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.
Therefore, Dr. Huess had the great kindness and courage to continue asking about us there when he talked to that gentleman for the last time. I think his name was Hesz but I could not say that for sure.
Q. Your Excellency, I haven't heard the name Hesz.
A. It is H-E-S-Z-, I believe, but I couldn't say for sure.
Dr. Hesz then, I assume it was on the 23rd of April, had the conversation which I have described, and, since it was necessary to make speed, he took the steps which were successful.
Q. If I have understood you correctly, your release took place on the basis of an orderly certificate by the Reich Ministry of Justice.
A. I could not say who signed that release permit, whether it was that gentleman of the Reich Ministry of Justice who, somewhat pushed by Dr. Heuss, did so, or whether it was the superintendent of the prison, whose name I also do not remember since I do not know who the people were who were competent for that. I only know that Dr. Heuss, during the fury of the battle of the 23rd of April-with which you gentlemen are probably familiar-- that Heuss insisted, and he finally achieved it that we were traded, so to speak, against a loaf of bread.
Q. I am only interested in clarifying this, that the so-called coup de main by Dr. Heuss was on an administratively correct basis. It wasn't done in a manner whereby he did something quite aside from the regulations in order to release you or to save you, but he had the approval of a gentleman of the Reich Ministry of Justice, or some other office?
A. He persuaded these gentlemen, that is true, I admit that; and they have signed, testifying that he did not intrude with violence.
Q. Thank you, that is sufficient.
Your Excellency, may I ask you, is it possible that gentleman of the Reich Ministry of Justice had the name Dr. Hesse?
A. That may be so. I only heard of the name through a newspaper article, which dealt with the death of Mayor Elsass, since we had been liberated together with his widow.
Q. I have a further request to you to give me a supplementary explanation. Yesterday, on the occasion of your testimony to the representative of the prosecution, you mentioned a Freisler motion picture, and you made a statement where you were interrupted. May I ask you-
MR. KING (Interposing); The witness did not testify as to the People's Court film. She started to, but if the Court will recall I interrupted and told her we were not interested in that and to leave it out.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, she hadn't completed the answer to the other question; it didn't seem as if she had completed, when you started another question. It seems that she ought to be permitted now to repeat that answer.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. SCHILF: I put this question, Your Honor, only because, in my opinion, the interruption was not quite correct.
An interruption of the witness by the prosecutor took place, and I only wanted to give the witness an opportunity to continue to say what she had started to say.
MR. KING: May I ask the witness one question at this point?
THE PRESIDENT: You know that is irregular.
MR. KING: Then I point out to the Court that the witness has not seen this film, and anything she said in connection with it was mere hearsay. That is why I interrupted her, and I am quite sure that was a correct procedure so far as direct examination is concerned.
JUDGE BRAND: You say that she had not seen the film?
MR. KING: To my knowledge-
JUDGE BRAND: Wait a minute.
MR. KING: I beg your pardon.
JUDGE BRAND: You say she had not seen the film relative to the trial of the persons who had been accused of attempting to take the life of Hitler?
MR. KING: To my knowledge and belief the witness has not seen the motion picture film which was admitted in evidence before this Court as Exhibit 192.
JUDGE BRAND: I suggest that one of you ask her if she has seen it. If she has not seen it, then, of course, it would not be advisable to make a comparison as to the manner in which the two trials were conducted. If she has seen it, I think she should be permitted to make the comparison.
MR. KING: That, Your Honor, was the question I was about to ask the witness. However, I would be happy to have the defense counsel ask the same question.
DR. SCHILF: I should only like to make a technical remark. I do not consider it admissible that the representative of the prosecution, while I conduct my cross-examination, request that he be permitted to put a question to the witness on his part. That is the way I understood it.
JUDGE BRAND: Will you put the question?
DR. SCHILF: Yes. I have already started, in fact, to put the question.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. You have hear the question, Your Excellency. Will you please answer it?
A. I have not seen the film.
Q. I thank you very much; that takes care of that. Now I come to a third point. You have told us about your experiences in the concentration camp Ravensbruck; also about the fact that you were in that concentration camp at the same time with other Germans and foreigners and also habitual criminals.
I would like you to tell us whether, according to your observations, there was a difference in treatment between foreigners and Germans which took place or which could be seen.
A. As to the prisoners who were with me at Ravensbruck, as far as I can remember there was only an Italian woman of Belgian descent who was treated well, better than we were. However, in the penitentiary of Cottbus, as well as in the prison of Moabit, I met many foreigners. In the penitentiary of Cottbus, there alone were 300 French women who were sentenced to death, and five Dutch women sentenced to death who, after a week or two, were pardoned to penitentiary terms and whom I saw in the court yard. The 300 French women sentenced to death were sent to Ravensbruck at the end of November 1944. The night before they were transported they had to sleep on a bare stone floor. One of the auxilliary wardens, who was also an interpreter for them and who had a great deal of courage and a kind heart, came to me in order to ask us political prisoners to give them our blankets, which we certainly did.
Of course, I also met Ukrainians, Poles, Zcechs, and many other women, some of them only casually. However, I know and have seen for myself that, for instance, in Moabit, some of the brutal wardens kicked them and shouted at them for reasons which seemed very, very unjust, because these women did not understand what they were supposed to do.
Q. My question was only intended to mean whether, in principle, Germans were treated better or worse than foreigners, male or female, so far as your experiences go, or whether the treatment essentially was the same.
A. That depended, of course, on the character or the nature of the wardens.
I believe there were Polish women who were certainly treated worse, because the Poles were considered an inferior race. They had to have the letter "P" on their garment so that they could be distinguished. But that is only one observation.
Q. Your Excellency, yesterday you mentioned occurrences at the penitentiary at Brandenburg, and if I understood you correctly you were told about these occurrences by Herr von Mumm. Is that correct?
A. I have. I remember these in connection with Mr. von Mumm, because he was a friend of our family. But at the same time I was told about the figure of those killed by a gentleman whose name I do not remember. However, there is a gentleman here in this building who received a similar report of these last occurrences in Brandenburg.
Q. Was that Professor Havemann?
A. No.
Q. You say a gentleman here in the building; that means in the Courthouse?
A. Yes.
Q. I am only interested in finding out what Herr von Mumm told you.
A. Herr von Mumm could not tell me anything any more, because he belonged to those who were executed on the 20th of April. As I have already explained, he was in prison for three years, sentenced to death in the spring of 1944. They kept him for my trial so that he could testify against me.
I was in a certain connection with him, because my clergyman, Priest Poelchel, who was truly an angel for the prisoners, came to see me and also, from time to time, had an opportunity to go to Brandenburg to speak to the prisoners. He had an opportunity to see von Mumm, and I had an opportunity to find out that he was still alive. I was convinced that he would survive the catastrophe. After the collapse, all those who had been prisoners and were now saved gathered together and tried to find out about the fate of others who were not present.
At that time, on that occasion, I found out that von Mumm was not among those who were saved, but that he had been executed together with about thirty others. I received the same confirmation of that report here from the gentleman whom I had an opportunity to meet.
Q May I ask you what the name of the gentleman is who gave you that report?
A Who gave it to me in Berlin?
Q Both.
A The one in Berlin, the one who gave me the report in Berlin, his name I am sorry I do not remember, because I met too many people at that time.
MR. KING: I remind defense counsel that the answer to this question may also be embarrassing to the defense, but if they want to go ahead and ask it, it is certainly all right with us.
DR. SCHILF: I am sorry, I could not understand.
THE PRESIDENT: You are insisting on your question, are you? Dr. Schilf, you are asking for an answer to your question, are you?
DR. SCHILF: I only put the question to give me the name, if it should be known, of the gentleman, who, here in this building, gave to the witness a report about conditions at the penitentiary in Brandenburg, apparently very recently, these days.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will answer the question.
A That was Dr. Nath, if I remember the name correctly. I saw him only for one moment.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q However, in conclusion may I say that the occurrences in the penitentiary of Brandenburg which you have briefly described yesterday, and may I recall to you that you said it was a counsel, a Reich Prosecutor, an official, at any rate -- an official of the Ministry of Justice who appeared at Brandenburg?
A Yes, there were -
Q Excuse me. And these matters were told to you very recently?
A The information about these matters I received perhaps one month after I was freed in Berlin and they definitely confirmed reports, or they were identical with reports that I received day before yesterday by Dr. Nath Q I have one last question.
You reported to us that von Mumm was executed with about thirty others?
A Yes.
Q You have also told us that von Humm had already been sentenced to death by the People's Court?
A Yes.
Q You have voiced the assumption that the sentence had not been executed because he was to be kept -- he would have been a witness at your second trial?
A Yes.
Q When people told you about these occurrences, was it also mentioned that all the other who were executed on the 20th of April 1945, that they were people who had already been sentenced to death?
A About that I do not know anything.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
JUDGE BRAND: I should like the privilege of asking one question. Without asking you to go into details, I should like to know if, according to your recollection, there were additional accusations or charges in the second indictment which were not contained in the first indictment in your case.
THE WITNESS: In the second indictment, if I understood correctly, in the second indictment there were the same charges as in the first, and they would have been discussed again. In the second indictment I was charged, apart from that, together with my friends Count Bernsdorf, Geheimrat Kunze, and others, with having spoken against the government. However, in general it was precisely the same thing as the first, and I could not remember my individual points of difference. Only my daughter had been included, who had contributed in the welfare work and courageously stood for those who were persecuted.
JUDGE BRAND: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I should also like to put a question or two. You have referred to the fact that your daughter was taken into custody.
Had she been taken into custody prior to your first trial?
THE WITNESS: My daughter was arrested together with me at the same time and was also liberated at the same time as I was. For some time we were in the same prison, but always in solitary confinement, and for some time I was already in the penitentiary at Kottbus while she went through the hard times after the 20th of July, where she was also put into a cell in the cellar and all the more severe measures after the 20th of July were inflicted upon her. She was seriously ill and for two months did not know where I was, or whether I was still alive. Then at the end of October she came to Moabit together with Count Bernsdorf and the other gentlemen. She was brought there and remained there until the end.
THE PRESIDENT: You have answered the question. Now let me ask you another one. Was your daughter at the tea party?
THE WITNESS: At the tea party -- no. My daughter was not present at the tea party.
THE PRESIDENT: Had your daughter anything to do with the writing of the letters which you gave to the gentleman at the tea party?
THE WITNESS: No, she had nothing to do with them at all. They were absolutely harmless private letter, the contents of which I could repeat here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you know what charges were stated in the indictment against her?
THE WITNESS: The indictment was the same. She was charged with having participated in all conversations which were directed against the government and by her statements and by her attitude before the Gestapo she did not leave any doubt. She was almost too courageous in stating her views which, of course, were definitely against the attitude of the Nationalist view.
THE PRESIDENT: Was you daughter ever brought to trial?
THE WITNESS: My daughter received the same indictment as I did at the end of November, 1944. It was addressed to Solf and five others.