"Shivio Tito" ( Long live Tito.)
7.) In July 1944, in a village on the rive Save, between U m k a and B e l g r a d e, the mother (a Russian emigrant) of a soldier of the 5th Russian regiment, was killed shortly after the troops had left the place, because her son served in the German Wehrmacht.
8.) In July or August 1944, in the district of Z v o n i k on the rive Drina, about 1000 Serbian children who had fled from the Croatian Ustascha after the latter had murdered the children's parents, were taken over by the 1st Russian regiment to the Eastern bank.
9.) In the middle of October 1944, the (etniks at P o z e g a (in the West of Serbia) asked for support by the German Wehrmacht, from the field-commander at T s c h a t s c h a k, Against the Tito-Brigades which advanced from the South. The IInd Battalion of the 3rd Russian regiment was entrusted with this task, and the German Liaison Officer of the Battalion, Captain F u c h s j a e g er, as well as the Russian adjutant of the Battalion, Lieutenant Dumsky, went to P o z e g a, in order to come to an agreement about further details with the Cetniks, During the negotiations, the two officers were murdered by the Cetniks.
10. ) In December 1944, near T r a v n i k i n Bosnia, a soldier of a Turkomaniac Volunteer battalion (not belonging to the Russian Corps) reported back from captivity at a Russian Battalion. After his seizure, had been compelled under threats of death, to continue fighting on the side of partisans. When he refused to do so, they kept him starving until he succeeded in escaping.
11. ) In January 1943, in the district of T r a v n i k, a boy was seized by a Russian Battalion who pretended to be a refugee, but in reality was charged by the partisans to reconnoitre the position of the Battalion.
12. ) At the beginning of March 1943, the village S e n i z a (at the railroad S a r a j e v o -B r o d) was taken by surprise by the partisans and then conquered back by the Russians.
All wounded soldiers who had stayed behind, among them a sergeant (Med. Corps) were found murdered; the partisans had out their throats.
Your Honors, under Figures 1 through 9, Pages 48 to 50, the affiant talks about excerpts from various letters which he wrote.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: At this point I think.....
DR. SAUTER: I am not offering these statements as evidence.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: And I thus deal with the objection of the Prosecution. I do not attach any importance to these statements. I shall therefore omit Pages 10, 11, and 12 until we reach Roman numeral VI, which is on Page 30 of the original.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: This then obviates the necessity of a rule upon your objection by this withdrawal of counsel for the defense.
MR. RAPP: That's right, Your Honor. I withdraw my objection.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Under Roman numeral VI, Page 50 of the original; we deal with something entirely different. We deal with the achievement of the German Wehrmacht during the occupation period, and I ask the Court to take judicial notice of this paragraph. I shall then turn to Document No, 65 on Page 51 of the original. It is contained in Geitner Document Book III. This document I shall offer under the Exhibit No. 51. This is an affidavit by the officer Prinz Schleswig-Holstein. He has already been mentioned on previous occasions. This affidavit concerns a specific point. It deals with the collection camps. The Witness Prinz Schleswig-Holstein was, according to his statement, assistant officer in the Strategic and Tactic Planning Division and later on officer for Organization problems in the Strategic and Tactic Planning Division. These service--ranks were held during the period from 12 July 1942 until January 1943. Under passage 1 on Page 51 of the original he says the following:
The so-called reprisals prisoners were kept in camps by the SS. I cannot now state, where the individual camps were situated. I remember that such camps had been established at the individual field-headquarters in the Serbian area. In these camps, such persons were assembled (therefore the term assembly--camp was also usual) who had put themselves beyond martial law, in virtue of orders given by superior offices, because they had been found as guerillas with weapons in their hands after the armistice in Jugoslavia, had been convicted of being active assistants of the armed guerrillas, had voluntarily given shelter to these before--mentioned two groups or had committed sabotage, or assisted in it respectively.
These assembly-camps were no concentration-camps in the ill-famed sense in which they had become known after the German capitulation in 1943.
2. It is known to me that outside Serbia there was such an assembly-camp at S e m l i n. There, the bulk of the hostages were kept as prisoners.
The purpose of this camp was to gather prisoners for reprisal purposes and to concentrate these persons in order to transport them to German camps.
Also this camp was merely an assembly-camp and no concentrationcamp in the present meaning.
3.) The Croatian Government had made certain promises as to the transport and catering for the camp Semlin, in summer 1942. For reasons unknown to me the promises made were not kept according to plan.
4.) The camp Semlin was under the command of the higher SS and Police-Leader.
5.) Hygienic conditions were temporarily bad in the camp Semlin, Therefore, General B a d e r had some sharp discussions with the Higher SSand Police-Leader MEYSZNER. In spite of the objections of MEYSENER, the camp was inspected by organs of the medical service of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, at the suggestion of v. GEITHER, and relief was afforded.
Later on, this was prevented by MEYSZNER.
6.) I myself had repeatedly tried to visit the camp, but did not succeed, therefore I am hot able to make any statements as to its condition.
This affidavit, given by Prinz Schleswig-Holstein on the 19th of September 1947, has been duly sworn to and certified.
DR. SAUTER? The next document should be Document No. 66 on page 54 of Document Book III von Geitner. It is an affidavit give by Dr. Heinrich Bub who has already been examined here as a witness on the witness stand and for this reason I shall withdraw this affidavit, Document No. 66, and I shall not read it.
I shall now turn to Document 67 which is contained on page 56 of Document Book III von Geitner, and I shall give this document the Exhibit No. 52. This affidavit was made by the affiant Theodor Ingensisp. He is 55 years of age, is a German national. During the occupation period, he acted in Belgrade as IIb, IIa and later as Adjutant during the period between March 1942 and August 1944. He carried out these activities for almost two-and-a-half years. The affiant during these two-and-a half years; as can be seen from his statements, was a member of the staff of the Commander for Serbia. He worked in close connection with Herr von Geitner and confirms his welfare activities and also activities in the medical sphere for the civilian population, and he also confirms adi given to the population on all other sphares, such as for the maintenance of cultural monuments and art in Serbia, etc.
I would ask the Tribunal to read these statements so that they may form an opinion on the charge which was made to Geitner that he participated in any plan concerning the enslavement and extermination of the Serbian people or the destruction of Serbian economy and culture. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these statements.
The next affidavit was given by the affiant Prinz Schleswig/Holstein, whom I have previously mentioned on several occasions. We find it on page 59 of Document Book III von Geitner and I shall offer it Under Exhibit No. 52. This affidavit -
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: It is Exhibit 53, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon--53. The number of the document is 68 and the Exhibit Number is 53. This affidavit deals with one specific case and this concerns the two reprisal orders of the fifth and sixth of January, 1943, which were signed by General von Geitner by order of the Deputy Commanding General, Major General Juppe, because at that time the Commander Bader was not presort and Major General Juppe was his deputy.
These are the same orders where, obviously, the date was copied wrongly because in the copy it said not January 1943, as it should have read, but November 1943. I had hoped to be able to submit a photostatic copy of those two orders today but I have not been able as yet to get the photo static copy from the photostat department.
Concerning these reprisal orders which we have repeatedly dealt with, the affiant, Priez Holstein, says the following in his affidavit of the 19th of September, 1947. I shall read from page 59 under passage one.
l)On 5 January 1943 and 6 January 1943 each, an order was signed by the Chief of the General Staff with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, the then Colonel in the General Staff Ritter v. Geitner that the reprisal measures which had been decreed by order of the Deputy Commanding General, Major General Juppe,should be carried out. Juppe had returned from leave on 4 January 1943 and acted as a deputy for General Bader, who was on leave. As far as I remember, Major General Phleps acted as a deputy until 13 December 1942, and from 1 January 1943 to 4 January 1943,Brigadier General Lontschar. In order to give more effect to the reprisal measures, General Bader endeavoured to have them carried out in each case immediately after the assassination of a German. resp. after the act of sabotage that had occurred.
On 4 January 1943 Major General Juppe was present at the staff at Belgrade. I cannot say whether the order for the reprisal measures was given on. this day. But what I know, is, that on 5 January 1943, the day of the dispatch of the order Ia No. 19/43 (doc. NOKW 973, Exh. 246, the instruction to that effect was given on the telephone by Major General Juppe to v. Geitner. V. Geitnar had entrusted me with the office details in regard to that order. If that instruction had not been issued, those two orders would never have been dispatched in the form that it was expressly stated that Major General Juppe had given the order for the reprisal measures. The orders would not have been countersigned by me and Colonel Schall (Ia), nor would they have been signed by v. Geitner, if the direction to carry out the reprisal measures had not been present.
The chief and Colonel Schall were strictly correct in every respect.
Then under figure 2, the affiant gives examples for Geitner's rejecting attitude towards reprisal measures and I shall road what he says under figure 2.
The 704th division proposed on 23 November 1942 to take harsher measures in the fight against the insurgents. Now we will read the Order No. Ia No. 1218/42 Secret and Ia No. 1222/42 Secret, which is doc. No. NOKW 969, Exh. 237, The chief, v. Geitner, declared himself towards me, and in my presence towards General Bader, strongly against this proposal, as soon as he was informed of that order, since, according to his attitude, he condemned measures of that kind.
And the affidavit is signed by Prinz Schleswig-Holstein. Tho affidavit has been sworn to and certified.
The next document is Document No. 69. It is contained on page 62 of the original. I shall not offer that document. It was given by the witness Gerhard Wollny who was examined here on the witness stand, and thus his affidavit has become immaterial.
The document No. 70, which is contained on page 65 of the original of Document Book III von Geitner,I shall offer under Exhibit No. 54. This is a short affidavit. The affiant is General Gullmann. He was German Plenipotentiary General in Albania during the period from 1 June 1944 to 28 August 1944. The affidavit is to prove that the Higher SS and Police. Leader in Albania was not subordinate to the Armed Forces out to the Reich Leader SS and that the Higher SS and Police Leader in Albania did not receive his directives from the Commanding General but instead from the Reich Leader SS. The affidavit by General Gullmann I recommend to judicial notice of the Tribunal. This document is being submitted with reference to a document which was produced by the prosecution and in accordance with which 300 Jews were deported from Albania.
This action had nothing to do with the Armed Forces but only with one SS Division, the Division "Skanderbeg," and this is the reason for which I offer the affidavit of General Gullmann.
The next document is No. 71, Document No. 71. It is on page 66 of the original of Gaitner Document Book III and I offer it under Exhibit No. 55. The affiant who gave this affidavit is a Colonel Brudermeuller, Hermann Brudermueller. He was a member of the Operations Department of the Armed Forces Operational Staff. He worked as an expert in this department and according to his statements his sphere of work was the Southeast. He walks about the difficult questions of subordination of the Military Commander of Serbia in relation to the Commander-in-Chief Southeast and I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this affidavit.
I shall then turn to Document No. 72 which is on page 62.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: On page 67, not 62.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Document 72 on page 67.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That is correct.
DR. SAUTER: And I shall offer this document under Exhibit No. 36. This is an affidavit by the affiant Egon Boenner. This witness, according to his statements, was the Chief of the Military Government Department with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia during the period from December 1942 to December 1943. As such, he was successor of the frequently mentioned state councillor Thurner. In his affidavit, the affiant Boenner relates some facts concerning the Serbian labor service which was at that time designated as the Serbian Reconstruction Service. The witness states in detail that this Serbian Reconstruction Service was a purely Serbian installation and that Herr von Geitner had no connection with it whatsoever. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this affidavit which is given in great detail.
The very same witness Egon Boenner has given a further affidavit which can be found under No. 38 -- I beg your pardon, under No. 73, -on page 71 of the original, of the Document Book III von Geitner. I shall offer this document under Exhibit No. 37. The affiant Boenner was, as has been mentioned, Chief of the Military Government Department with the Commanding General and Commander of Serbia from December 1942 to December 1943. He describes in this affidavit the organization of the German agencies in Belgrade and he gives a picture of the competencies of the individual agencies. It is of special importance that this man who was an expert concerning the conditions there states concerning other agencies which existed independent of the Commanding General in Belgrade.
On page 72 of the original, the witness makes some statements regarding the Higher SS and Police Leader. He makes further statements concerning the General Plenipotentiary for Economics, abbreviated GBW, and he also makes comments on the Plenipotentiary of the Foreign Office, and also concerning the propaganda department for the Southeast, and on page 72, towards the bottom of the page, he says immediately after figure e:"Due to this decentralization of the administration a uniform administration was impossible.
The Commander was actually only in charge of the most unimportant administrative branches. Above all, he had no influence on police measures, the feeding of the population and on labor allocation."
Added to this were the following facts:
"To a constantly increasing extent the insurgents blew up railway lines and destroyed lines of communications. Serbian officials were killed, kidnapped or threatened by them. They forbade the population to turn in their wheat and the like to the Serbian government. They stole foodstuffs prepared for delivery. Many cases are known to me where German soldiers were shot from ambush. I remember one attack on a unit of the Organization Todt. The Commander of this unit then burned down houses or a village in the vicinity. General Bader thereupon instituted courtmartial proceedings against this officer."
I don't want to read the last sentence; I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this and I wish to stress that this affidavit also has been duly sworn to and certified. A further affidavit, which is Document 74 on page 74 of Document Book Geitner III, I shall offer under Exhibit No. 58. In this affidavit the same affiant Boenner, Chief of the Department Military Administration, with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, deals specifically with the activities of the defendant von Geitner which he observed from own experiences. I shall skip the first two sentences under paragraph a and I shall then start to read the following:
"The Commander had above all no influence on police measures, feeding and provisioning of the population and the labor allocation, v. Geitner has criticized these evils most severely. I can testify that he reported them to the Commander and also demanded from the superior offices in severe reports and telegrams to change these conditions.
v. Geitner was a declared follower of conciliatory policy towards the Serbs and was on the opinion that the occupation should weigh as lightly as possible on them. He never directed me to proceed severely against the Serbs.
"von. Geitner was in sharp personal opposition to the Plenipotentiary General for Economics (GBW) and the Higher SS and Police Leader. He considered these two persons responsible for the unfortunate conditions. In my presence he called them "Liars, profiteers, criminals etc.," "I informed v. Geitner of a communication, given to me by the Serb Minister of the Interior Dinic, that Bulgarian soldiers had committed excesses against the Serbian population.
Von Geitner then protested most severely to the responsible Bulgarian offices in regard to these incidents.
"I have often heard v. Geitner say that the German military forces were much to weak to guarantee peace in Serbia.
"I know v. Geitner as an extremely correct officer who lived modestly and in a reserved manner; I can not believe that he was ordered or covered any cruelties or that, in regard to the shooting of hostages, he has influenced General Bader unfavorably."
This affidavit also has been duly sworn to and certified by a Camp Officer. I shall then turn to Document No. 73 which we find on page 76 of the original of Document Book III von Geitner. I shall offer this Document under Exhibit No. 39. This is an affidavit by Dr. Joerg-Wilhelm Hammer who has already given the affidavit No. 33 which is the first document in Document Book III. This Dr. Hammer was the leading medical officer with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia from 10 April 1932 until 1 September 1933. Dr. Hammer describes in Document No. 73 the efforts of the German administration and, above all, of Herr von Geitner concerning the medical care for the Serbian population.
I recommend these statements to the judicial notice of the Tribunal. The document has been duly sworn to and certified. I shall now turn to document No. 76. This is an affidavit given by the affiant Erwin Branmueller. This affidavit is contained on page 79 of the original of Document Book III von Geitner and I shall offer it under Exhibit No. 60. In this affidavit, Document No. 76, Exhibit 60, the affiant Erwin Braunmueller describes the efforts on the part of the German administration in Serbia, which were also the efforts of the defendant von Geitner, to better the economic conditions in Serbia. They also tried to keep the destruction at the withdrawal of the German troops from Serbia at a minimum and to avoid them if at all possible.
This affidavit is offered as a contribution for the opinion of the Tribunal concerning the assertion of the Prosecution that a plan existed for the extermination of the Serbian people and for the destruction of Serbian economy. This affidavit is to show the Tribunal that even at the time when the German troops withdrew from Serbia, everything was done to avoid destruction as far as these were not an absolute military necessity. The affidavit is further to show that the charge made by the prosecution could more justly be made against the partisan units because of their sabotage acts than against von Geitner. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this affidavit. It has been duly sworn to and certified.
The next affidavit is concerned with economic problems. This is Document No. 77. It is contained on page 83 of the original of Document Book III von Geitner and I shall offer it under Exhibit No. 61. This is an affidavit given by the affiant Keyser who on the basis of his activities in the Balkans has a clear insight into the economic conditions in the Balkans.
He was in a position to have insight on the increase of the economic situation. He was also in a position to make statements concerning the destruction made through the sabotage acts of the partisans. On page 87, in the last passage of his affidavit, he summarizes his impression, I shall therefore read this last sentence on page 87 of the original, which reads as follows:
"The examples show that, contrary to the assertions of the prosecution, measures for the protection of the economic potential and the economic order wore taken by the Germans, even at the cost of sacrificing German blood. This aim was continuously interfered with by the insurgents, especially those of the coal mines, are bound to have far-reaching consequences for the peace-time economy."
The next document is a very brief document. It is given by General Gullmann, whom we have previously mentioned; and who was active as Commanding General in Albania, Document 78, contained on page 88 of the original of the document book III for Geitner, I shall offer under Exhibit 62. This document is. to prove that the German Wehrmacht did everything in its power to help the civilian population. The affiant, General Gullmann, who was German Plenipotentiary General in Albania, was subordinate to the Military Commander Southeast, and worked under his directives. The following document, the Document 79, contained on page 90 of the original document book III for Geitner, will be offered under Exhibit 63. This is an excerpt from Document NOKW 1412, which is the War Diary of the Commanding General and Commander Serbia. This again is to show the care which was given to the Serbian civilian population. This is to be proved from one specific example -
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I am merely asking if Dr. Sauter could clean up something for me. In the index this document is referred to as an excerpt of Document NOKW 1412. On page 90 it is referred to as an extract from NOKW 1942. I would like to ask Dr. Sauter which one of these two documents he has reference to, so that we may make corrections accordingly.
DR. SAUTER: Just a moment, please, while I check on it.
JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Just a moment, please. May it please the Tribunal, in the German version it reads, on page 90, as it should, "Extract from Document NOKW 1412." In the English Version it is Very strange that in place of the figure 1512 it gives the figure 1942. I would like the Tribunal to make a. correction here. It should read 1412, extract from NOKW 1412. The figure 1942 was obviously put down when the document was copied by the English typist and mistakenly taken for the figure 1952. It is given further below in which it reads War Diary of Commander in Chief and Commander in Serbia, November 1952." This is a typographical error in the English.
JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal has noted the discrepancy, and has corrected the record accordingly in the English document book. The correction has been made.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Your Honor. The last document in Document Book III for Geitner is Document 80. We find this on page 92 of the original, and this document will be offered under Exhibit 65. This again is an excerpt from the repeatedly mentioned German Army Manual for the General, Staff in wartime, the so-called "Red Donkey". This excerpt reproduces the provisions concerning the so-called executive power. Those articles of the service regulations arc offered in order to shout the Tribunal that executive power was bound to the holder of it. That is the person who held judicial authority, and that this power cannot be transferred. These excerpts arc further to prove that the Chief of Staff, in accordance with the provisions, is not responsible for orders regarding executive power, because other officials, according to the regulations are responsible for this. Further, there was in Serbia a special Chief of the Administration Staff with whom the Commander would have had to confer. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this article of the Service Regulations, which has already been mentioned in another connection. May it please the Tribunal, this for the moment finishes my presentation of documents concerning the case of the defendant Geitner. I have already stated there will be one further document book in one or two volumes. This document book is being translated at the present, and has not yet been submitted. This further document book deals with two specific points. One, with the War Diaries, which we received from Washington, and two, with a detailed attitude on the part of von Geitner concerning all those documents, which during the course of these proceedings have been connected with him.
However, I do not wish to bring all these documents in detail here. I therefore ask the Tribunal to allow me to reserve the right to reproduce these documentary points at a later date to the Tribunal as evidence. If at that time the prosecution wishes to cross-examine Herr von Geitner concerning these further documents, I am, of course, in agreement with this procedure.
MR. RAPPL: Your Honor, I examined the two affidavits which are given by the defendant Geitner in Document Book IV, and I have no objection, in order to same time, that they be introduced at the convenience of Dr. Sauter. However, the document book, as such, should not be considered admitted despite the fact that Dr. Sauter says that is all the document book contains. It does contain other matters, and if and when Dr. Sauter decides to introduce that book I will deal with it at that time.
JUDGE BURKE: Is that satisfactory for the presentation of your material, Dr. Sauter? It seems logical? Very well.
DR. SAUTER: I now conclude the presentation of my documentary evidence.
MR. RAPPL: Your Honor, I have only one question -- I would like to ask Dr. Sauter, when he intends, as far as his presentation of the case where Geitner is concerned, to submit the additional document book. Just to avoid that we may have to go back to the Geitner case again.
JUDGE BURKE: Obviously he can't present them until he has them.
MR. RAPPL: Well, that is quite clear to me, Your Honor, but I cm pointing out the fact that if these documents are delayed for an appreciable amount of time, we would have to come back again to Geitner, and to cross-examine on matters which are contained in these document books. I am not trying to find out if it is a matter of today or tomorrow or a matter of practically weeks. That is my question.
JUDGE BURKE: Would you be able to throw any light on this, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: This morning I am afraid I shall not have those two document books available, because they are still being translated. But I should imagine it would be the same procedure as was used in the other trials. I am afraid it will not be possible in this trial to avoid the fact that there will be further documents submitted delayed for one or the other defendants, which came in later or which at least were not translated when the case was presented. This document book IV for Geitner will be translated at this later date, and then can be presented at this later date, and at that point the prosecution will be in a position to deal with it, and I am afraid it will be the same with all the defendants.
JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter, has the Document Book to which you refer passed through the regular channels and is it now in the process of translation and mimeographing?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
JUDGE BURKE: Very well. The Tribunal will recess at this time until 1:30.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours)
JUDGE BURKE: We will proceed.
DR.SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal, I have finished my examination of the defendant von Geitner.
JUDGE BURKE: Very well, Mr. Sauter.
Cross-examination, Mr. Rapp?
MR. RAPP: Yes, your Honor, if the Tribunal please, I would possibly suggest that the defense counsel might like to ask some other questions of the defendant von Geitner first.
JUDGE BURKE: Do any of the other defense counsel wish to interrogate the witness von Geitner?
MR. RAPP: In the Tribunal pleases, the marshal should be instructed to call the defendant von Geitner on the witness stand.
JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
MR. RAPP: Does the Tribunal consider the witness Geitner still under oath?
JUDGE BURKE: Of course.
CURT RITTER von GEITNER CROSS -EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, you stated that you were removed as leader of an SA Brigade in the year 1934 on account of your demonstrated lack of political philosophy towards the National Socialist movement, is that correct.
A. No. that I said was that as the leader of the Standarte I was dismissed or removed. I remained in the SA, and I retained my rank which I had been given shortly before then, and the addition was made ZV, at the disposal. But I was no longer used as the leader of a unit. The reason given at the time was that I was, as the leader of an SA unit, not suitable.
Q. For lack of sympathy towards the National Socialistic cause, is that right?
A. I was a member of the old German National Party, a member of the Stahlhelm , Steel Helmet, and not a tested national socialist.
Q. Very well. Now, witness, in this Document I, Ex. I, which was submitted on your behalf, six affiants stated you were relieved of this position 6 February 1934, for lack of sympathy for the National Socialistic cause, is that right?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. You further stated that you entered the Nazi party with the effective date as of May 1, 1937?
A. I joined the party with a retroactive date as from May 1, 1937.
Q. Very well. Now, you also stated that as one of the reasons for joining the Nazi Party, you gave the success of that party to do away with the awful unemployment problem; did you make that statement?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. In other words, when you entered the Nazi party the problem of unemployment was already solved to a very great degree at that time, if I understand you right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the way Hitler solved the unemployment problem of the Nazi Party impressed you to such a degree that you thereupon voluntarily joined the party; am I right in understanding that?
A. First, it wasn't really voluntarily, because there was a certain amount of pressure from the point of my position as plant manager, which was used by the Ortsgruppenleiter, for exercising pressure, and secondly, the reason which you have just mentioned, I have mentioned myself, made this decision easier for me, because I knew the misery in Germany, namely the misery caused by unemployment , above all in a small town in a densely populated but very poor district, and I saw in the elimination of employment, the main problem of that period, when in 1932 and 1933 about six million people were in the streets.
Q. I certainly don't want you to restrain yourself to answer any and all questions --
JUDGE BURKE: Any restraint to be placed upon the witness will be placed upon him by the Tribunal. If you have any objection to make either as to his response or to the methods employed by the witness, you communicate that to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, if it sees fit will admonish the witness.
MR. RAPP: Very well, Your Honor, I have no objection as far as the witness testimony is concerned, I merely want to control the witness so he won't run off and we may possibly make better progress in time that way. I asked him a very specific question, and I don't want him to get into all these points.
JUDGE BURKE: Well, if he considered the question of sufficient importance to give a detailed answer,that is his privilege.
MR. RAPP: Very well.
Q. You may continue witness.
A. On the other hand I wish to state that also in the United States the most frightful unemployment prevailed, and that that unemployment was eliminated at that time by completely new methods which up to then had never been used in the United States, namely under the New Deal, and if anyone tackled that problem in Germany , the the unemployment had become much more acute than in the rich United States, and the more widely populated states, and if one saw this - and I myself had to suffer from it in my own firm, because on account of the bad business of my clients I had to reduce labor temporarily, one had to see in the removal of unemployment a success.
Q. Did it ever occur to you, witness, at that time, that the unemployment problem was largely solved because Germany was preparing for aggressive war?
A. No, no. As far as I was concerned no aggressive war was prepared for. As far as I was concerned Germany was put into a position where she could defend herself.
I never recommended an aggressive war or was enthusiastic about an aggressive war. In the rearmament of that period I saw nothing but the possibility for Germany to defend herself.
Q. Very well, witness, now just answer the question as to whether or not you realized that the unemployment problem was solved through rearmament; whether it was for a defensive or an aggressive war , we will forget for the time.
A. No, that also is not correct. All other possible achievements were made, the Reich Autobahn and the Reich highways were built, which had little to do with military matters. Furthermore, a system was introduced in Germany to promote export by voting bonuses for export, whereby on the one hand for every export you had to pay a certain amount of money, and on the other hand expert prices were kept low. In other words, it was not rearmament alone which made all this possible.