your previous question? which I haven't answer completely, if I may so concerning the question whether he had a strict organized group, I think his circle of friends was fairly compact before the Nazis and they developed together, and from all I could gather from his own details, from talks of a number of his friends whom I know now, from Hieler's accounts, they had he, of course, was the man who ran the thing. He had a number of leaders and he had a strictly organized group. Also, I assume the problem of weapons did not arise when you were in the SS - access to weapons was not the problem, and it would have been for a group, from the left. That is was not a question of persuading people I am quite convinced, because on the contrary the difficulty was that you could only move more or less free among people who were persuaded and the task was not persuasion but action-overthrow of the regime.
Q And you say, however that you know nothing that was actually done in a physical way to overthrow the regime? You say however, that of your own knowledge you know nothing; that was actually done to overthrow the regime - I am talking about in a practical physical way either action or preparations, as distinguished from emotions, or feelings, or debates, or discussions about the matter?
A Here I can only answer from what I heard since my return but I do not base myself, on what Hielscher told me but on what Heiler told me who is a different opinion and he said, Hielscher had positively approached him directly on the question of killing Hitler.
Q Let us assume that a man who espoused the principles of this resistance movement could work himself into the high circles of the Nazi Government for the purpose, let us assume, of securing vital information. What information could he impart to the leaders of this so-called resistance movement that could be used by the resistance movement to practical advantage in actually, physically overthrowing and replacing its leaders?
A I think if such a man were sufficiently high in the ranks of the nazi movement he could impart every kind of necessary information and nothing well timed and well conceived could be done with such information.
Q But the organization of the resistance movement, as you actually knew it from your own knowledge, let us assume, that there was within the high ranks of the Wehrmacht, the Government of the SS, a man who had accessibility to all information, what could this Hielscher Resistance Movement had done with it in using it to pratical advantage in actually bringing about a reasonably quick liquidation of Nazi leaders or overthrow of the then existing Nazi regime.
A Starting from the assumption that the immediate aim was killing Hitler...
Q Starting from the immediate assumption that the immediate aim was to overthrow the government and to replace the government with some type of government that the group felt was more acceptable for the German people.
A The first step of such an overthrow would be the killing of Himmler and Hitler. Then you would need a man, high up in the ranks, for information on the political and on the technical side. On the technical side you would have to have a man who really know something about the movements of Himmler and Hitler, about the way they were protected, about the people who would haver to eliminated or who were to have been pushed into the presence of the men to have been killed; about potential friends and enemies of such an enterprise; and, I should say, almost even more important--killing is nothing if it is not politically well times, and in order to time it well you had to have a clear idea of the whole political and military situation.
Q And also you have to be able, upon tho death of the victim, to seize the reins of government and to establish a well organized government in accordance with your precepts and principles, is that not true?
A I think so...I think so. I think the question of the formation of a government, as far as I can gather now, after my return, was not the prime concern of Hielscher, because it was in different hands. There was the Goerdeler combination which had a government more or loss ready but with which Hielscher disagreed because he was opposed to big business and large scale landed property and regarded that government as a government which would be largely dependent on those groups.