DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Am I correct.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, that is the conclusion.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. BERGOLD: Because Hitler's Regime was approved of.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Would you say then that the German people approved of the war in all its phases.
DR. BERGOLD: Well, this is a two-fold question. I can decide in favor of a certain regime, a Totalitarian regime, and therefore accept the laws which are made by this regime. But this does not mean that I approve and that it is a different matter -- if such regime suddenly ask a war and thus commits crimes. What is concerned here is the form of the legal procedure, Your Honor, and it is only legal procedure that Mr. Holmes talks about. The question you raise here is a different matter, namely, certain kind of deeds done by this regime; the totalitarian form was approved of and a totalitarian government will permit such acts. But that you can see in Russia; war and carrying out of crime is not concerned here. Even a totalitarian regime can be handled in a decent manner. May I remind you that in ancient days tyrants appeared who were benefactors of their race. My legal procedure, I can approve of and use it to a good purpose or to a bad purpose. I can even abuse Democracy.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Bergold, all of this results because of a war. If there had been no war there would have been no occupation of Germany, there would have been no trial such as the one in which we are participating. You have stated that the Tribunal cannot inquire into Police Procedure, because the German people approved of the Government, and, therefore, the Police Procedure, but since we would not have bean here if there had not been a war, then it is interesting to know, because of your arguments whether the German people approved of the ware If the German people approved of the war, and all the consequences which flowed from the initiation of a war, then certainly the German people cannot complain, because of the procedure which followed.
As you have indicated, there was an unconditional surrender; and, therefore, they would have been amenable to whatever followed justly. If the German people didn't approve of the war, then it is in their interest that an impartial Tribunal inquires into the abuses which were committed by their rulers.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, the manner in which you have discussed this with me now proves that you look at everything from a point of view of war, and that you would like to look at it from the point of view of the German people. Perhaps due to the translation or to the speed you didn't quite understand what I was trying to say. I say, this trial contains two trials. I won't talk about the Fuehrer Decree now. We are now concerned with procedure against saboteurs. This procedure was decided by police jurisdiction. This manner of procedure only then constituted crime, if it were crime, according to the German law, or according to the Russian law. According to the German law police procedure existed even against Germans, and according to the Russian law this police procedure could also prosecute these people, and you cannot decide this charge according to your law, but only according to the laws which existed in Germany and Russia, or, else, you would arrive at a situation which I gave in my crude example: an Oriental man who had married several wives would in your country be accused of bigamy according to your law, although the law of his country permitted him to do so In such case you have to consider the law of the Oriental State as well in passing a judgment and not your. American law, because according to his law this man conducted himself properly, and, Police Procedure according to the Hague Convention of Land Warfare are legal if they were legal when applicable in Germany and Russia.
When speaking of Police Procedure, I am not talking about the Fuehrer Decree. Now, that is quite a different matter, and I maintain that Biberstein has nothing to do with this. Therefore, the point is not whether or not we approve of war; even if we disapprove of it -- which of course, we do -- even then, this does not constitute crime, because they conformed with the Hague Convention of Land Warfare, namely, the occupied powers have to consider the legal uses and the law of the occupied country, and I have proved to you that this procedure was customary in Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. I got your point of view. I cannot help but to reflect on what you regard as an appropriate, if a grotesque comparison between polygamy and murder. Certainly a Tribunal would accept the customs of another nation which didn't conflict with the fundamental rights to live, and if a man thinks we can live well with ten wifes, I won'd dispute with him how wrong he may be, but certainly the law with regard to the sanctity of human life is something which is universal. The other is more or less a domestic matter, Whereas the sanctity of human life is something which demands and receives universal protection, and we are more or less proceeding -- not more or less -- but actually proceeding under an International aspect which guarantees the sanctity of human life. However, Dr. Bergold, I don't wish to interrupt you any more. I am sorry that I broke in. You may continue.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I. am only glad you interrupted me, and the discussion was very instructive for me, and I am very grateful to you for it. I would like just to add one thing, namely, that of course, I hold certainly the same point as you did, that human life is sacred, but the matter under discussion here is whether the life of a human being may be taken, as a result of a trial or whether this is a criminal act. After all, this is all the same, whether I am condemned to death according to a public charge, or a secret charge, but in the results of both, the rights of the defense has been kept.
May I continue.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, in this connection, may I ask you, to give your attention to BIBERSTEIN's testimony as given on the afternoon of 21 November 1947. BIBERSTEIN testified at that time that, in Russia, he never found support for the theory, that the police procedure resorted to by the Germans was considered inhuman by the Russians. He based this on the fact that the Russians frequently gave information themselves, knowing of course What kind of procedure would be applied; secondly that Russians themselves carried out individual investigations and, -- this however is the most important part of the testimony -that, from the viewpoint of his own ideology, a Russian had said at that time with regard to the activity of Einsatzkommando 6: "The Germans will lose the war because they are not severe enough." This shows that the criminal procedure resorted to by the police was not perceived by the Russian people as something inhumane, but as normal. was in Russia. You will now understand me when I tell you that your law lacks the actual jurisdiction to pass judgment here. If you were to judge here solely from the point of view of your ideology, you would judge legal events and happenings, which would in no point conform with your concept of law, and for which perhaps the people of your country would not have the slightest understanding. This would not be a defect, rather it would be a good sign. For we may only preserve the purity of our inherent character, if we lack the ability to fully understand to the uttermost, that which is absolutely alien and heterogeneous to us. If however we would pass judgment in such a case, proceeding from our concept and upholding only cur legal maxims, our verdict would constitute an abuse of justice. This, it should never be.
situation which existed in the foreign country amongst foreign peoples. Therefore, by taking into consideration such reflections, I summarize my statements to the effect that the prosecution of Russian citizens for sabotage, espionage, possession of arms and attacks on persons military etc. purely by methods of police procedures and the pronouncement of death sentences in these procedures do not constitute a war crime or crimes against humanity. acts of the defendant BIBERSTEIN and thus to himself personally, I must discuss one special pica. This concerns the fact that BIBERSTEIN may claim one special reason for exoneration which is derived from his person, namely the reason of compulsion. Military Tribunal in accordance with Control Council Law No. 10 are precedence cases for other courts. Tribunal IV, in the case against FLICK, set forth in its arguments to Count I of the indictment, that with regard to the provision of Par. 2, Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, the claim to compulsion was admissible for all persons indicted by the Military Tribunals and it based its findings by referring in detail to Whartons Criminal Law Vol. I, Article VII, par. 126 and Article XIII, Par. 384, foot note. It carefully illustrated, that every act in Germany during the war, which might be interpreted as an attempt to delay or prevent prescribed regulations, constituted sabotage and was subject to most severe and harsh punishment and was sometimes even punishable by death;furthermore that many decrees and announcements kept the population aware of these threats of punishment and that from many cases, the population know of the severe punishment being meted out for violations. The Tribunal climaxed its presentations with the statement that where irresistible physical compulsion rules, the will of the perpetrator is lacking and his guilt is therefore non-existent officials in the Reich.
This has been shown beyond doubt in his interrogation. During the war he was drafted into the Reich-Security Fain Office without having volunteered his services, he was compulsorily appointed chief of Einsatzkommando 6 even against his will, and had to fulfill his duties there in spite of the fact that he did so unwillingly and on his own initiative did everything possible to be relieved of his tasks. procedure and the execution of convicted criminals resulting therefrom was carried out under orders and that they had been established by his predecessors in accordance with orders prior to his time, i.e. prior to the beginning of October 1942 when he himself was assigned to EK 6. As a man who was ordered to assume office on the basis of a war order he could not resist these orders and instructions. He wasconstantly aware, that resistance to these orders was threatened with severe punishment. I shall remind you, that alone the fact, that because in the opinion of his superior, he had started his Kommando on the march to a prescribed operational area too late, this resulted in court martial proceedings against him. One therefore cannot compare him with a civilian official, who defends himself somewhere because of certain happenings. Likewise, one cannot compare him with a person liable to emergency service, although, remarked aside; the arguments of the prosecution in this point are incorrect. Assis proven by the court martial proceedings brought against him, he was subject to a much more stringent and severe law, i.e. Military law. As a military person, it was impossible for him to resist an order without endangering his life. 6, police proceedings were carried out, in which, aside from imprisonment for certain specific crimes which were announced to the population on public pastors and by radio as being punishable by death, there was nothing he could do to prevent this.
He was forced to permit these proceedings if he did not want to lose his own life. He acted under compulsion.
And it was not as if this procedure was particularly cruel. The defendant BIBERSTEIN explained to you in detail how such proceedings were conducted. Punishable by death were: pillage, possession of arms, attacks on military installations and signal equipment, attacks on military persons, espionage, sabotage, terror acts etc. Such crimes are punishable throughout the world. The defendant has already described to you how horrible and cruel were the crimes upon which judgement had to be passed. I shall only remind you of the terrible incident where a live, hungry rat was tied to the body of a German soldier who had been buried, and how this rat devoured, him. Such and similar cases were reported, persons under suspicion were arrested, witnesses and evidence were examined and the culprit interrogated Then sentence was passed Thus, a verdict was pronounced only if the officials who judged the case had convinced themselves that the charges were true. Your Honors, you have heard from BIBERSTEIN that the perpetrators almost always confessed. This corresponds to the psychological makeup of the Russian. With such a state of affairs the proper verdict, i.e. a death sentence, would have immediately been clear even to a regular court. did not want to endanger his own person, need not even have worried about it whether the procedure was cruel. It was a customary one. It was ordered by the superior authorities. No guilt could be ascribed to him if he permitted it. With such a state of affairs, he may, without doubt, fully claim a state of compulsion.
has been followed, then it and it alone must prove the contrary. I refer to the verdict of Tribunal IV in the Flick case, which, in the beginning, under Par. 4 of its general legal principles ruled that the prosecution carries the burden of proof. Thus, it is insufficient if the prosecution merely proves that executions were carried out. It must prove beyond that that these executions were carried cut arbitrarily, without examination and without a hearing of the convicted person. The prosecution has not even made an attempt to offer such proof. The defendant on the other hand testified as witness, that such examinations took place. A number of other defendants have testified the some. The witness HARTL, whom the prosecution chose as their witness against one of the defendants confirmed this too. He too know, that in all cases of executions which could not be traced to the actual so-called Fuehrer decree, a definite police procedure was followed. The prosecution had nothing, with which it could have opposed this testimony. One could now say, that the fact that defendant BIBERSTEIN tolerated executions by gas, should be ascribed to his guilt. But this type of execution too was ordered by the superior authorities and BIBERSTEIN therefore, in this point also, may claim compulsion. beyond a doubt, shows that the defendant is not guilty in this point, Document No. 2, Exhibit No. 2, Document book BIBERSTEIN shows that the large German dictionary, called Meyers Konversations Lexikon, already illustrated in 1926, that in several states of the United States of America, executions were carried out in gas chambers even at that time.
This is not an invention of National Socialist propaganda. In 1926, when this book was printed, National Socialism had little significance in Germany. Defendant BIBERSTEIN testified that he recalled from former times that the United States also used gas in executions.
Consequently he need not have had any special scruples whether such types of executions were cruel. On the contrary however, he was of the opinion, as was stated by him in the morning session of 21 November 1947 (German minutes, 2832), that execution by gas originates from a humane desire. This consideration is quite correct. Modern methods of execution are invented nowadays only guarantee a more gentle execution of sentence and not to act more cruel then before. The defendant convinced himself of the nature of the execution and, in his opinion, assumed, that the method of execution was actually a more gentle one. The executed persons impressed him as being peaceful and calm. This at least, was the impression he had gathered. This impression alone is of decisive importance in judging him. From everyday experience be know that fatal accidents frequently occur when persons worked in a closed garage with the motor running and that such accidents happened so easily because the victim knew nothing about the impending death by gas, Taking all these things into consideration, BIBERSTEIN need not have had any particular scruples about such a method execution, The prosecution attempts to present this type of death as a special guilt. Your Honor's may I again refer to the Flick verdict, where, under Par. 5 the following is stated: "whereever authentic evidence permits two sensible final conclusions, that of guilt and that of innocence, the second possibility must be chosen. The defendant presented to you a number of sensible reasons which caused him to assume that execution by gas was more humane and more gentle than by shooting.
Since my arguments and my train of thought are not nonsensical, you must assume that no guilt can be ascribed to him for tolerating this type of execution, of which he could have personally assumed that it was humane. Therefore, aside from the fact that even with regard to executions by gas, the defendant may claim compulsion, not guilt can be ascribed to him in this point since he never saw anything cruel in it.
I shall now turn to Biberstein's person. His case is a special case. He comes from a world entirely different from that of the usual defendant. For many years he had been a priest. He had fought hard battles with his conscience for his belief and for his concept of God. By adhering to an established tradition he did not make it easy for himself. He has struggled and fought. But he was never a fanatic. It is because of his spirit of toleration that he came into conflict with his minister at the Ministry for Ecclesiastical Affairs and his proposals for a peaceful compromise with the church remained without effect. I need not revert in detail to his pre-war career, no charges arise from it against Biberstein. do.
Then war came and Biberstein became a soldier. His career as a soldier ended abruptly. Without having had any previous knowledge of the fact and without having in any way aspired to it, he was suddenly discharged from the army and assigned to the Reich Security Main Office by a war order. Biberstein described to you how an intrigue had been responsible for putting him into the ranks of the Gestapo. He testified that realizing his unsuitableness and acknowledging his different ideology he was unwilling to take over the Gestapo Office in Opeln. Lastly he described to you how, fearing the consequences and hoping to regain his freedom he had finally complied with the order in view of the fact that it was a war measure.
life was only concerned with finding a true relationship to God, should have been unhappy in such an office. It is not unbelievable that it was not long before he recognized that he lacked all technical qualifications to profit by his office. I concede that one could become somewhat suspicious on hearing that during the year he worked at the Gestapo Office in Opeln he had not bothered to acquaint himself with the duties of his office. However, if one bears in mind that, from the beginning, he was determined to leave the Gestapo Office after the year was over, and if one further bears in mind that according to his whole psychological make up, such activity must have been repugnant and disagreeable to him, one can understand that as a result of this inner resistance he maintained a passive attitude and took no serious interest in his office but left everything to his trusted experienced officials. He committed no illegal acts during his term of office. Neither could the Prosecution prove that he had committed any illegal acts.
He was an outsider in the Reich Main Security Office. You have heard him say that an intrigue was responsible for his assignment to the Gestapo Office in Opeln. He testified further that an even more malicious intrigue was the cause of his transfer to EK 6 in Russia. He had tried to get his release from this Kommando. However, he was told that he must take up his position first and that he could pursue his transfer and his release from the RSHA only from Russia. It is tragic for this man that, against his will and wholly innocently he was forced into an activity for which, according to his character, he was not suited. in Russia for a transfer and release and that he told his superior that, as a former priest, he could not hold an office in which death sentences had to be pronounced and executed. As he has testified, that is why a deputy was assigned to him for tasks concerning the actual execution since his superior realized that a man had been appointed here who was absolutely unsuited for the task.
Finally you have heard him say that he immediately pursued his transfer and release. Nothing speaks against his illustration. The short period during which he was in Russia vouchsafes for the correctness of his statements. This is the position of this man in Russia. the Fuehrer Decree neither in Germany nor in Russia and that no wholesale executions or any executions at all were ever carried out during his stay with the Kommando, that were based on the Fuehrer Decree. The president of the Court understandably remonstrated that it did not sound credible that he should not have heard of the Fuehrer Decree. Your Honors, I on the other hand am of the opinion, that nothing in the world is more credible. I shall now assume? His superior perhaps, who, because of his request for transfer and because he was a former priest recognized in him a wholly unsuited person and who even agreed to his release since Biberstein made every effort to be released from the Kommando? This superior must have considered him nothing but an outsider. However, outsiders were not taken into confidence on such terrifying orders which instilled horror even in those persons of this circle who were of a more harsh nature. Even the men of his Kommando had no reason to do so. Certainly they too must have recognized in their Chief a man, who was not suited for such terrible tasks. Moreover, it is not even certain that members of EK 6 knew of the Fuehrer Decree. The testimony of defendant Graf speaks against it. It is quite natural that Biberstein had no knowledge of the so-called Fuehrer Decree when one further considers, that according to the testimony of this same defendant Graf, executions in accordance with the Fuehrer Decree were presumably never carried out by EK 6 and that Graf furthermore had heard of only one wholesale execution which had been carried out by Jeckeln's special police formation long before Biberstein's arrival, and when finally it is considered that at the end of 1942, the period of large wholesale executions for all Kommandos had long since passed and that Jews were practically non-existent in the territory surrounding Rostow.
The Prosecution in Document Book 5 0 bearing the title Biberstein, has presented evidence, which at first created the impression as though Jews had been found and executed in the district around Rostow at a time which would have been immediately prior to the transfer and only a few months before the arrival of Biberstein in Russia. However, the Prosecution, upon our objections, expressly limited the probative value of these documents to the extent that they only wished to show that executions of Jews were still carried out somewhere in Russia during May, June and July of 1942. Through the testimony of the witness Hartl as well as that of defendant Graf and Biberstein, the Prosecution itself knows exactly that the defendant did not come to the Einsatzkommando 6 in Rostow until the middle of September 1942. The documents concern, as has already been stated, the period from May 1942 until July 1942. At this time Biberstein had not even been transferred. The towns mentioned in the documents are located in the vicinity of the Rumanian border and are at least 500 kilometers west of Rostow. Therefore they do not prove that executions of Jews were actually still carried out in the Rostow district during the time that Biberstein was there. A Russian proverb once said: "Russia is large and the Czar is far away". This proverb wanted to express that Russia is so large and far flung that somewhere, something may always happen in this area of which the head of the state knows nothing. This applies even more so to the present war in far-flung Russia. One cannot make events seem probable in Rostow because at some far distant place occasional executions of Jews were carried out and at that by the Police or the rural police, or the offices of the civilian administration which had nothing to do with the Einsatzkommandos. One cannot refute the statements of Biberstein, Graf and Hartl with this.
of the Fuehrer Decree and that he permitted such executions, that is executions due to racial or political membership, to be carried out. I refer once again to the findings of Tribunal IV concerning the burden of proof by the Prosecution. The Prosecution has furnished no proof. No proof can be furnished by presenting evidence in the manner in which it was attempted in Document Book No. 50. I believe that this manner of presenting evidence would be sharply criticized in their country. connection with the question concerning the number of executions, Biberstein has stated before the Court that he had made his deposition concerning the number of executions under certain moral compulsion, that in addition he had been misled by the statements of the interrogator in Eselheide, that a thousand more or less would make no material difference. A man, who would make such a statement in such a foolish manner, a statement which under certain circumstances could incriminate him, would certainly have admitted from the very beginning that he knew of and had acted in accordance with the Fuehrer Decree. In none of the interrogations and in none of the affidavits which he made is there even a hint of this. He has nothing to state or to admit in this point. One must take this into consideration and weigh this when examining the question whether or not he has told the truth. I now come to the affidavit made by him and presented against him.
Biberstein has stated that this affidavit was made under duress. That has actually been proved. Document No. 4997, Prosecution Exhibit 183, which contains the record of Biberstein's interrogation begins as follows:
Q What is your name?
Q Raise your right hand and repeat the following oath: "I swear by God the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the full truth, conceal nothing and add nothing, so help me God.
Amen."
(Biberstein repeats the oath) equally severe violations of the oath as false statements under oath? the defendant of the fact that he could refuse to make a statement if it would incriminate him. The reason Wartenberg gave for his conduct was that he did not know whether Biberstein would be indicted. However, I definitely know that in Germany as well as in your country the witness has the right to refuse to make statements which would incriminate him. I know positively that the examiner must inform the witness of this right to refuse to testify. This is prescribed by law. Through the fact that Herr Wartenberg immediately placed Biberstein under oath, instructed him that he was not permitted to conceal anything and did not inform him to what extent he could refuse to answer questions, Biberstein was placed under psychic duress. I am therefore of the opinion that the affidavit which was made by him was obtained in an illegal manner and, for this reason, cannot be given any consideration. really does not know how many executions were carried out during the period of his service with the Einsatzkommando 6. He has explained to you how he came to estimate this number. You must make this the foundation for your verdict and assume that it has not been proven how many executions were carried out during the period of Biberstein's service with Einsatzkommando 6. proverbially in Germany. However, many executions may have taken place during Biberstein's time I have already explained to you that they were legal, carried out after completion of a detailed police investigation which is customary in Russia, which was prescribed and the carrying out of which can therefore not be considered as showing guilt on the part of Biberstein.
Biberstein has stated that a number of proceedings were pending at that time. He has explained to you that due to the military situation at that time the civilian population everywhere had carried out large scale attacks against the occupation forces. Biberstein has also explained that the executions which were ordered in the police proceedings were not carried out individually but in groups, that is to say after certain time intervals and for a certain number of condemned. This in itself is an understandable procedure and is in no way criminal. a war crime nor of crimes against humanity.
With regard to the last count of the Indictment, i.e. membership in an organization which has been declared criminal, I have the following to say:
Biberstein was Honorary Fuehrer of the SS. As such he never did any service in the SS. Therefore he was never used for criminal acts, nor has it been proven that he knew of the criminal acts which took place after 1 September 1939.
He was never a member of the Gestapo or the SD. He was merely on duty with the Stapo Office in Opeln because he was compelled to, that is to say due to a special war order he was there for one year on a trial basis. Through this, however, he did not become a member of the Gestapo. In this office he neither committed nor heard of crimes. The prosecution was unable to prove either of these. The Index of the Prosecution contains the assertion that Biberstein had admitted this in his affidavit. An examination of the affidavit, however, shows that this assertion on the part of the prosecution is incorrect. of an order, Fuehrer of an Einsatzkommando, this, however, only from 9 9 Feb.
-M-BK-5-8-Gross (Int. Juelich) the beginning and characteristically only temporarily. In this position he never committed any crimes. Nor did he discover that the Einsatzkommandos were used to commit crimes. He had heard only once of a mass execution of Jews as a singular reprisal measure for severe acts of sabotage by these Jews. He found this out however, and this is especially important, only on his return trip to Germany after he no longer belonged to the Einsatzkommando 6. Whether this report which he received at that time was correct, is immaterial. He at least knew and had heard nothing else. Therefore, at the time during which he belonged to the Einsatzkommando 6, he did not discover that the Einsatzkommandos were used to carry out criminal acts. In this connection it is also important that from the moment of his transfer, he made every effort to leave the Einsatzkommando and that he succeeded in accomplishing this. Thus I may say that no proof has been furnished that Biberstein had any knowledge of criminal acts. of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Hoffmann, you may proceed.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I beg your pardon, I have to leave almost immediately. If you remember I told you I had to go to another trial and I would therefore ask that you excuse me.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Bergold.
DR. HOFFMANN (for the defendant Noske):
Members of the Court! a tragedy. Russia, or to kill people only for their ideas, preferred suicide to the dock. That was the only way out that man could find. the world, or before the German people. order. future of the German people, or that the Jewish people was bearing in itself a fundamental readiness for Bolshevism and for partisan activity.
But this is no reason. How could Jewish children endanger the future of the German people or infants became active as Bolsheviks or partisans? Fuehrer Order - Bolshevism was to be annihilated. individual guilt, an ideology is not being annihilated, but rather strengthened as history has shown beginning from the first persecution of Christians.
The order was senseless and not justifiable at the same time. It was not only a wrong against the Russian and Jewish peoples, but also against the German people, which has today to bear the consequences, while the originator of that order escaped, responsibility by committing suicide. Hitler's order.
directed mainly against the Jewish people; far from it. circle of people. to deal with the problem, how a man is to be treated, who, on his part, received that order and was to carry it out. D. During his own interrogation, he declared t hat he had never been faced with having to carry out the Fuehrer Order. He assumed me of that as early as during our first talk in the prison and has stuck to it until this day. shooting for other reasons by the Einsatzkommando 12. Yet, such executions took place by reason of the laws of war for sabotage and partisan activities. I shall deal later with the question how these executions are to be judged. the Fuehrer Order. number of persons killed by the GruppeD in consequence of the Fuehrer Order as many thousands. Einsatzkommando 12, as far as it was led by the defendant Nosske, participated in these shootings carried out on the basis of the Fuehrer Order. rogation of the defendant Nosske, the right to ask him the question how many persons he had shot on the basis of the Fuehrer Order.
by "none", in view of the strong suspicion resting upon the defendant Nosske. qyestion to the defendant Nosske in spite of the duration of my interrogation of the defendant Nosske of 11/2 days plainly hit the mark. But it was my intention to leave judgment of the question whether or not Nosske had told the truth when he stated that he had not executed the Fuehrer Order, to the cross examination.
Nosske was cross-examined for 11/2 days, and, as far as I have learned to evaluate an American cross-examination, the defendant Nosske has not been convicted to have failed to say the truth with regard to the assertion that he had not executed the Fuehrer Order. almost incredible that any man, considering the whole situation, should have been able to evade the execution of the Fuehrer Order. however, in a position to state some facts which will make that attitude no longer astonishing. god in Hitler and executed his orders as though they were tablets of the law. On the contrary, Nosske belonged, when Hitler came to power in 1933, at an age of 31 years, to a generation of men who had, in the period between the first World War and 1933 a democratic education within the Weimar Republic. 1933, when he was a referendar at the law court, no alternative was left to him by orders of his superiors than either to relinquish his career or to join the party. It may be presumed that he came to the NSDAP without a particular enthusiasm and preserved, inspite of the propaganda and his subsequent close attachment to the National Socialist State, a degree of individuality and power of discernment on account of his activities with the Secret State Police.