The question contains a number of facts. Now, what did you mean when you said, "I have heard it"?
A That applies to the fact that Jews in Hungary were being herded together, as it is put here, but I wasn't told about it in that form. What I was told was that they had been called up by the Jewish Labor Service. Nor was any reference made their being taken to a camp at the time.
Q And what did you now wish to express -- what did you want to say?
AAll I wanted to say was that Hungarians had told me that Jews were being sent from Hungary to Germany to work in armament enterprises. That is all I knew at the time.
Q Did you know more than that at the time?
A No, I did not know any more.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
If the Tribunal please, may I have a piece of advise? Shall I put this in an envelope and address it to someone, or shall I just submit it like that?
THE PRESIDENT: Just hand it to me, if you will.
It appears in the English translation of Mr. Robbins' question, these words: "And then sent to Auschwitz." In the German version of the question, which is taken from the sound track, the word Auschwitz does not appear at all. It says, "to a camp" -- "in ein lager." The word "Auschwitz" does not appear at all. But when we get the English translation of it, it says, "and then sent to Auschwitz." But in both versions, the English and the German, the words, "to be gassed", in English, and "vergast wurden", in German, appear.
DR. GAWLIK: But perhaps I might draw your attention to the fact that the witness said, first of all, "No", which is contained in the English text. "No." First of all he answered the question in the negative, completely.
THE PRESIDENT: And the same in the German.
DR. GAWLIK: Quite. He wanted to say, first of all - "No." And then he gave a few explanations of what he had heard. I would also like to draw your Honor's attention to the fact that the difficulties are those of the translation. I am quite aware that the translators are doing extremely difficult work, but that is what some times bring these misunderstandings about. But in this case it is quite clear that the answer was, first of all, "No."
THE PRESIDENT: I think we understand the situation now, thoroughly. Entirely.
No further questions of this witness?
DR. GAWLIK: No further questions, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may leave the witness stand.
(The witness was excused)
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, this, for the time being, is the end of my case on behalf of Dr. Bobermin. I would like to reserve the right to submit a document book which is now with the translation section.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will hear the defense of the defendant Klein.
DR. BERGOLD: If the Tribunal please, I have been informed that the document book of Klein has been distributed in the English language. I would like to make quite sure whether it is before the Tribunal already.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have it.
DR. BERGOLD: Then I would ask permission to hear, first of all, witness Wintermayr.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring to the witness stand, the witness Leonhard Wintermayr.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, before the witness Wintermayr is brought to the stand I should like to direct the Tribunal to the ruling on the relevance of his proposed testimony. As I understand it, according to the notice that the defense have put in he will testify that convicts are incarcerated in German jails, and that moneys are placed in a fund for their benefit, for them, which will be paid to them at the end of their sentence, at the rate of 50 pfennigs a day.
If I understand that to be -- if my understanding is correct, it seems to the prosecution that there isn't any relevancy to this testimony. I don't see any bearing on the issues in this case. Perhaps an offer of proof on the part of defense counsel would clear up the matter.
DR. BERGOLD: If the Tribunal please, I have called this witness for two reasons. First of all, to show that in Germany - since the days of the kingdoms and empires, the days of the Weimar Republic, of the Third Reich, and today, prisoners must work - first of all; and secondly, have no claim to be paid in wages. That, rather, the wages for prisoner paid by factories, for instance, are to be paid to the prison, and that the inmate, on a basis, receives a sort of bonus; in the old days, 18 pfennigs, and 30 pfennigs, and today - because the standard of living is more expensive, is paid 50 pfennigs voluntarily. That money is never being paid out to them, and he receives it only, again, on a voluntary basis, without a legal claim on the day of their dismissal. As I have been informed, the Court always seems to be interested in the fact that concentration camp inmates became slave labor inasmuch as they did not receive any pay for their work.
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking now of persons who have been convicted of a crime by the testimony of witnesses in a competent court, and sentenced to prison.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: That group doesn't interest us at all. The same is true in the United States, of prisoners sent to penitentiaries. They are not paid wages. And their labor is used on public institutions, for road building, for clearing trees, and that sort of thing. Whatever Germany wanted to do with persons who were convicted of criminal offenses does not concern this Tribunal. That is entirely Germany's business. We are interested in the labor that was procured from persons who were picked up by the Gestapo, or the security police, and the Gestapo officer signs an order of commitment, and they go into a concentration camp for an indefinite period, and those required to work.
Now, that may change your plan about the witness Wintermayr.
DR. BERGOLD: If the Tribunal please, I'd like to add one point I want to prove, if the Court accepts that, that Germany always handled it in this manner, I don't need this witness; but the regulation applicable in concentration camps was the general regulation which was always existent for prisoners in Germany. A concentration camp inmate also was regarded in Germany as a prisoner in that sense.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal is prepared to concede that it has always been the law in Germany that persons convicted of crimes amy be imprisoned and compelled to work without pay; and that violates no rule of international law. That doesn't cover the case of the Hungarian Jews, to quote the most recent example, or the Poles, or the Russian prisoners, who were never convicted. They were simply gathered up.
DR. BERGOLD: I understand. I see your opinion entirely; but wet thought that the Court and the prosecution would regard the employment of prisoners without wages as a crime because in Germany--and that I shall prove by my second witness--people who had committed an offense were committed to concentration camps, rather than coming up before a Court, that was a special procedure. That was a sort of cabinet justice. For the rest, this witness could testify that people in protective custody were also treated in the same manner. They also have to work, but they were not paid. I'm talking about persons who are still being investigated about their offense pending trial before their being sentenced.
THE PRESIDENT: If the investigation goes on for years?
DR. BERGOLD: They still have to work. But, of course, it doesn't last for years. A normal investigation might last nine months, perhaps.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, just nine months?
DR. BERGOLD: If the Court accepts it that the same applies to people in custody before their trial, I don't need the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, Dr. Bergold, we do not regard a man -6O32 as being lawfully convicted who has never had a chance to defend himself.
I mean a man who is arrested today by the Gestapo, the RSHA, the SIPO, and before moon an order of commitment is signed and he goes to a concentration camp; no formal accusation is ever made; he has no chance to defend himself; he is convicted by the signature of his accuser, the policeman. We can't regard him as a, person who is lawfully convicted of a crime or lawfully imprisoned.
DR. BERGOLD: I am afraid only, your Honors, that in that point you have a misconception of the manner in which somebody was committed to a concentration camp in Germany. I as a lawyer can tell you that in all cases when somebody was committed to a concentration camp, let us say because people who opposed the Third Reich made remarks, there were always investigations. The accused person was interrogated; witnesses were questioned, only there was no court. A report was made, and then the RSHA made its decision. It was what I would call cabinet justice, a procedure with the exclusion of the public; but it was some sort of procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all right, but you don't mean to tell me, Dr. Bergold, that all of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were picked up from the East were given a hearing?
THE PRESIDENT: That's all right, but you don't mean to tell me, Dr. Bergold, that all of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were picked up from the East were given a hearing?
DR. BERGOLD: No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about my case where happily I don't have to talk about the Jews at all. I'm only talking from the point of view of my small case, Klein. In this case the question of the Jews does not play a part in this special case. You are quite right about it otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you'd better call your witness; but when you question him have in mind what the Tribunal has already said as to Germany's right to require convicted persons to work without pay.
DR. BERGOLD: Of course, your Honor, I can only ask him about that point. That's all he knows about. I don't need the witness if you accept the other thing.
THE PRESIDENT: We do.
DR. BERGOLD: Then I shall forego calling this witness.
MR. ROBBINS: I take it from what Dr. Bergold has said that the witness is not an expert on the manner in which people were put into concentration camps and that there is no concession about that and that he was not going to testify that inmates would someday be paid.
DR. BERGOLD: No, he was to speak only about the general regulations in Germany, not about conditions in concentration camps.
THE PRESIDENT: You needn't call him.
DR. BERGOLD: Then I should like to call witness Helga von Rouppert.
HELGA VON ROUPPERT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Will you raise your right hand and repeat after me, please:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated, please.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, before you answer my questions will you please wait a few moments so that the interpreter into English can translate my question into English, and question and answer will not then be confused. Will you please give us your full name?
A. Helga von Rouppert.
Q. When were you born?
A. 1st of May 1907.
Q. Where?
A. In Arnsberg, in Westphalia.
Q. Are you married, or are you a, widow?
A. I'm a widow. My husband was the victim of political persecution. He shot himself lest he be sentenced to death.
Q. Are you the sister of defendant Horst Klein?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, what was your father's position and what was his attitude towards the Party?
A. My father since 1910 was a district councillor in Westphalia. He was opposed to the Party from the beginning. This attitude became more intense as the years went on. In 1933 when he had to make up his mind between the NSDAP and the Communist chaos, he regarded the Party as the smaller evil.
Q. Did he join the Party thereupon, and, if so, why?
A. He joined the Party in 1933. His superior officer, Baron von Oehenhausen, who was the regional president of the Minden area, appealed to the sense of duty of his District councillors not to leave their posts. They were to co-operate. This was to prevent its happening that people who were not experts would fill their posts. The Minden area was regarded in our part of the country as reactionary and as that area in which the measures of the Party were least popular.
Q. Thank you. Did your father get into trouble politically?
A. He had enormous difficulties with political bosses in his district. Kreisleiter Horn was the civil servant in that area and my father regarded him as the laziest and most incompetent official.
Q. Did your father not have intentions to resign, and why didn't he do so?
A. He wanted to resign on a number of occasions. He believed frequently that he was no longer equal to the struggle. On the ether hand, he regarded the work in this district as the task of his life. He did not wish to hand it over to a Nazi who was Nazi 150%. For that reason people under him also asked him to remain on his Post. When he celebrated his 30th Service Anniversary in 1939 he wanted to be pensioned off. At that time the President of Westphalia. Freiherr von Luening, implored him to remain so that everything would remain the same in that district. Apart from those declarations it would not have been possible for my father to be idle and it would have been extremely difficult for him to find anything else at that age.
Q. To interpolate here, witness, the higher President of Westphalia, Freiherr von Luening, whom you just mentioned, was one of the victims of 20 July 1944.
A. Yes, I heard from his cousin, Freiherr von Troste, that he had been hanged.
Q. Witness, now can you tell me why your brother joined the Party?
A. In 1933 my brother believed that the Party was the only salvation between us, general collapse, and Communist chaos. After the German people party had decided in favor of the Party he thought it his duty to collaborate. He told me frequently that many decent people joined the Party as counter-balance to the Radical elements. Furthermore, he would have been unable to complete his training as a lawyer if he had not joined the Party.
Q. Can you tell me why your brother joined the SS?
A. In our area the SS was regarded then as the best formation of the Party.
They accepted only people with blameless pasts and blameless characters. It was unlike the SA. The SA had many people with criminal records and unsuccessful elements. My brother at that time was an enthusiastic motorcyclist. In his spare time he built little engines. At that time a motorized unit was formed in our part of the country and it was my brother's hope to find friends there who would share his sport enthusiasm. Moreover, he had to be in some formation in order to be allowed to take his legal examination. Among the existing possibilities, the SS motorized unit seemed to be the best to us.
Q. How long was he in service with the SS and why did he terminate his service there?
A. In 1934 my brother had a crash on his motorbike when on an official trip. He fractured his skull. It took him years to get over the consequences of this crash. Any other service was quite impossible for him and he needed his entire strength in order to complete his legal training.
Q. In other words from 1934 he did not do any service in the SS as such?
A. No.
Q. Is it true that your brother wanted to become a civil servant?
A. My brother wanted to follow our family's tradition. He wanted to join the Administration. He tried to be taken over after the examination by the Administrative Service. The official concerned in the Ministry of Interior turned him down although he passed the examination with flying colors. The reason given to my father was that the official did not regard my father as quite safe politically from the point of view of the Party and that is why he thought my brother was also unsuitable. All my brother could have done then would have been to have joined the traditional Administration or wait until trained as a Judge.
Q. Why did he not choose that career, as a Judge, I mean?
A. He knew from the time of his studies that the Party interfered very heavily with the traditional Administration in Germany.
He was afraid that he would not be an independent man.
Q. What were his plans, then, as to his career?
A. He then attempted to get a job in industry. Young legal men were very frequent in those days and positions to be found were poorly paid. They offered him a job in the industrial area but told him he had to wait for a year and in the intermediate periof of time he accepted a position for a mere pittance. But, he could not get on in that position. He suddenly heard that the position which he had been promised had been given the nephew of one of the directors. He wanted to earn money as quickly as possible in order to assist my father. Legal training takes a long time and he wanted to become independent at last. He looked in newspaper advertisements to find something and when a Munich lawyer advertised he answered. That lawyer was looking for an assistant with a good future. That is how he joined the company for the care of German cultural monuments.
Q. Now, when your father heard that this company for the promotion of German cultural monuments was connected with the SS did he advise him not to join?
A. Yes. When my father heard that the company was connected with the SS he advised him not to join it. He did not like the idea of my brother being dependent on the Party, but my brother did not regard this position as something final. He was only too glad to find something and not be a burden to my father any more.
Q. Tell me what was the attitude your brother took at the time about the SS?
A. My brother regarded it at that time as an organization of decent people who were full of chivalry and comradeship and readiness to help. Their past was blameless and they were prepared and ready to serve their fatherland as well as possible. He told me that the aims of the SS would be to organize the best crean of Germany, for instance, university professors, scientists, and so on, anybody with something to their credit.
Q. Were you surprised when he told you that wasn't at all the opinion of the people toward the SS?
A. No. I was told so at the time. I heard very often in our part of the country that the SS was the best organization and manh people in our region joined the SS when they joined the Party. I even heard that it was hoped the SS would take measures to bring order into other formations, the SA or political leaders.
Q. Did your brother later have misgivings to the SS or to whom were these misgivings directed?
A. My brother saw the Party was going in the direction which he did not wish to see. He became extremely annoyed about the increasing corruption and bossiness of the Party members. He frequently told me, excesses in the first time he regarded as influence of evil persons but as time went on he believed that intelligent people would direct matters into sensible channels and also believed that extreme elements would be eliminated more and more. He also believed the frequent attacks and threats contained in the Fuehrer's Speech and addressed against our class, the middle class and the intellectuals would cease as time want on. My brother was deeply disappointed because the first extreme elements who usually disappear after revolution remained in power so long. He told me frequently that he was glad to see that the SS did not expect him to do anything for which he could not answer.
Q. As I gain from your testimony I am inclined to say he had no misgivings against the SS.
A. No, but had misgivings against the general mind taken by the Party.
Q. Is that the reason why he once wanted to resign from the SS because he had misgivings against the Party, not the SS?
A. Misgivings against the Party as such, but not against the SS. He told me because he did not regard the Party as the proper basis for his work that he wanted to leave it.
Q. Did somebody give him a piece of advice in that respect?
A. Yes. He discussed that with Freiherr von Dehenhausen the President of Minden area, and he told me that he had told him what should become of things if all decent people would leave the SS. He should make the sacrifice and remain with the SS.
Q. If the Tribunal please I shall now come to a different subject. Perhaps this is a suitable time for the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Very suitable. You asked that we will recess until 2 P.M. Dr. Bergold? We will resume at 2 instead of 15 minutes to 2 as usual.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1400 Hours.
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HELGA VON ROUPPERT - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued.
BY DR. BERGOLD: (Counsel for defendant Klein)
Q. Witness, just what attitude did you brother maintain with regard to the well-known persecution of Jews in November, 1938?
A. My brother was terribly disgusted by this action, and he thought that this action was completely irresponsible from the humane point of view and the political point of view also.
Q. And what was the attitude of your father with regard to that action?
A. My father was also horrified and extremely shocked. At that time he was staying in Berlin in the course of an official journey. When he returned home and saw what happened he had a severe heart attack of angina pectoris.
Q. Could your brother see from these happenings, and didn't he have to draw the conclusion from them, that now the time had come for him to leave the SS?
A. No; he told me that fortunately the SS had nothing whatsoever to do with these happenings. He told me that he heard in Berlin that Himmler had been horrified and that he had been extremely enraged when he had heard about those things. He held the Minister of Propaganda responsible for what had happened. I could confirm this view because at Duesseldorf, where I resided at the time, I heard that the action in Duesseldorf had been ordered by the District Propagandist, Dr. Bauers.
Q. Witness, when the war broke out, did your brother give any indication to you that he wanted to fight in the war in the SS?
A. No. My brother did not want to serve in the SS during the war; he wanted to go to the Wehrmacht.
Q. Is it correct that he volunteered as an artillery observer? And why did he do that?
A. He volunteered for a special training course at Muenster in order to be assigned to an army unit. He hoped in this way that he would be released from his agency in Berlin. However, the agency did not release him.
Q. Why did he want to withdraw from his previous activity?
A. He told me that he did not feel at ease in the atmosphere which prevailed in the Berlin Agency. He felt that he was quite isolated there, and he did not have any friends there.
Q Thank you, Witness. What attitude did your brother have toward the war, after the outbreak of the war?
A My father and my brother considered the war to be an insanity. They were not convinced of its necessity at all. My father considered the war to be the result of the incapability of Ribbentrop to handle foreign affairs. Furthermore, he believed that this was the only possibility for the Party to find a way out of the economic policy in which it was engaged and about which my father was extremely distrustful.
Q Now, tell me, Witness, is it correct that within the house of your father's a certain circle formed itself, which held a certain attitude with regard to the NSDAP?
A Yes, in the house of my father several people would visit who maintained a very negative attitude towards the Party and they would have open discussions in the house of my father and they voiced their extreme worry about the future of Germany.
Q Who belonged to the circle of your father?
A First of all, my father himself, my husband, my brother, a friend of the family, Dr. Hugo Bresser, another friend, a painter, by the name of Dr. Schmitz-Siedenbroeck, and the secretary of my father, Frauelein Wolf and sometimes the Graf Sponeck and Freiherr von Gutenau and both of them were aircraft commanders.
Q What was the general attitude of the circle?
A In the circle the Fuehrer was considered as a person who would bring about the downfall of the German Reich. Dr. Bresser would call him a devilish fool. He was considered to be the grave digger of the German Reich. My father talked about the corruption of the administration as a result of positions held by incapable party men.
Q And your husband?
A My husband told us about his experiences during the war, about the irresponsible leadership with regard to the campaign in Russia, about his judgment of the situation in the West.
Q And Graf Sponeck?
A Graf Sponeck and Freiherr von Gutenau had frequently been invited to see Goering in their capacity as aircraft commanders and they talked about the unbelievable luxury he was living in and about his adventurous uniforms, and the way he strutted around.
Q Can you tell me, is it correct that Herr Bresser whom you just mentioned was sentenced to death because of his attitude toward the Third Reich?
A Yes. Dr. Bresser was tried and the People's Court sentenced him to death.
Q That is sufficient here. And Graf Sponeck, is it true that he was sent to a concentration camp?
A Graf Sponeck was confined to jail and after the 20th of July he was shot.
Q You said that a Professor Schmitz had also belonged to your circle. Will you please tell us about what this man told about the plans of Hitler; although this is not part of the trial, actually it is so interesting that perhaps the Tribunal would be interested to hear about it.
A Professor Schmitz-Siedenbroeck was regularly invited for the opening of the Art Exhibition in Munich. In the evening in a small circle, the Fuehrer and Goebbels would be together with the artists. Professor Schmitz told us in summer 1943, to our greatest horror, that the Fuehrer had ordered work to be begun on the plans for his tomb stone. First of all he had given the assignment to the scientists and they were assigned to find the necessary construction materials.
He was very mad when it was not possible for him to have the pavement started right away at the locality, since the African campaign was so unsuccessful. Now he wanted to find some material which was just as durable and which would last for thousands of years. He had prohibited that concrete would be used.
He didn't want that afterwards in the ruines any iron parts would stick out in the air. He had given an order that great emphasis should be placed on the fact that the beauty of the ruins should be given consideration.
Q Will you come beck again to the extent of the plans.
A This monument was to be erected in Munich at the corner of the Feldherrnhalle and Ludwigstrasse. It was to be so great that it could be seen from the top of the German Alps and that it could be sighted from the entire Bavarian Valley. An artificial road was to be laid so the railways and highways and streets were to be on top of each other and big structures were to be constructed and a big elevator a big obilisk on the part of the structure was to be supported by a large round structure and in this round structure there were to be archways and in the archways there were to be statues which were to symbolize one district. In each case, I also know that he figured out that the height of this statue would be as high as the Landarte Church in Muenster. This would be approximately 50 metres high.
Q That is sufficient, Witness.
A This was in summer of 1943.
Q And all these things were discussed in your circle?
A Yes.
Q What was your brother's attitude towards this?
A My brother confirmed our discussions by reports which he gave us from his own experiences.
Q Did your brother in 1942 receive the order to look after the fate of a Jew by the name of Kohn and what information did he receive on that occasion?
A Kohn was an employee of Dr. Bresser at the time, he was deported, supposedly to Theresienstadt. Dr. Bresser asked my brother to try to get some information about him. My brother told us that the Jews were to be interned for the duration of the war. After all most of them had relatives abroad or they had business contacts abroad.
After all, here we had the danger of them being used as spies, and after all, it would take a whole army of soldiers in order to watch them individually.
Q Did you have the impression from the statements of your brother that the Jews were to be sent into a concentration camp or an internment camp?
A Yes, into an internment camp, like all enemy nations.
Q Is ti correct that your brother was to find out something about Theresienstadt upon the request of Dr. Bresser and what did he find out about it?
A Yes, my brother told me that in the course of one of the trips he had passed in the vicinity of Theresienstadt. He had inquired there and he received the information that there was not a camp at all at Theresienstadt.
Q Witness, in August, 1943, did you discuss with your brother the rumor with regard to the high mortality rate of the Jews and what knowledge did your brother have about that?
A My brother told me that in accordance with the desire of Dr. Bresser who still wanted to find out about the fate of Herr Kohn, he had gone to see somebody at the highest agency to which he had access and this agency should have had some information about the fate of Herr Kohn, and he was told that everything was nonsense. Apparently he had been a victim of the foreign propaganda and he was told to be careful; apparently he was listening to too many foreign radio broadcasts and he was warned not to spread around stories of that kind.
Q Witness, I want to go back once more in my questioning, because it has been pointed out to me that the translation was not quite clear. Did you mean to say that your brother inquired about Herr Kohn with the highest agency he had access to, or about the fate of the Jews?
A He inquired about the fate of the Jews and he inquired whether the rumors which were going around about the Jews were actually true.
Q What impression did you have about the information which your brother conveyed to you? Did he believe it and did you also believe it?
A Yes, we discussed it afterwards that this information we had received had to be true, because he had received it from an SS agency and there was no reason that SS comrades should lie to each other.