Q But you had known her previously?
A I had known her for some years but only casually. She was not one of my regular visitors. I had only met her at the house of Under-Secretary Staden.
Q On that day, on the 10th of September, 1943, as you said just now, people had met at a tea party to celebrate the 50th birthday of her sister?
A No, for her brother.
Q Do you know Frau Braune?
A No, I don't know her at all.
Q Did it not strike you perculiar that as you didn't know Frau Braune at all you should suddenly after the tea party had started be invited to go by telephone?
A Miss von Tadden had told me, she told me that she had rung me up a few days before but there was no answer to the telephone, but I did not think it peculiar because I was alone at the time.
Q During the visit was Dr. Reckzeh introduced to you?
A It was he who opened the door to me, and at first I did not know who he was and only afterwards when we sat down and our conversation continued; and when I was offered tea as the late arrival; and at that moment I had a whispered conversation with Miss von Tadden about who is this young man; she said to me he is a doctor, Dr. Reckzeh who had come to her with the recommendation and who occasionally, for medical and scientific reasons, went to Switzerland.
Q Your Excellency, did Fraulein Tadden not tell you that Dr. Reckzeh had introduced himself to Miss von Tadden a few days earlier as, saying he was a refugee, but considered it necessary to be in Germany because at last something had to be done in Germany?
A Frau von Tadden did not say that to me; she said to me that Dr. Reckzeh had to take a certain serum to Switzerland which was only produced in Germany, and which was needed in Switzerland, and which he personally was taking over occasionally by air.
Q At that tea party was Dr. Kiep present?
A Yes.
Q What was Dr. Kiep's function at the OKW?
A I believe that he was on the staff for economic affairs, but I would like to commit myself as far as that expression is concerned.
Q What did you say; may I put this Fuehrer Bulletin to you; in that bulletin it states Dr. Kiep was the expert on foreign politics at the OKW.
A Yes, Foreign Department, that is correct.
Q Furthermore, an under secretary was present at the tea party.
A Yes, Dr. Staden.
Q And under whom did he serve as under secretary?
A He was Under Secretary at the Reich Ministry of Finance.
Q As to Staden, had he formerly been associated with Count Schwerin Crosigk?
A Yes.
Q Did he entertain relations with Dr. Staden?
A I don't know anything about that; but I don't believe so.
Q Did Frau Tadden's circle of relations include Dr. Goerdeler?
A No.
Q Did it include Dr. Wirth?
A I knew nothing of that until I heard what it says in the document, and until I heard what was said to me at my interrogation, but I didn't know about it beforehand.
Q Your Excellency, is it correct that the son-in-law of Dr. Schacht, Scherpenberg, in the course of the tea party left because he was afraid, because Dr. Kiep held conversation which were expressing sentiments against the State?
A I don't know why he left; as I said before he left as I arrived, and apologized to me, but he could only say how do you do, and then had to say goodbye immediately; I don't know anything more.
Q Do you know that at that tea party Dr. Kiep stated the only saving would be in the literary?
A I cannot tell you anything about the conversations of Dr. Kiep. I never saw Dr. Kiep again at liberty after that tea party. The conversations during the tea party, which were held at the beginning of the tea party, I wasn't there; I only heard about those conversations at my interrogations.
Q What conversations were conducted during the time when you were present?
A Well, I was asked about that at my interrogations, and I can only reply that I know very little about those conversations, for I was talking to my right and to my left, and we were only talking about the hopeless state of affairs, of the situation; the comments which I made, I mentioned in my direct examination, and I don't remember anything more.
Q You said before, Dr. Kiep at that tea party stated something would have to be done to end the war; that was about the meaning of it?
A Yes, he is supposed to have said that; he was supposed to have said that; I wasn't present at the time.
Q Why did you join the discussion; what did you mean by the hopelessness of the war, the troubles and failure of the secret workers to appear?
A That was part of the general discussions on the situation that was caused by the secession of Italy which occurred one or two days before.
Q And this was in your presence?
A Well, the talk about the secession of Italy, that is the first topic which I remember.
Q At any rate, it was said that things couldn't go on as they were going.
A Yes, but I took very little part in the discussion, and the discussion in general was really maintained by Dr. Kiep and Dr. Goerdeler.
Q And what was the topic the three gentlemen were discussing?
A I don't remember properly, because I was talking to the people first on this side and then I mainly talked to Dr. Kiep about letters, about the letters, which he said he might take to Switzerland, and then we talked about other things which did not concern politics.
MR. KING: If the Court please, it seems to me that Defense Counsel is requiring the witness to repeat verbatim the conversation that took place at the tea party. Perhaps it would be in order if he served tea along with the question. It seems to me that she should not be required to repeat all of these bits of information which he is eliciting. I wonder if he cannot be instructed to limit the extent to which this witness can be made to relive an event which in later years had become a tragic one.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not interfere with the cross examination so far conducted.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q You gave Dr. Reckzeh three letters for Switzerland. Now may I ask, your Excellency, to whom those letters were addressed?
A Yes, one letter was to a friend, Mrs. Oppenhein, the second to the Danish Charge of Affairs, and the third to the Roumanian Minister, Mrs. Bossig.
Q Thank you. Shortly after that tea party, you were arrested?
A No. After that party I went away, and ten days later my daughter told me that through the intervension of Grap Moltke, who collaborated with Kiep that Dr. Reckzeh was a Gestapo agent, and that he was going to denounce all of us.
Q When were you arrested?
A We were arrested three or four months later, on 12 January 1944.
Q You said before, one of your sons had given authority to an attorney to take care of your case.
A Only I could give that power of attorney, but my oldest son, when he heard that I was to come before a court, had asked Dr. Dix and Dr. Dix had agreed then, as I explained before. I was only able to send that power of attorney through a woman friend.
Q In March, or the beginning of April, did not an attorney at law come to see you at Ravensbrueck?
A That was -
MR. KING: The question which is about to be answered involves a personal and confidential matter, about which the witness has been instructed not to speak unless pressed by the Defense Counsel. I only say this because it may involve the embarrassment of Defense Counsel here. Now, if Defense Counsel insists on asking the question and getting the answer, we of the Prosecution will not object.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no reason to object.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Did a person whom your son had instructed to look after your affairs, did he in March or the beginning of April, did he discuss the case with you, that you were charged with, for three hours?
A It can't have been three hours. He was a friend of my youngest son who was greatly worried about me, and who had tried to get in contact with me through a third persons because the Gestapo wouldn't let him come to see me. I can't say exactly, but it can't have been three hours because the Gestapo never allowed a visit of that time.
Q But it is correct that man at the end of March or the beginning of April, 1944 did come to see you at Ravensbrueck?
A Yes, yes. A friend of my youngest son did come to see me there.
Q And you discussed your case with that friend?
AActually my case could not be discussed, because Gestapo agents were present and we could only discuss the matter in low tones and by implications; on the whole we discussed personal and business matters.
And above all, my son did want to get some personal news from me.
Q Can you remember what time, concerning your son's friend, when you gave him power of attorney to appear as defense counsel in your case?
A I did not at that time, I was to come before the Peoples Court. Both my sons, my younger son and my older son, took all steps to try and send me help, and for that reason I asked that man to take my signature along with him because my eldest son had ask Dr. Dix to act as my defense counsel.
Q But who did get the power of attorney?
A The power of attorney without giving a name because I hoped it would reach Dr. Dix.
Q You mean a blank power of attorney?
A Yes.
Q Where you talking to your son's friend when you actually were, informed about the counts of which you were being charged?
A The interrogation for the first trials were concluded. They were concluded at the end of March, if I remember correctly. I knew the counts on which I had been charged, but nothing had been proven. There was no one that could give prove against me.
Q Then, you went to Berlin for your trial?
A Yes.
Q You said further that on 30 July 1944, in the evening, you had the first opportunity to take up conference with defense counsel, Dr. Dix?
A Yes.
Q Did you hear later that Dr. Dix had previously been informed about the case?
A Dr. Dix as far as I know had been informed in May. I do not want to commit myself with regard to the date, but my son had informed him my eldest son; he had sent a letter to Ravensbrueck in which he naturally placed himself at my disposal in case I should need a defense counsel before the People's Court. That letter had not reached me and only three weeks later it was found among my files quite by accident.
Q You have said that and there is no need to repeat it, Do you know that Dr. Dix before the trial was scheduled had received the agreement of the Oberreichsanwalt to see your files?
A No, I did not know that.
Q In the course of the trial -- by the way, I must interpolate another question. When was the trial?
A 1 July 1944.
Q Could it not have been on 2 July?
A No, it was on 1 July.
Q Did Dr. Dix at the beginning or in the course of the trial, put forward the motion that the trial should be adjourned?
A I do not know anything about that.
Q Did Dr. Dix make any other motions during the trial?
A I only know of the letter which was mentioned in Thierack's report to Hitler.
Q Did one of the other defense counsel make a motion for an adjournment?
A I do not know.
Q You have said that in the course of the trial -- your trial, you had been separated from the the others. Is it correct that your trial began only on 1 July?
A Yes, the sentence was only passed in the evening, but it is possible that I was outside of the room. Dr. Dix said goodbye to me, he had to take a train to a suburb and it was impossible for him to stay with me. I could not give you the exact time.
Q Can you say at what time your trial was separated?
A At the time the pleas were made. I do not know what plea it was when I was moved back. I was brought to the anti-chamber because they did not know where to take me. The doer was opened and I heard Dr. Sack's plea who was defense counsel for Dr. Kiep, and I assumed that the pleas were in full swing.
Q May I ask your excellency what facts were at the first trial, stated in the indictment. Did the indictment mention high treason in regard to your contacts with Switzerland?
A Yes, Yes, as I mentioned before the witness for the prosecution, Reckzeh said that I had requested him to make context with neutrals or refugees during his trips to Switzerland, to take up peace negotiations or to discuss them.
Q Is this right; after your trial had been separated, that the Gestapo moved you away from Berlin?
A Yes.
Q Concerning your interrogation, may I ask you during the discussion which took place in your drawing room, was the topic discussed peacefully as to whether the harbors on the German north sea were to be opened to the British Navy?
A That fact or that suggestion, I only learned of that from my second indictment. Previously I did not know about it. That had never been discussed in my presence, but I only learned about it from my second indictment. It is possible that the subject -- whether other friends of my family discussed the matter I do not know, but I think it is possible.
Q The latter proceedings against you, I will leave out. And, now coming to the point which you mentioned earlier on. The fact that Dr Mund and Schelia liberated you -
A The name of that gentleman is Dr. Heuss. He is the son of the Minister of State Heuss, and is probably known to you gentlemen. I was not in Brandenburg but in Moabit.
Q Is it correct that Dr. Heuss came at the request of the Reich Minister of Justice?
A He did not come at the Reich Minister of Justice request, but he had contact with a gentleman in the Reich Ministry of Justice, whose name unfortunately I cannot remember at the moment. He had explained that contact because he was a friend of the Elass family and he had talked to that gentleman and asked, in my case if I was in danger, and I was. He had talked to that gentleman, and he had told him Berlin is in a state of siege. We could no longer get food supplies. Where can we get bread, and then Dr. Heuss said to him, you are in charge of the prison.
The prisons have been evacuated to a far reaching extent, and there must be large bread supplies there. Have bread fetched from the prisons. That man thought it might be a very good idea, and asked Dr. Heuss to go to Moabit with him. Dr. Heuss expressed the wish that he might do him a favor and asked him to write out the necessary papers for myself, my daughter and Dr Kiep to be discharged. The Russians had already reached Alexander Square.
Q May I ask your Excellency, do you know why your friend came?
A I cannot tell you exactly, but I only know that he had the same attitude that I had and as far as I remember in February 1942 he was arrested, and in the spring of 1944 he was sentenced to death. I saw him casually at Ravensbrueck. In Ravensbrueck, after my first trial I was interrogated in his case, and I know that the death sentence was cancelled because apparently at my trial he had intended to appear as a witness for the Prosecution.
Q If the sentence was canceled for him to appear at your trial, may I ask you what was his relationship to your group?
A He was in very close contact. He was under my husband at Tokyo and I knew him since 1922 or 1923. He belonged to our circle.
Q Do you know the name Schelia?
A I only know Mr. Mund Schelia from the foreign office. I know the name but I do not know the person, himself.
Q Do you know that Mr. Mund or Mr. Schelia had contacts abroad?
A I am convinced that they had, they were both officials in the foreign office.
Q Do you know that Dr. Reckzen received money from Switzerland?
A I do know about that.
Q. I now have only one last question to put to you. You said, before in answer to the question of the prosecutor as to whether there were any contradictions that there were such contradictions between your testimony and as such contradictions your oral testimony would have priority.
A. Since I have read that report from Thierach to Hitler it has become clear to me that they wanted to exterminate me on all accounts.
Q. May I ask you on what points did you see deviations between the Hitler bulletin and your testimony?
MR. KING: Before we ask here a complicated question like that, I think she should have a copy of the bulletin beforehand. I therefore ask that before the witness answer this question that she has either the English or the German text before her.
THE PRESIDENT: That seems to be the only fair thing to do and in as much as it is now four thirty we will adjourn until tomorrow morning and let her have that opportunity. Let a copy be furnished to her so that she will be prepared to answer the question.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0930 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930, 16 April 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Joseph Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 2 April 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will ascertain if all the defendants are present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of defendants Rothaug and Engert, who are absent due to illenss.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper notation will be made.
DR. GRUBE: May it please Your Honors, I ask to be permitted to continue my cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Witness had an opportunity to examine the exhibit?
MRS. SOLF: (Witness): Yes, I have had an opportunity to examine it.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. Your Excellency, my last question to you was which or in what point the Fuehrer's information differs from your oral statement. May I ask you whether in the meantime whether you have ascertained whether such a difference existed?
A. I have now had an opportunity to read the document, and today I should like to answer that I never knew of Professor Sigmund Schultze at that tea party, nor anything about the conversations which were held by him. Only later I heard that name mentioned for the first time.
I did not even know him by name, likewise, I was not present when they talked about Reich Chancellor Wirth, whom I did not know either.
Q. But, you have not ascertained any other differences?
A. There is a matter of difference of concept about the word hostile to the State; the State, that was our native country, our homeland, and that State, that nation, was dominated by a party whose ideology I could not accept, and whose actions had brought us all into a deep disaster, and brought dishonor on the name of the German for decades. On the side of my husband, I stood for our country in foreign countries, and I have suffered as all those who were around me. I have suffered on account of that regime which was steering our country into disaster.
Q. Your Excellency, I have a question concerning that Fuehrer bulletin. May I ask you first in the German spelling how do you abbreviate in German, the term Unter Anderem (among others)?
A. As far as I know a small "u" and a capital "A".
Q. Does one abbreviate it with a small "u" and a small "a"?
A. Well, I have always abbreviated that way -- the way I told you before. I cannot remember any other way.
Q. Will you please look in this Fuehrer bulletin, the last paragraph, the sentence before the last; that sentence reads: "According to the idea of the Chief Prosecutor of the People's Court, now against Mrs. Solf, "u". "A"., the death penalty applies.
A. I have before me only the English version, the English text, and therefore I cannot judge that.
MR. KING: May it please your Honors, we have a typewritten copy of the German version which, with the Court's permission, I would like to hand this copy of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of her answer, I think she should have it.
Q. If you will please look at that sentence in the last paragraph, the sentence before the last?
A. In this copy it says, "Among others, that is, u.A., in the same way I have mentioned it before.
Q. May I ask you what other penalty outside, apart from the death penalty, was conceivable. The sentence reads, "In the opinion of the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the People's Court against Mrs. Solf, now also among others...." I ask you if you think the death penalty was applicable?
A. I know very little about jurisdiction, administration of justice, and especially understood nothing of the jurisdiction of the National Socialist Government.
Q. Now, this is purely a linguistic question. Do you not consider it possible and would it not be more sensible, more according to the meaning, if it should read: In the opinion of the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court against Mrs. Solf -
MR. KING: (Interposing) One moment before you answer that question. I do not think we need to argue with the witness as to how she would interpret a sentence. It is perfectly clear and it states what it means. In any event whatever the witness thinks, it would not help the interpretation. She is not a lawyer and if we are going to argue as to what the sentence means, we need not and must not argue with this witness. I there object to the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Grube, do you see any ambiguity in that language?
DR. GRUBE: Yes, Mr. President, it would mean as the witness thinks among others, then that entire sentence would state a very clear opinion; that is to say, that the death penalty was applicable apart from other penalties. As far as this opinion is concerned, the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court, at that time, that is, on 18 July, could not have reached that decision or opinion since the files of the Ministry of Justice had not been transmitted to him, forwarded to him.
According to German spelling that would have to be a misprint.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Grube, this document is not the document of the witness; she is not the author of it; she is not responsible for it, and we see no occasion for asking her to interpret it. The Prosecution's objection will be sustained.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, this document was submitted by the prosecution and until now we have not seen the original. I merely wanted to see whether on the cross examination -- whether this abbreviation is a misprint and therefore I asked to be permitted to see the original.
THE PRESIDENT: You may see the original if it can be produced.
MR. KING: Your Honor, defense counsel has been looking some minutes at the original. This is the original copy as printed and circulated by the Reich Ministry of Justice and is identical to the one which eventually found its way to Hitler's desk. This is on the original paper. It isn't a photostatic copy and if there is an original which differs from the copy which defense counsel has been looking at it certainly has never been in our possession.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a captured document and even though it may be only an office copy it isn't inadmissible for that reason. It's merely a copy, that is known to the prosecution. Remember the affidavit made by Coogan and Niebergall. It's perfectly admissible in evidence but I repeat it isn't the obligation of this witness to interpret it. You may interpret it. You may argue your own interpretation of it but don't argue with this witness about it.
DR. GRUGE: Mr. President, I do not want to connect this any further with the witness's interrogation. Since the prosecutor has said that this document was a true copy of the original and that is to say that the original from the files of tie Ministry of Justice, since the prosecutor has said so I ask to be permitted later to request that the report from the Reich Chief Prosecutor of the Peoples Court, which is the basis of this information and without doubt must be in the files of the Ministry of Justice that also submitted it.
I believe that from that report of the Reich Chief Prosecutor, the true version can be seen. That is to say, that the possibility exists that a death penalty can be pronounced and not a 100 per cent assurance. I ask to be granted permission to do that?
MR. KING: May I say just a word? The defense counsel is asking the prosecution to produce another document about which he knows nothing and about which we have heard nothing, which he presumes may have been the basis of the defendant Lautz's opinion as expressed in this document. We have no way of knowing how the information got from the defendant Lautz mind into this document. It may have been by telephone conversation. It may have been by conference. It may have been in numerous other ways. In any event, we are not prepared and we will not, unless we are ordered to by the Court, conduct an extensive search for --
THE INTERPRETER: We can't follow that.
THE PRESIDENT: Too fast, I think.
MR. KING: May I repeat? Defense counsel has asked us of the prosecution to produce some evidence as to how the information in the Fuehrer Bulletin got from the defendant Lautz's mind into the Bulletin. The defense counsel does not know what form that information may have originally been and we of the prosecution certainly do not know how the defendant Lautz got his views expressed in this bulletin. We are not prepared to conduct an extensive search of the Justice Ministry's files in Berlin or elsewhere to try to find the memorandum or a conference, the letter whatever other method may have been used by the defendant Lautz to get the information to whoever edited this Fuehrer information bulletin.
If the defense counsel or the defendant Lautz knows of any evidence which may help us in that connection we will do, of course, all that we can to produce it and get the truth into the record but unless ordered so to do by the Court we do not intend to produce any more evidence on this point. The fact that it is in here that it is an official copy is certainly good enough from our point of view.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, the contents of this Fuehrer information bulletin is based as the High Tribunal has had an opportunity to observe in previous cases all written reports which the individual Reich Prosecutor directed to the Ministry of Justice. Beyond doubt this Fuehrer information bulletin is also based on a written account by the Chief Public Prosecutor with the Peoples Court. If this document comes from the files of the Ministry of Justice then beyond doubt there must also be that report on which it is based and I am grateful to the representative of the prosecution that he has promised to try to get such a report.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a certain method provided by the rules for securing documents if defense counsel may desire and counsel can follow that rule but what is done now is not pursuant to any such rule. Moreover, unless there can be some identification of some particular document it is plain to be seen that the prosecution would have an endless search among a great mass of documents that have been captured and we can't impose that obligation on the prosecution.
This document is admissible without further identification or authentication.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, I have no more questions.
DR. SCHILF: Dr. Schilf for the defendants Klemm and Dr. Mettgenberg. Your Excellency, yesterday you were asked about Dr. Huess and you mentioned that Huess had liberated you from the prison in Moabit. You started your sentence by saying that Dr. Huess was in touch with the Reich Ministry of Justice but then you interrupted yourself. May I ask you to be kind enough to continue and tell us what you wanted to say?
A. I don't know anything further than that Dr. Huess in the interest of Mrs. Elass and her daughter and my daughter and myself, occasionally approached a gentleman in the Ministry of Justice, whose name I do not know unfortunately but whoso name I can find, and in order to save us or at least to help us. He knew that in particular my daughter and myself after my first trial were again put before another trial and I was to be the main defendant. In the indictment my first trial was again mentioned and I should again be tried before Friesler. Again I was indicted for high-treason, treason and undermining of military strength. I was indicted together with my closest friends, Geheimrat Kunze and Count Von Bernsdorf who had been tortured in order to make statements against me. There all good enough reason to be concerned abut me. After President Freislar had died the files bad been burned. The trial from the beginning of February was postponed to the end of April. The city was already surrounded by the Russians and there was a possibility to have us saved but there was also the possibility that I would also be killed in the same manner as my co-defendants in the very last moment.