Q. I have one final question. Do you know that at the turn of the year 1942-1943 on order of the highest party authorities all of the top officials of all of the offices were examined in regard to their political reliability?
A. That around the turn of the year 1942 to 1942 such an examination was carried on did not become known to me and I don't believe it either that such an order existed.
Q. Do you know, witness, whether at the same time when you were relieved of your duties as president of the Oberlandesgericht, the District Court of Appeal, a number of office chiefs were also removed from office; as, for example, the commanding general, the finance minister, the ober finance minister.
A. If you are referring to the Ober Finance President, that is not correct; he was not removed from office, tut in the course of 1943, as far as I remember, according to his own urgent wish, he was transferred to the Ober Finance Presidency Koenigsberg where he had been in office before. As far as the commanding general is concerned, what this has got to do with him, I don't know. As far as I remember, already in the spring of 1942 my transfer was, my removal was already begun, and that was when Rothenberger visited here; that was in the beginning of 1942.
DR. KOESSL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution have some additional redirect examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Herr Doebig, if in German criminal procedure the theoretical function of the prosecution is to collect and present facts not only against but in favor of the defendant in order to aid the court in arriving at a fair verdict, why, then, were defense counsel used?
A. The activities of the Prosecutor, if a suspicion against the defendant showed it, the activities of the prosecutor brought about an indictment against the defendant because of a certain fact which called for a penalty.
The task of the prosecutor was in the trial to justify this indictment and absolutely opposite task is the task of the defense counsel in the trial. He has to present to the court and to collect all those conditions and facts which would relieve the defendant of the charges brought against him, or to let his guilt appear in a more lenient light. Therefore, the task of the prosecutor and of the defense counsel in a trial are essentially quite different.
In spite of the regulation that the prosecutor in order to ascertain the truth has to consider also or to bring forth also the extenuating circumstances.
Q Then the fact that German Criminal procedure requires the prosecution to consider also mitigating factors does not guarantee the defendant a fair trial; is that true?
A Without doubt there can be conditions which the prosecutor does not regard as mitigating while the defense counsel or the defendant, himself, regards as mitigating circumstances, and that from their part, they have to be presented to the court, on their part.
Q Herr Doebig, if a party formation, for example, the Gestapo, the SS, or the SD, uncovered what they considered to be a crime against the State or party, how would the culprit who was charged with having committed that crime br brought to trial?
A If a defendant, in the opinion of the Gestapo, had become guilty of a political crime which would justify his being prosecuted, the Gestapo made a report to the prosecution if it was necessary to arrest the culprit, the defendant was handed over to the prison, and according to the German court of legal procedure, the investigating judge had to interrogate the defendant and to decide the question as to whether an order of arrest against the defendant was to be issued or not.
Q In these pre-trial investigations by an investigating judge, to your knowledge, did the investigating judge ever make use of the investigations and reports prepared by the Gestapo, SS and SD, in the field of political crimes?
A The investigating judge who had to decide about the continuance of the arrest had the report made so far, before him when he interrogated the defendant, that is the report of the Gestapo, that was for the investigating judge, the basis for the first interrogation by a judge of the defendant.
Q Was the purpose of the Justice Ministry's policy that there should be the smallest possible divergency between a prosecutor's plea and the sentence finally rendered; was the purpose of that policy ever officially explained to you?
A It was the intention of the Ministry to outward appearance not to let too large of a divergence of the plea of the prosecutor and the sentence of the judge appear. Therefore, it was suggested that in the guidance and discussions which had been introduced by Thierack, the plea which the prosecutor wanted to make should be made known to the judge. If the judge did not agree with that or if he thought, on the basis of his knowledge of the fact of the case, that he would have to differ from it considerably, then he expressed this and then it was subjected to either further discussion between the court and the prosecutor or it was an occasion for the prosecution to inform the Ministry to what extent influence was used in the plea in penal matters; then, the prosecutor discussed with the Ministry whether they should not make a different plea.
Q Then, to comply with the Ministry's policy that there should be as little divergence as possible, conferences and discussions between the prosecution and the judge were necessary before the verdict; were they not?
A. Before the main trial, yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I believe that concludes the redirect examination, your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: I should like to ask one question.
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Q Reference was made to the Gestapo; is that what is called the Geheinestaats Polizei in political cases?
A Yes, that is the Geheimestaats Polizei.
Q Was not that an official branch of the German police?
A The Geheimestaats Polizei was a division, a department of the police; the same as the Schutzpolizei, but which had as its task other functions, that is, in political matters.
Q Was the Gestapo a party organization at all?
AAs far as I know the Geheimestaats Polizei was an office of the state, even though the members of the Geheinestaats Polizei were, for the most part, also members of formations of the party and SS.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to ask the Witness a question or two.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, in the affidavit that you formally made and which is in evidence, at times you stated that Rothaug took vigorous attitudes toward foreign workers and especially against Poles. I want to inquire whether those crimes were committed by the foreign workers who were within Germany or were they in the Eastern Protectorate Provinces?
A When I made this affidavit I was thinking of those cases in which foreign workers, especially Polish workers, in the territory of the old Reich, the Reich proper; especially on farms and in order to replace the drafted sons, and who had committed punishable crimes. The activities of Rothaug were here applied only to crimes or criminal acts of the foreign workers who were employed, who had been involved in crimes which had been committed in the district of Nurnberg.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, in connection with the question which you have just asked, may I ask one further question?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have another question, but you can ask the question.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Herr. Doebig, with regard to these Polish workers, which you just mentioned to the Court, do you know, so far as the defendants in the cases of which you have knowledge, whether or not those foreign workers were within the area of the so-called Reich voluntarily?
A The justice administration never had to concern itself with that, whether they were working voluntarily or not. So far as I am informed the compliment of foreign workers, employed in the German offices -- the employment was done by the Labor Office Arbeitsaemter, and whether they went there voluntarily or not, I do not know. From criminal cases I do know that very many workers were not satisfied with their employment at the place where they were working and that they tried to get away from there.
However, the Labor Office did not release them because of the lack of workers.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Perhaps you can tell us whether some of those foreign workers, who were tried in the courts with which you were connected, were sentenced to death?
A During my time with the Special Court in Nurnberg, and which I knew particularly well, that happened very frequently, particularly towards Poles very strict penal measures were applied. Standards which did not frequently agree with my own feeling of justice. In cases where we were concerned with merely one act which had been committed in a moment of excitement which, for example, a Polish workers because the farmers had beaten him or incited him -- if the Pole raised his fist or his rake, which he was carrying in his hand, if he raised it as a defense, that was sufficient according to the sentence pronounced by the Special Court in many districts to regard him as violently criminal and to sentence him accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be asked this Witness?
(Apparently none.)
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Witness may be excused.
We will recess at this time until 1:30.
(The Court then recessed until 1330 hours.)
Court No. 3 (also take 14)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please your Honor, the prosecution wants to take a minute or two to state to the Court that I have received now from defense counsel a written translation of their written objection stating their position on our motion I have previously filed with reference to the methods of interrogation witnesses. It will be necessary for me to be gone tomorrow afternoon. I rather anticipate that we will not have time before the Tribunal before sometime Monday so that if it's agreeable and counsel -- assuming cross examination will end of the witness on Monday -- if it's agreeable to the Tribunal that before putting on a further witness, I thought we might then dispose of that matter on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: It certainly will be agreeable to the Tribunal and I know of no damage to be done by the delay.
MR. KING: Prosecution at this time asks that the witness Robert Havemann be called. The witness Havemann will testify in his own language.
ROBERT HAVEMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: The witness will raise his right hand and repeat after me:
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 BRAND: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, please state your name?
A. Robert Havemann.
Q. What is your present profession and where are you engaged?
A. My present occupation is a University Professor in Berlin and Chief of the Administration of the Kaiser Wilhilm Institute in BerlinDahlem.
Q. What is your particular field of endeavor with the University?
A. My official field of endeavor is physical chemistry. I am Court No. 3 (also take 14) lecturing on that subject.
Q. How long have you been a physical chemist?
A. Since 1931. At that time I was already at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry and Electro-chemistry as a scientific assistant.
Q. You were, were you not, a physio-chemist during the war?
A. Yes, during the war also I was a physio-chemist.
Q. Witness, do you know of an organization called European Union which was active in Europe during the war?
A. Yes, I belonged to the founders. I was one of the founders of that organization.
Q. What do you know of the activities of this organization? How did it function and what were its objectives?
A. The activities of that organization consisted in the following: to make preparations for the period after the war for which we had great concern about the future of Germany. We tried to get a number of Germans who were specialists in various field and who at no time and in no way had become servants of National Socialism. We tried to get these people together and at the same time to get into contact with various other groups of foreigners in Germany because we knew that among the foreign workers in various fields there were many men who were definite adversaries of the Hitler dictatorship, and were able to contact the resistance movement, the liberty movements in their native countries and it was their aim to get accurate knowledge of the course of the war and political events in Europe. The activities of our group consisted in furnishing all information to the foreign workers which could be of any value to them so that after the war on a basis of friendly relationship, it would be possible to create together with the foreign workers in Germany the foundation for a better Germany and a better European future.
Q. In other words, your activities were mainly directed to the establishing a foundation for post-war rather than in anti-war periods?
A. Naturally we were never in a position to manifest openly in view Court No. 3 (also take 14) of the fact our group was always in danger and consisted of a few.
We could never openly do anything against resistance of the Nazi regime and we did not think it was within our power to fight the power of the Nazi State and for that reason alone we had to restrict ourselves to prepatations which were concerned only with the period after the war. We regretted that fact deeply and we regretted that within the German people a basis for an insurrection against the Nazi regime would no more exist and we hoped that perhaps at the last moment a change in the attitude of the German people toward the Hitler Regime would occur. We did not believe at any time that it was within our power to bring about that change. For that reason we refrained from extensive experiences but the groups of the German resistance movement had gained in the past and we refrained from and propagandist activities throughout the measures of the people.
Q. You said there a moment ago, witness, that you were one of the leaders or organizers of the organization known as European Union. Can you tell us in round numbers approximately how many numbers you counted in your organization?
A. The group comprised about 50 or 60 Germans; apart from those a large number of foreign workers who, which I don't know accurately, according to information received from the delegates of the foreign workers groups, the total number of Frenchmen, Belgians, Czechs and Russians, Finns and others and every member of their group amount to perhaps twenty to fifty thousand.
Q. You are, were you not, arrested by the Gestapo for your activities in connection with the Organization European Union?
A. On the 5 September 1943 together with most of the remaining members of the European Union, I was arrested in Berlin and was brought to the prison of the secret police, the Gestapo, at the Prinz Alrecht Strasse.
Q. Evidently you were tried by the Peoples Court, were you not?
A. Yes, on the 15 December the trial against meand three other leading members of the European Union started before the Peoples Court in Berlin.
Q. You say you were arrested by the Gestapo on September 5, 1943 and Court No. 3 (also take 14) your trial before the Peoples Court began on December 15.
Can you tell us in general what happened in the meantime?
A. From the 5 September 1943 on until the 15 November 1943 I was in the prison Prinz Albrecht Strasse. There the interrogations of the secret state police took place. After the 15 of November we were transferred in a large group to the Penitentiary Brandenburg. It may have been on the second or third of December 1943 that I received in my cell the arrest warrant from the Chief Reich Prosecutor. In the period following and also before -- as long as we had been in the penitentiary at Brandenburn we had had no opportunity whatsoever to contact anybody on the outside. I could not have any visits of relative or of a counsel. I had no possibility to do anything for my defense or in my interest. On the 14 December together with the three other defendants of our trial I was brought to Berlin Moabit into the prison there. As I entered the prison the defense counsel who had been appointed for me turned to me and Dr. Kunz in the evening and that for the first time I had an opportunity to look in the charges of the indictment which was described against myself and the three other defendants.
Q. You say when you were transferred to the penitentiary on the afternoon of December 14 which was the day before your trial, you first saw the indictment by virtue of the fact that your defense counsel showed it to you. What time was that?
A. That was -- it may have been between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening when for the first time and the only time I received the indictment which only the morning when the trial had started had been taken away from me again.
Q. Can you tell us a little more about the manner in which your defense counsel was selected? Especially was your defense counsel one of those approved or shall we say on the approved list of the Peoples Court?
A. I personally had no opportunity to take any interference in the selection of my defense counsel but independently of any interference on my part and the talking to was done by my parents. I know that the Court No. 3 (also take 14) three other defendants had not selected any defense counsel for themselves but that on the part of the Peoples Court defense counsel had been appointed for them.
Q. Did I understand you correctly that the defense counsel who appeared in your behalf at the trial on December 15 was approached by your parents prior to the trial but he was a defense counsel on the approved list? Is that correct?
A. Yes, I know that Dr. Kunz was among the lawyers --those jurists, who regularly was selected defense counsel and were active before the Peoples Court.
Q. Do you happen to recall after the indictment was placed in your hands between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening before the trial any of these following facts concerning the indictment? How long a document was it?
A. The indictment was about 30 pages long. I remember that it was written on the 20 November and signed by Chief Reich Prosecutor Lautz and that on the 13 of December it had been received in the Peoples Court.
Q. You say the indictment was dated November 20 but it wasn't served on you until the evening of December 14 but it had been delivered to the Peoples Court on December 13? Is that a correct interpretation of what you said?
A. Yes, the indictment was dated as of the 20 November but the stamp of the Peoples Court showed that it was received -- it became to the Peoples Court or the 14 December and I was given a chance to look at it on the evening of the 14 December.
Q. Now, on the 20 December where were you? You had not yet been transferred to Brandenburg prison? Is that correct?
A. Yes. On the 20 November I was transferred about five days earlier as a so-called prisoner for the purpose of investigation at the prison in Brandenburg without, however, receiving an arrest warrant or without an arrest warrant having been issued against me.
Q. I see. Can you give me a very brief summary of the charges made against you in the indictment?
A. The main count of the indictment was on preparation for high treason and apart from that we were charged that by our activities during the war we had given aid and comfort to the enemy of the Reich. I cannot remember the terminology, the specific terminology of it any more. Apart from that we were charged that we had aided several Jews who were in danger by supporting them in various ways.
Q. On the day of December 15 when you were tried before the Peoples Court do you recall at this time the names of the judges of the Court who heard your case?
A. Yes, the judges were Freisler, Kammergerichtsrat Reese, NSKK Obergruppenfuehrer Offerman, Gau Office Leader Amels, Kreis Leader Reinecke and as Deputy of the Chief Reich Prosecutor and as Prosecutor for the case there was the local court counsellor Stark.
Q. You said earlier did you not that Chief Prosecutor Lautz had signed the indictment which was served on you?
A. As far as I remember that was the signature on the indictment.
Q. How long did the trial before the Peoples Court continue?
A. The main trial lasted until the early afternoon of the 15 December and on that day it was concluded.
Q. Did it begin in the morning at what time on the 15 December?
A. It began at about eight o'clock -- half -past eight in the morning.
Q. And how many others were tried with you at that time?
A. At the same time together with me three others were tried -Dr. Georg Grosskurt, Gerbert Richter and Paul Rentsch.
Q. The trial then of the four of you consumed at the most not more that five hours. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that trial did not last much longer than that.
Q. Can you describe briefly the manner in which the trial was conducted before Judge Freisler?
A. Almost the entire proceeding were conducted by Freisler. The four associate judges of the Court did not take any part in the proceedings at all. Likewise, defense counsel hardly said a word during the trial.
My counsel during the day only asked the following question: When my personal data was ascertained by the Court he requested of the bench to ask me about my ancestors and that was rejected by Freisler. The balance of the proceedings were conducted by Freisler on the basis of a small piece of paper on which he had made some notations following some system of some kind. Apparently that was all the evidence which existed as a result of the interrogation by the Secret State Police.
you
Q. From that questions that Freisler asked, do/ have any idea as to where the background for the questions may have come -- of the information which Freisler asked upon which he based his questions, so far as you know?
A. Friesler based his questions on the results of the interrogations by the Gestapo and the purpose of his questions was for one to establish the facts on the basis of these questions that he tried. Primarily, to utilize every possibility of insulting the defendants. He did this in a very dramatic manner, frequently changed his temper and assumed a hypocritical attitude of an understanding judge for one moment and then again in the most atrocious manner use his bitter irony on the defendant.
We did not attempt in any way to justify ourselves before that court because what the court used as a basis for its judgment did not constitute any crime in our opinion and after the facts had become known to the court we saw no reason to deny these facts.
Q. Did the prosecution call any witnesses to support the charges based on the Gestapo interrogations?
A. Yes. There appeared two witnesses for the prosecution. Both of them were co-defendants. One was a certain Dr. Hatschek. The other one was a Russian by the name of Jatkewitsch. Jatkewitsch was the delegate of a large group of Ukrainian foreign workers in Germany. Hatschek was a man who was an inventor with the Russian Commercial Delegation in Prague. He was in contact with then until the beginning of the war with Russia. He tried on the basis of a secret word to get in contact with the Russian Secret Service. Dr. Hatschek did not belong to our group but I found out that an alleged agent of the Russian Secret Service approached him by using the secret password. It was interesting to know that Hatschek himself was not sure whether the man was truly a Russian agent or an informer of the Gestapo. For that reason we had to be extremely careful. We were greatly interested in finding out for sure whether he was a Gestapo agent or, in fact, a Russian secret agent. I personally was concerned with the clarification of that case. It was intended that Hatschek should confirm that I talked to him about the agent and that I asked Hatschek whether he was the aid of the Russian agent. In all details concerning this matter Hatschek testified before a court. I had no reason to deny or argue about the statements Hatschek made.
Q. When were you sentenced?
A. I was sentenced on 16 December 1943 together with three other defendants.
Q. What was your sentence?
A. I was sentenced to death.
Q. Following your sentence, where were you imprisoned?
A. After the sentence, for three days, we remained in the prison in Moabit and then we were brought to the penitentiary at Brandenburg. There everyone of us was put into individual cells. We were shackled day and night and there was a light in our cell all night and all day.
Q. Can you explain briefly why your sentence was not immediately carried out?
A. Upon the application of a doctor of the Army Ordnance, Professor Doctor Wolfgang Wirth. the High Command of the Armed Forces got the permission for the Army Ordnance Office at the penitentiary of Brandenburg to establish a physio-chemical laboratory in order to afford me the opportunity to conduct research important for the war. For that reason the execution of the sentence was delayed from the 1st of May until the 1st of November, 1944.
Q. Can you tell us just very briefly what the nature of your experiments was, and were they conducted under the auspices of the German army so far as you know?
A. It was my assignment to develop the procedure to trace very small amounts of the element fluor. I received that assignment because prior to that time I had developed various chemical methods for the tracing of small amounts of chemicals. The work was supervised by a man who had been sent there for that purpose by the Army Ordnance Office. The officials of the penitentiary for reasons of secrecy were not permitted to inspect my laboratory.
Q. You say that your first reprieve, shall we say, from the death sentence was from the 1st of May, 1944, until November of 1944. Can you tell us how long each succeeding period of reprieve extended after the 1st of November, 1944?
A. After the 1st of November, 1944, from two to three months, a special report had to be sent from the Army Ordnance Office to the Ministry of Justice about the progress of my work. Thereupon, the reprieve was extended for another two months.
Q. As the end of the war approached, while you were still in Branden burg, did you ever hear of mass executions of political prisoners held in German prisons other than Brandenburg?
A. Yes. In the penitentiary in Brandenburg we heard about mass executions of 750 political prisoners at the penitentiary at Sonnenburg. The officials of that penitentiary, in January or February, 1945, came to Brandenburg. They were strictly prohibited from divulging any details about the happenings of the penitentiary at Sonnenburg. However, in spite of this very soon essential details became known also to the inmates of the penitentiary of Brandenburg. On the basis of these reports we had to expect that similar events could occur in Brandenburg. It did not happen, in fact, due primarily to the activity of an illegal group and organization of political prisoners at the penitentiary of Brandenburg.
Q. As the last days of Berlin developed, were there any executions in the Brandenburg prison of political prisoners being held?
A. Yes. On 20 April 1945 - that was Hitler's birthday - more than 33 political prisoners who were there prior to the execution were actually executed. I still remember all the details very clearly. It was during the serious air attack on Brandenburg. When the prosecutor at the People's Court together with his henchmen arrived at Brandenburg -
Q. Excuse me just a moment, witness. You said a prosecutor from the Ministry of Justice came out to Brandenburg to order the executions. How do you know that that person was from the Ministry of Justice or a prosecutor?
A. The prosecutor could be distinguished by the fact that in the car he had the red robe of the People's Court which had been generally noticed and was, therefore, generally known.
Q If I interrupted you, please continue.
A It was found out later that the hangman was present, but that the assistants usually needed for execution -- the assistants of the hangman -- were not present. Various officials of the penitentiary who were on good terms with the prisoners hoped in that moment that executions for technical reasons could be delayed. In fact, however, the director of the penitentiary, Oberregierungsrat Tuemmler, asked his officials to volunteer as assistants for the hangmen against a paying of a considerable fee, and an increase in their cigarette ration. There were two among the officials of the penitentiary. They were just normal employees of the justice administration who assumed the rule of assistants to the hangmen so that the executions could take place.
Q You say this was on April 20th, Hitler's birthday, in 1945? When were you freed from the Brandenburg prison?
A On the 27th of April, we were liberated by the Russians.
Q May it please the Court, that is all of the direct examination of the witness Havemann.
DR. GRUBE: Dr. Grube for the defendant Lutz. May it please the Tribunal, I ask to be permitted to start my cross examination.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Witness, you have stated the European Union Consisted of a group of Germans and apart from that had maintained contacts with foreigners, and these contacts primarily existed with large groups of foreign civilian workers --about 50 to 60 thousand, is that correct?
AAnother there were exactly that many, I don't know. I said before that there were at least 20, but perhaps even 50 thousand of them.
Q From what nations did these civilian workers come?
A I can remember quite accurately that there were Frenchmen, Belgians, Czechs, Danes and Russians in these groups.
Q Did the European union seek connections or did foreign intellectuals belong to the union?
A The representatives of the various national groups of foreign workers were frequently skilled workers or engineers.
Q Can you remember, for instance, whether there was a Ukranian woman doctor who was a member of that European Union?
A I know that a Ukranian woman doctor was among the members of the Ukranian group.
Q Is it correct that there were French engineers who were members of the French group of the European Union?
A Yes.
Q Is it correct that there were Czech chemists among the members of the European Union?
A That I cannot remember.
Q You have mentioned before that there was a certain connection with the Russian Secret service. Now was that connection taken up by the European Union itself?
A No. I have to say the following: in fact, there never existed a real connection with the Russian Secret service. It was rather so that the Gestapo tried to utilize the circumstances; that Dr. Hatschek who did not belong to that group had an arrangement with the Russian secret service-- that he wanted to take up this connection himself-- and he believed that I and other members of the group whom he know personally would be interested in such connection. Hatschek, himself, had no knowledge of the existence of our group and we only for security reasons were interested in clarification of that connection on the part of Hatschek to the alleged agent of the Russian secret service. It may be that we might have been interested if we could have found out that in fact there was a representative of the Russian Secret Service who was in contact with Hatchek. Our interest, however, would have consisted of trying to get connections through this agent with other groups of the illegal resistance movement in Germany and in that manner to try to expand the basis for our activities. In fact, however, it never came to that because it was found out that the alleged agent was in fact an informer of the Gestapo, whose victims we also became later on.
And what actually was of importance in the course of that period were my attempts in order to clarify the facts, that is to say, my attempts to find out what kind of an agent that was in the case of Hatscek. When we had ample reason, on the basis of our observation to assume that it was a Gestapo agent, the Gestapo on its part had become cautious, grabbed us and arrested all people of whom they know that they had contacts with each other.
Q Witness, is it true that Hatschek himself was sentenced to death by the People's Court?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Is it true that he was sentenced to death because he was a member of the European Union?
A No, that I could not say for sure, but I know that his indictment was based on capital treason.
Q Can you consider it possible?
A No. In fact, the decisive charge against Hatschek was capital treason. However, the Court could not even prove treason in the case of Hatschek. But the following fact was the reason for that charge: the alleged agent, that is to say the man who really was a Gestapo informer, requested Hatschek to give him various information as to what armament establishments, inventions and other secret matters he knew about. Hatschek actually gave in to these questions and told the Gestapo informer several details and various information. The Gestapo and the People's Court argued that it was not within Hatschek's power that it did not become real treason, but that it was just an unfortunate fact in the interest of the Reich that that man was not really a Russian agent but an informer of the Gestapo.
Q Witness, you just said that Hatschek had delivered secrecies of armament to this informer?
A Yes.
Q How did Hatschek get to know these things?
A That I don't know.
Q Isn't it true that you, witness, were dealing with secret search since 1938?
A Yes.
Q Had you anything to do with the development of the V.-weapons?
A No.
Q But you worked for the German armed Forces on secret research for armament?
A I worked for the Pharmacological Institute at the University of Berlin for the Army Ordnance Offices, especially for the chief doctor, Dr. Wirth, on an assignment which was put to the Pharmacological Institute. It was research on gas--poison gas and artificial fog.
Q Witness, you said before that you tried to get in contact with the Russian politic 1 agent through Hatschek. Is that true?
A That is based on the following: when Hatschek for the first time told me about that alleged agent, I found out that that must be a man who was interested in military secrets. A man of that type of no interest to my group for various reasons. We were interested in contact with the Russian agent who within Germany could aid us to get contact with other groups of the resistance movement, who might work in a similar manner as we aid. Therefore, I told Hatschek that I was not interested in an espionage agent of that type, but was only interested in contact with a political agent. I have to say that in doing so, I followed a method which is quite common, that is to say, that the very moment when one has started on a dangerous contact of that kind, that one tries to eliminate one's one person.
Q Witness, you said before you did not make any propaganda with the masses of the people. Isn't it correct that you did exert propaganda in the groups of intellectuals?