Q How long have you known the defendant Sievers?
A I did not know Sievers at all.
Q I see.
A Nor was any name mentioned to me except the name of Plaas, one of Hielcher's friends, whom I mentioned repeatedly together with him. As I said already, I should not have taken him seriously if he had divulged names and numbers.
Q Then you are not in a position to know, of your own knowledge, that Sievers was an active member of this resistance movement?
A No, I could not testify to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any further questions, counsel? I am addressing counsel for Defendant Sievers.
DR. WEISGERBER: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions on the part of defense counsel of this witness? There being none, the Prosecution may cross-examine.
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused from the stand.
(Witness Borkenau leaves the stand.)
DR. WEISGERBER: I now ask the High Tribunal to permit me to call the witness, Dr. Topf.
THE PRESIDENT: The marshal will summon the witness Erwin Topf.
ERWIN TOPF, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY JUDGE SEBRING:
You will raise your right hand and take the oath, repeating after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Ominscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q Witness, your name is Dr. Erwin Topf?
A Yes.
Q You were born 22 December 1898, at Meiningen?
A Yes.
Q Your present residence is Hamburg-Volksdorf, and your profession is editor?
A Yes.
Q From 1926 to 1936 you were the editor of the Berliner Tageblatt?
A Yes.
Q For what reason did leave that newspaper?
A Work in the press after 1933 had become increasingly unpleasant from a subjective point of view did not bring me any gain. Every expression of free opinion and very possibility of voicing even an indirect critique was prevented to an increasing extent. It seemed senseless to remain in a position which, after 1933, was considered by me to be important and important for the future. In the case of the Berliner Tageblatt in particular the danger existed that this newspaper would be changed into a National Socialist sheet or that it would be stopped entirely. As a matter of fact, shortly after my departure, the chief editor, Paul Schaeffer, who employed me and who supported me in every way, was dismissed from his position and was later sent to America as a foreign correspondent. A year later the entire publication ceased.
Q Witness, may I ask you briefly about your political attitude? I mean the political attitude which you held before and after the year 1933?
A Well, during my time at the university I was influenced by Socialism and in the year of 1923, standing strongly under the impression of the murder of Rathenau, went over to the social democratic party. I had a few friends at Hamburg who persuaded me to do that. I will mention their names; they were Egon Wertheimer, Franzhofen who is now a resident of the United States, a professor there, Haubach, and Mierendorf also belonged to his circle. I did not come into the foreground in the Social Democratic Party but shortly before going to the Berliner Tageblatt, in the fall of 1925, for a few months I worked with the Reichstag fraction of the Social Democratic Party as a scientific assistant. Being a member of that party, caused no difficulty concerning my work in the Berliner Tageblatt....
Q Witness, I want to interrupt you. If you said "party" before you meant the Social Democratic Party?
A Yes, that is exactly what I meant. There were no difficulties for me to collaborate with the Weltbuehne.
Q Witness, when did you make Friedrich Hielschor's acquaintance?
A I met Hielcher in 1928, through the mediation of a friend, Dr. Salinger, who studied with me.
Q What did you got to know about his activity and his political attitude before and after the year of 1933?
A Before 1933 he had to be considered as a man of the political Rights. He constituted a particular type of the Rightist conservative attitude, which was completely new to us. He had certain socialist trends without bringing about a union between the Prussian system and socialism as it was done in the sense of Oswald Spongier.
Q Witness, the Tribunal is mainly interested in knowing whether Hielscher at that time already had had an opposing attitude towards the NSDAP?
A During the first years of our acquaintanceship, the NSDAP played no particular role whatsoever. The NSDAP was considered as a harmless shoot of Fascism. I and any friends were interested in seeing Hielscher as a clear and definite opponent of Fascism. When Hitler and his party grow and gradually developed into a danger, it became very apparent that he was a very sharp and definite opponent of that movement. He rejected it very definitely but was also convinced about its danger, and at a very early time realized the dangers which it represented.
Q During the time after 1933 did you regularly meet Hielscher?
A If I remember correctly, Hielscher left Berlin shortly after 1933 and went to Meiningen, to my home town. I occasionally met him there occasionally whenever I visited my parents. At any rate I took every opportunity to speak to him and to exchange opinions with him. I estimated him and his judgment highly.
Q Wasn't there every important conversation between you and Hielscher in the year of 1938?
A I really do not know to what you are referring.
Q Did not Hielscher at any time tell you that he had received a research assignment by the Ahnenerbe?
A Yes, he told me that. However, I do not believe that was in the year 1938; as far as I remember, that only occurred after the outbreak of the war. I may be mistaken - I am not absolutely certain about the date. When I heard about that research assignment it represented a severe shock to me at first. I was convinced that everyone who was a definite opponent of tho Hitler regime should keep away from any close contact with any of Hitler's organizations. During that conversation, however, Hielscher convinced me that he was maintaining his proper inner attitude and that it was only for reasons of expediency that he took over this research assignment, in order to continue his work in a camouflaged way and with the help of his political followers who were also in that organization.
Q. Witness, did Hielscher make any utterances to you with reference to other resistance groups with which he collaborated?
A Well, we are now turning to a later period of time and are now referring to the years of the war, where I visited him at every opportunity in Berlin. During those conversations I found out that he had a very extensive knowledge of what was going on in the underground movement, which we did not designate that was at that time. Myself, Haubach, Mierendorf, met the circle of Roichwein, Moltke, York, Neuschner, viz, the "Kroisaner" circle and that was spring 1941. Of course I did not tell Hielscher that I was in close contact with these people, because I was not authorized by my friends to discuss these matters with anyone else. But I concluded from conversations I had with Hielscher that he had an approximate knowledge of this group and that beyond that he must have had a very close contact with other circles which I then did not know about and of whose existence I only got to know after the 20th of July, when they were generally known.
Q Witness, you had mentioned the name of Kroisau circle beforehand, and in this connection you mentioned a number of names. These were personalities who played a considerable part in the resistance movement in Germany at that time?
A Yes. None of us know exactly how extensive really this resistance movement was. Every one of us know very few persons. All of us realized that there nust be a number of opponents of the National Socialist regime who were considering what was to be done and who were preparing some action, but one could realize the entiro extent of this action at that time, if I may state my opinion I must say that it was only after the capitulation that I became acquainted that close friends of nine belonged to that group. A good friend of mine, by the name of Krouzberger, at Munich, belonged to the Ministorialrat Mueonz group at the Reich Ministry of Labor. Another friend of mine, Fritz Sengor, who I met in Berlin, of the Frankfurter Zeitung and also belonged to the circle of Leuschner and beyond that was corrected with the people of ...
Q. Are you speaking about the same Kreisau circle?
A. No. there were further people involved. Yes, Goerdeler, Mayor of Leipzig, that was the person I was looking for. He was intended to be the leader of the WTB office at that time.
DR. WEISGERBER: And in that connection I may draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Document Sievers 15; which I have already submitted, where the most important members of the Kreisau circle are listed. This is Document Book 2, to be found on page 34. It is the second before the last page of that document book, where one can see the names, York, Moltke, Mierendorf, Haubach and Reichwein, which are mentioned by the witness.
Q. Now, witness, it is naturally very difficult for an outsider to gain a picture of this German Resistance Movement. One thing is noticeable, that an extraordinary reticence was maintained when voicing any names which belonged to that movement. Why was that? One could perhaps think that a conspiracy against the National Socialist regime would have to have been part of a broad basis, and that of necessity would have involved that everyone who was a member of that movement would at least know the names of a large number of other members of that movement; and my question is, why such a reticence was displayed, and secondly how were these individual groups organized within the entire Resistance movement of Germany?
A. The tactics employed was that everyone should know as few as possible members of that group by name. That really was a matter of course. There was great danger of anyone knowing too much. One had to consider that it may well have happened that any member would have been forced to testify before a national socialist agency Gestapo. Everyone of us was well aware of the methods used during such interrogation. None of us could be sure of himself to the extent that when a coercion was used, or various chemical means were used such as the "truth" drug, of which existence I gained knowledge in the Reichtags fire process, one could not be sure that at such a moment one would not break down physically and psychologically and testify to matters which would incriminate a number of people and cause their death.
As for the second part of your question -
Q. In this connection I want to ask you another question. Is this also the reason why Hielscher mentioned no names towards you of the members of his resistance circle?
A. Certainly. It was a matter of course for me not to ask him for any names. Just as little as I asked Reichwein to give me any names. Perhaps I may mention an example, at that time he mentioned the name Stelzer, and the moment I heard Stelzer, whom I had already known for a long time, I said when he is with you I can work with you too.
Q. Witness, I have submitted a document to the Tribunal where the most important members of the group of Kreisau are mentioned, and the name of Theodor Stelzer is mentioned, who was Landrat of Schleswig-Holstein up until 1933; is that the same one?
A. Yes. He is at present president of the County of SchleswigHolstein.
W. Witness, in the course of your journalistic activity you gained knowledge of the activity of the various parties in Germany; wasn't it an absolute necessity, prerequisite, to keep the names of the party members secret in the case of associations who were in opposition to the prevailing system of government; very often only first names or nicknames were known?
A. That may be. I really didn't feel our activity as constituting a conspiracy, but I felt at that it was a natural thing for those people who opposed National Socialism to get together, who had decided to be against it at personal risk and to see to it that simultaneously with the collapse of the regime the war would end.
Q. Witness, do you know anything about Hielscher after the 20th of July 1944? 5915
A. When we heard the news of the event on the 21st of July in the morning I naturally had reason to feel that Hielscher would be incriminated in that connection. I endeavored to gain certainty about it, and I therefore wrote to his sister, who was married and residing at Frankfurt on the Main, and whose address ,1 got from him when visiting him on an earlier date. I didn't get any news about that until shortly before Christmas 19th, and then I suddenly received a postal card from Hielscher where he wrote that he had embarked on a journey which had lasted three months, and that he had now returned. This made it clear to me without having arranged that as a code, that he had been under arrest for three months, and had now been released. I took the next opportunity to speak to him, which occurred around the middle of January when passing through Berlin riding from the East Front to the Western Front. I had a long and very impressive conversation with him on which occasion he described to me how his arrest had come about after he had visited Stauffenberg at his flat in Bamberg. I also knew Stauffenberg beforehand. He related to me what methods were used when he was interrogated. There was physical mistreatment and his face was beaten. A strong moral pressure was exercised on him. He told me that he very soon realized that they didn't know very much about his activity, so that he once more gained courage to deny everything. He further said that his friends, who were within the party and SS organization, had sent him information into the prison which confirmed him in his attitude, and in his decision to deny everything.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I would suggest you take a recess. I shall require approximately ten more minutes for questioning my witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, did I understand you to say that Document Sievers 51 had been offered in evidence?
DR. WEISGERBER: Document Sievers 52 I already submitted as Sievers Exhibit No. 15.
THE PRESIDENT: I misunderstood you. I thought you referred to Document 5l, which has not yet been offered in evidence. The Tribunal will recess for a few minutes.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
A. Doctor, I have already asked you to give the Tribunal a brief sketch of what is meant by a "German Resistance Movement". Can you describe it in a few sentences?
A. A clear picture of the things which have been built up since the beginning of the War, and which finally led to the action of the 20th of July, cannot be gained yet even today here in Germany. I learned a great deal about the events from the book by Schlabrenderf. Everyone of us who was brought in by me of these groups or who had belonged to it from the beginning could have insight into only a very snail sector. It was not a unified movement. It consisted of a number of people gathered around certain active personages. It was nothing unusual, as happened in my case, for someone to stand at the point where two groups connected, Mielscher on one side, and on the other side the men around Leuschner and Reichwein and the Kreisau circle. All the methods resulted of necessity without a great deal of deliberation. They resulted from the fact that each of us was threatened by the Gestapo and the SD and that absolute secrecy was required.
I understood my duties with in this movement, that I looked among my old friends for people who would be suited later after the fall of the Hitler Regime to take important positions, and, on the other hand, when I met now people, perhaps in the Army, I considered whether they were suitable for later use in such positions. Since I myself was a soldier in the East during most of this time, from the time when I learned about those matters until the 20th of July, I looked out for officers who were, first of all, competent people and, second, decided opponents of the Regime.
Q. Then what is called the German Resistance movement must not be imagined as a complete organization with a well-organized machine which coordinated all the details, and one must not imagine a movement which had large arsenals, secret arsenals, and one must not imagine a movement which distributed handbills among the population. The great danger which threatened the individual from the Gestapo and the SD made all of that impossible. The German Resistance Movement was rather a sun of small resistance groups which were only in loose contact with one another, and perhaps only the leaders knew each other, and they were known only within the circles. Is that true?
A Yes, that is true and I should especially like to emphasize there was not question of any mass propaganda because any attempt at mass propaganda would have immediately betrayed the secret. There was no possibility under the laws of War to appeal to the masses in any way. No organization over all these small groups, which would have organized them existed. There were simply a number of groups which somehow had contact in many cases only from the outside, not from the center. The hope of all these small groups was that at some central military point a power would be founded which would dispose of military forces at the decisive moment to be able to paralyze the SS.
Q Did Hielscher ever tell you that members of his circle prepared any attacks on Hitler or Himmler?
A Hielscher, at a time - it must have been between the fall of 1942.-- No, I am sorry I have to think for a minute -- the fall of 1942 and the fall of 1943 -- before Stalingrad -- reported that an attack was actually being prepared which was to be carried out by a group of officers, and he emphasized that Himmler and Hitler would have to be attacked at the same time, but that in his opinion it was even more important, if one had to choose between the two, to exterminate the man who was the executive, that is, Himmler. Because without Hitler Himmler would be quite capable of carrying on the regime but Hitler would not be able to continue without Himmler is executive power.
Q And did Hielscher tell you that within his circle each plans were being made?
A From what he told me I could not tell whether the specific group which was preparing these plans was under him or whether he had merely obtained knowledge of these plans through friends. I did not ask him this because it didn't seem expedient to me to know too much about a thing in which I could not participate directly.
Q As far as you know was there any definite list drawn up for the people to be appointed to the Government after the overthrow?
AAt that time I did not know that anyone had prepared a prospective list of government officials. Later I learned that people in Goerdeler's groups had worked this matter out in particular detail: but from my own knowledge at that time I can only say that Dr. Hielscher once asked me how I felt about the question waste be appointed to the position of Reich Food and Agricultural Ministry. That was a question which interested me particularly because in my journalistic work I had dealt especially with agricultural matters, and I had written a book on the subject in the Rowohlt Publishing House which was banned in 1933. Hielscher asked me, "What do you think, a group is considering appointing SchlangeSchoeninger Minister for Food and Agriculture." That is not the right word -- appoint -- but we are considering him for the position. "Isn't that a wrong choice, isn't this man a representative of big agrarian interests, would he be able to work in our spirit?" And we discussed this question. I cannot recall discussing any other posts and who was to be appointed to them.
Q Is it odd if someone working in a subordinate position in some resistance group knew nothing about positions to be appointed to certain positions after the overthrow?
A It was a matter of course that the names of the conspirators and persons who might be called upon later were not mentioned. That was the practice in this work.
Q When if I may sum up, on the bases of observation stretching over about 17 years you are convinced that Hielscher was decidedly of the Nazi regime?
Q. On the basis of your knowledge gained during all these years, your knowledge of Hielscher's personality, do you believe that he would help someone if he were not convinced that this person was absolutely opposed to National Socialism?
A. Yes, I know Hielscher and I believe I know him well. He would not take the part of any one of whose integrity he was not convinced, and the concept of integrity in his opinion includes a definite rejection cf everything belonging to the Hitler regime. I might add that I remember a conversation when he told me that one of his former friends who was not in the closer circle of his group had told him that he had to make peace with National Socialism, and how indignant Hielscher was that some one became a desert, same one whom he had admired and respected, and this man had become an object of detestation because he said that one had to make peace with National Socialism.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Doctor, prior to the end of the war, did you know what the Ahnenerbe Society was?
A. I don't believe I understood the question completely. I heard "Did you know what the Ahnenerbe was before the end of the war?" Is that right?
Q. No, that is not right. Do you know what the Ahnenerbe Society was?
A. I heard of it perhaps in 1938 for the first time, and the only concept that I had of it was a central activity of the SS for scientific and intellectual matters, an attempt to monopolize such work for the SS. In my opinion, it corresponded with what the name says, primarily prehistoric research and the history of the German people, and that was more or less in accord with what Hielscher told me about the research assignment which had been given.
Q. Do you know anything about a branch or institute within the Ahnenerbe which concerned itself with military scientific research?
A. No, I heard of that only when this trial had begun.
Q. You know nothing then about the facts which the prosecution insists existed in connection with that military scientific research institute? That is to say, that it was used for the purpose of medical experimentation upon non-German-national concentration camp inmates?
A. No, I learned of these things only when the trial had begun.
Q. I believe that during the course of your interrogation by Dr. Weisgerber you made some mention of the fact that the main point of the various resistance movements was to paralyze the SS and its functions. Did I understand you correctly?
A. The preparation for such an action was actually the central point on which everything depended to be able to overthrow the National Socialist regime.
Q. Why were these activities directed-against the SS in particular?
A. The executive strength of the National Socialist regime rested essentially in the men of the SS who had the important key positions, who disposed of weapons. The SS was unimportant, especially during the war, and in the case of the Wehmacht one could expect that large parts of it very quickly would be willing to cooperate.
Q. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any question of this witness on the part of any defense counsel? There being none, the prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Witness, were you a member of the movement known as the Hielscher Movement?
A. The movement was not known under that name. One can only subsequently speak about the existence of such a group. At the time I knew only that he had a circle of friends with whom he exchanged information and whom he was keeping ready for later use.
Q. No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further question by defense counsel?
The witness may be excused from the stand.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, before I call the witness Hielscher himself I should like to submit a few more documents to the Tribunal. These are documents which deal with Hielscher and his activity, and I consider it expedient at the present time to offer these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to say that these are documents which deal with Hitler and his activities. Is that correct?
DR. WEISGERBER: Hielscher, the witness who is to be called Hielscher.
I offer Document Sievers 32 as Sievers Exhibit 23 on page 80. This is document book 1 on page 80. This is a certificate of the Mayor of Marburg, where Hielscher lives. This is a brief comment on his resistance activity. I merely wish to point out that at the end of this statement there is a reference to Dr. Borkenau, the witness who was examined today, and Professor Friedrich Heiler whom Dr. Borkenau mentioned.
The next document which I offer is Sievers #33, as Sievers exhibit 24. It is on page 82 in Document Book 1. This is an affidavit by Theodor Steltzer now Prime Minister of the Land of Schleswig-Holstein. This is the same Theodor Steltzer whom the witness Dr. Topf mentioned. Steltzer who himself belonged to the Kreisau circle speaks about Hielscher's activity within the framework of the entire resistance movement.
The next document which I wish to offer is Sievers 34 which becomes Exhibit 25. This is in Document Book 1, page 84 and 85. This is an affidavit by the attorney, Franz Liedig, concerning the activity of Friedrich Hielscher. This is the same Liedig who was mentioned in Sievers exhibit # 12 which I already offered earlier who testified there about his contact with Sievers.
The next document is Sievers 36, which I offer as Exhibit Sievers 26. This is in Document Book 1, page 89. This is an affidavit of Dr. Lothar Mischke, about Hielscher's work in the resistance movement. The same subject is discussed in Document Sievers 37 which I offer as Sievers Exhibit 27. This is on page 89-90. Document 36 ... just a minute, excuse me .... Document Sievers 36 on page 89-90, that is Exhibit Sievers 26. The next document is Sievers 37 on pages 91 and 92 of Document Book I, which I offer as Exhibit 27.
Then I offer the affidavit of the university professor, Max Rolfes, as Sievers Exhibit 28, Document 38. This also deals with Hielscher's work in the resistance movement.
As the last document in this connection I offer the affidavit of the university professor. Dr. Friedrich Heiler. This is Document No. 39, which I offer as Sievers Exhibit 29, Document Book I, page 98 and following. This is the same Dr. Friedrich Heiler whom the witness, Dr. Borkenau, mentioned repeatedly today.
I believe it will be unnecessary to read all these documents. I an convinced that the Tribunal will take notice of the contents.
And now, with the approval of the Tribunal, I want to call the witness, Friedrich Hielscher, to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness, Friedrich Hielscher.
FRIEDRICH HIELSCHER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q. Witness, your name is Friedrich Hielscher?
A. Friedrich Hielscher.
Q. You were born on 51 May 1902 in Plauen, and you are now living in Marburg, that is right?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your profession?
A. I am a scholar.
Q. What subjects do you study?
A. History, philosophy, law, folklore.
Q. And since when have you taken an active part in politics?
A. Since 1927.
Q. Did you belong to a definite political ideology?
A. No. I had a group of students with whom I expounded my historical and philosophical theories and ideas.
Q. How did it happen that you became an opponent of the NSDAP so early?
A. From the information available to me I know the personal inferiority of the National Socialist leaders. I could observe that they were constantly lying and that what they really wanted was undesirable.
Q. Did you believe, as early as 1928, that the NSDAP would come to power?
A. No, not in 1928. In 1930, after the first election battle at which the party was victorious, I considered it possible. In 1931 I considered it probable. In 1932 I felt that it was certain.