DR. THOMA: This was compiled in a comprehensive document. I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to this document.
It was compiled immediately after the Norway action, and it describes the measures unequivocally: that everything came from Quisling, that Quisling suddenly appeared, that he gave reports, that he begged that his people be trained further, and that he came back again, came back again and again, and he also told Rosenberg about the new incident in Norway.
THE PRESIDENT: What document is that?
DR. THOMA: No. 004, GB-40. That is in document book 2, page 113.
THE PRESIDENT: What page, please?
DR. THOMA: I believe the number is at the bottom, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Which book is it you are referring to?
DR. THOMA: My document book number 2, page 113; volume 2. The page given at the bottom is page 70. It is at page 72 in the English translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Now the, what is your question?
DR. THOMA: I would like to point out that on page 1 it says that before the meeting of the Norwegian Wissenschaftler in Luebeck, Quisling was at Berlin, where he was received by Rosenberg.
That was in June 1939, as is shown by the document 007.
given at Berlin Dahlem. Then it says further that in December of 1939 Quisling, on his own accord, reappeared in Berlin and at that time he made reports. That was on the 14th and 15th of December. Rosenberg, in line with his duty, transmitted these reports to the Fuehere; that is, the reports given to himby Quisling. However, he did nothing beyond that in this matter. reports came in. BY DR. THOMA:
Q Do you have anything to add on 004-PS?
A May I please be shown the document?
The document was submitted to the witness) A (Continuing) On page 3, of this document 004-PS, it is stated that Hagelin, who was a collaborator of Quisling, and who traveled in Norwegian governmental circles, had instructions from theNorwegian Government concerning the supply of arms to Germany.
After the Altmark incident there was a discussion with Norwegian representatives, that the reserved position taken by Norway had been a matter of course. center of the page, he was present. There wassome discussion about German supply. He mentioned the activity of the Allies in Norway, and he made statements on that. According to this report, the Allies now were investigating the Norwegian harbor towns for landing and transport possibilities. The French Commandant Kermarrec--I might say that I remember this name as Karramac, or something similar--had had a confidential conversation with Colonel Sundlo, the Commandant of Norway, who was a follower of Quisling. They had informed him about the intention of the Allies to land motorized troops at Stavanger, Drontheim, and perhaps also at Kirkenes, and to occupy the airport at Sola.
he pointed out--that is, Hagelin pointed out--that the speech of the Norwegian Foreign Minister Koht, dealing with Norwegian neutrality and containing some protests, was not being taken seriously either in London by the English, or in Norway by the Norwegians, because it was well known that the Government had no intention of taking aserious stand against England.
Q That is the report Quisling told you?
to report. I would like to add further that after Quisling was received by the Fuehrer he told me that a little while later he had instructed OKW to contemplate this case in a military way, and he asked me not to talk about this matter further. In this connection I would like to point out also that we can see from the report that he emphasized that the entire Scandinavian north was to maintain neutrality at all- costs, and his position was to be changed only in case other powers threatened the Nordic countries. Fuehrer to keep up or maintain connections with Quisling at Oslo and to support propaganda friendly to Germany as against other propaganda. He received money from the foreign office and some reports about opinions of Quisling came to Germany. Later I heard something which was entirely understandable--that the callaborator, who was a soldier at that time, had received military reports and instructions which he reported on afterwards.
Q Please be more brief, Mr. Rosenberg. decided to carry through this action, that he did not tell me. The entire action of the 9th of November I learned through the newspaper. I visited the Fuehrer, visited him that day, and several weeks later the Fuehrer had me called to him and said that he had to make this decision on the basis of concrete warnings which he had received and, it has been seen from documents which have been found that these warnings had been correct, and it had been true to the letter that the last German ships, when they arrived in the fiord of Trondheim had to fight the approaching British forces.
Q I have just one question more: Did you ever attend foreign politic or military discussions with Hitler? and the initiative which would come from one side or another. I believe -and I believe all the documents show this -- that he never permitted me to participate in any foreign political or military discussion.
Q That is, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia, etc. You were never called into these discussions.
I believe, Mr. President, that is a suitable time to adjourn.
The Tribunal adjourned until 16 April 1946 at 1000 hours.)
BY DR. THOMA (counsel for Rosenberg):
Q Mr. Rosenberg, you were the plenipotentiary of the Fuehrer for the supervision of the entire spiritual and ideological education of the NSDAP and all its affiliated organizations. In that capacity, did you exert any influence on the law-making authorities in that connection? far as the leadership of a large movement of a state was concerned, three points of view had to be kept in mind; that there are men who, according to their nature, would meet problems on a basis of contemplated thought and he would have to select from whatever their thoughts would be--something that could be realized, and the other people would have the task to take the problem and the thoughts as they had been produced by the thinkers and to realize them in economic and stately ways. Then he listed my task in this sense and entrusted to me the supervision of education in such a sense, that in a comprehensive basis, because of my knowledge of the movement, I should take a definite and specific position. As far as the executive power and other powers were concerned, that was in the hands of the corresponding ministries; that is, the Ministry of Education, the Propaganda Ministry, and the entire representation of the Party was in the hands of the Party Chancellory. The Party Chancellory on occasion asked me to define my position to such and such a question but was not obligated to give my position any consideration except my views.
Q Mr. Rosenberg, did you have any influence on the school policies of the Nazi Party?
A I did not have any direct influence on the school system. The school system was a matter of the Reichserziehungsministerium--the Educational Ministry and the organization of the schools are not to be confused with the training of the Party and as far as the universities were concerned, that was the task for the corresponding ministry rather than mine.
Q There were National socialized educational centers. Can you tell me something about the centers and what was your function in that connection? They were under the leadership and direction of the Educational Ministry and of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler. They were founded by Himmler, so that a dissident stratum would be trained and the inspection of these educational systems was centered in the Ministry of Education by special SS leaders.
Q Mr. Rosenberg, you are accused of religious persecution and especially as expressed in your "Myth of the 20th Century". Do you admit that as far as your attitude towards the church is concerned, that perhaps on occasion you were a little too critical and too severe? concerned, I uttered rather severe and critical judgments. I would like to emphasize in this connection, that in the introduction to my book, which I earmarked as a purely personal work, I gave my personal opinion only and that this book was not addressed to the church-going population and I also mentioned in my introduction that I did not have anything to do with propaganda, as is shown on page 120 of the document; and further, that I rejected a political attack in religious confessions by the State--all of these facts I expressed not only in the introduction but also in the book and I further rejected many proposals to have my book translated into foreign languages. A Japanese translation was submitted to me but I do not recall having given my approval for the translation.
Q Mr. Rosenberg, you were not trained in theological matters. Don't you believe that in some judgments as to theological questions, you were wrong?
and dealt with many problems, was entirely without mistake or error. I was very grateful to receive counter-proposals to my book and made some corrections to it, but some attacks on my book I could not consider justified. I thought later that perhaps the work of mine would, be revised at a later time. theological and political opponents?
A No. I would like to state here that this work was published two and one-half years before the taking over of power and that any and all criticism from all sides were invited but much in the way of criticism came in after the taking over of power. I answered the attack on my book in two brochures but never at any time did I use the police to intimidate or in any way oppress my opponents.
Q Mr. Rosenberg, in the RSHA there was an office for the persecution of political churches. Did you have any connection with this department or office? offices and departments and I know, of course, that they had connections and were in touch with the SS. Through this collaborator, I received many circular letters from churches and the circular letter of the Fulda Conference of Bishops and many more similar matters but these special arrests of some special church leaders did not come to my attention although, of course, later on I did find out that during the war some monasteries had been confiscated and their confiscation having taken place for state and political reasons.
I never was able to find out the political reasons involved in each and every case.
I must mention that in the year 1935 the case was such that a bishop sent an official memorandum on to the State Leader of the province and asked him to prohibit me from making any speeches in that province. That, of course, did not take place but this church dignitary was not harmed either through me or any other department. eastern provinces? eastern territories the Wermacht of its own accord as far as religious freedom was concerned, reinstated religious freedom and when I was made Minister of the East through a special church tolerance edict at about the end of 1941 I established that religious freedom which existed under the Wehrmacht on an official, lawful basis. disposal, most of them letters of the Leader of the Party Chancellory and on these they base their contention of religious persecution on your part. tude as far as these documents are concerned. These documents have been submitted. They are number 107, 116, 122, 129 and 101, U.S.A. 351, U.S.A. 365.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, you are going too fast for us to get these numbers down. 107- PS, do you mean?
DR. THOMA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly say PS if you mean 107-PS,
DR. THOMA: Yes, I was going to add the U.S.A. Exhibit number, 107-PS, 351-U.S.A.-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would rather have the PS number, if you will give me the PS number or whatever the numbers are as part of the exhibit number. 107-PS -
DR. THOMA: Yes, 116-PS, 122-PS, 129-PS, 101-PS, 100-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not get those after 129-PS.
DR. THOMA: 101-PS, 100-PS, 008, 064, 098, 073, 070.
THE WITNESS: The number 107 is being used by the Prosecution as proof of my persecution of the churches. This was a letter sent out by the Party Chancellory regarding the Reichsarbeitsdienst, (Reich Labor Service). tice of religious observance is to be prohibited. I believe it was so decreed so that young people of a spiritual background who were brought into the Labor Service in this way would be prevented from participating in religious and spiritual debates.
On page 2 it says:
"As little as it is the affair of the Reichsarbeitsdienst to forbid its individual members to have a church wedding or funeral, so definitely must the Reichsarbetisdienst avoid taking part, as an organization, in a festival which is strictly religious, that is, which excludes Germans of other beliefs." freedom for it meant that members of the Protestant faith could not be forced to attend a Catholic service and vice versa. I also felt that any members who did not prescribe to any religious denomination could not, on order of their organization, be forced to attend religious services. There, I cannot see that in this ease we are concerned with religious persecution at all. Leader of the Reichschancellory. It is sent to the Reich Minister for Science and Education. It is dated the 24th of January, 1939 This document was submitted to me for my acknowledgement. regarding the limitation of theological faculties at universities and it emphasized that the agreements or church concordats would have to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, a certain collaboration had to exist in the entire higher educational system as a comprehensive simplification was necessary.
In conclusion, it states that newly established areas of research such as research into race and into ancient cultures were to be given special consideration.
I could see that after six years of National Socialism new areas of research should be include and should have special consideration. I thought that they should have and I personally was interested in seeing that the areas of sociology and naturally the history of Germany and allied fields receive consideration.
The same applies to Document 122-Ps, dated April, 1939. I do not need to go into this in detail. It sets forth similar views. The views are set down by the Minister for Education and it emphasizes just what is to be done with theological faculties.
German author, Dr. Stadl, who was especially interested in religious reform. In this document the Reich Church Minister presents the view as to having a community of religion which would affirm the National Socialist state and at the same time have the direct support of the Reich Church Minister. this matter, a letter which I had written to the Party Chancellory and in which I expressed an opinion about the sessions of the Church Congress, I said that a National Socialist Minister of Churches did not have the task of calling for a community of religion and he would appear to be in the same position as that which holds true for me. If I had the intention of establishing a community of religion then I would have had to give up all my functions and activities in the Party. That can be traced back to a point of view which I represented. The Minister of Churches as a National Socialist member was obligated to help religion but to be independent of all religions and denominations. wherein it is complained that denominational writing could be used to paralyze resistance of troops and he asked my office or department to do something to this effect. My answer was not ready. I never did give any opinion but my opinion has always been that it was not my task to publish religious articles in my official capacity but that, of course, it was up to each individual who had something vital to say to put in writing.
leader and deputy of the Fuehrer Bormann to me that I had expressed an opinion to the Fuehrer that the Protestant Bishop Mueller had written a very fine book for German soldiers. Reichsleiter Bormann said that this book by Mueller was not appropriate because it could be considered as denominational propaganda. I do not believe that the accusation against me that I was agreeing with Mueller without reservation; that he was adding his voice in a reasonable manner, may be interpreted as persecuting. mo to take notice of. He to ld me that he talked to the then Reichsleiter Amann, and said that, because of the paper scarcity, religious writings, tan per cent of which had been decrees, should be further decreed and curtailed. I didn't know in what way the curtailment of all journals and magazines was done at that time, but I did find out that in the course of a war the publications about art, music, and al lied fields was curtailed along with the rest of the magazines and journals in the German Reich. Chancellory, in which he reports to me about the letter of a Gauleiter about a writing of General von Rebenau about the spirit and soul of the soldier. This Gauleiter criticized the very traditionally bound opinion of General von Rabenau and he protested against the fact that this letter was published by the Party. In that connection I would like to say that this memorandum by General von Rabenau did appear in a weries of articles which were published by my official department; and this letter was published without having been read. He had the occasion to deal with general subjects. I gave him the opportunity to voice his opinion, but I did not withdraw this letter from publication. the Party Chancellory to me. In this accusation he says that the Reichsbishop Mueller Was telling the story that he had had instructions from me to set down basic principles for religious instruction in the schools.
Mr. Bormann at great length says that it was not the task of the Party to act in a reformatory manner as for as religious instruction in the school is concerned. To this I would like to say the following. I gave no instruction to Reichsbishop Mueller and could not give him any instructions on this topic. But the Bishop visited no on two occasions, and on one occasion with tears in his eyes he told me that in his sphere of influence he had no special backing. I told him, "Your Excellency, you are a military pastor, and perhaps not generally known; It would be quite correct and apropos if you would write a literary work setting forth your views so that the various parts of the Evangelical Church might know your views; and in that way you can make your influence felt." Then Mueller probably made a few additions on this topic, as I had suggested to him. But I believe that the accusation made by Bormann is not true and cannot be construed as persecution of the churches on my part. by the party Chancellory, setting forth the position of National Socialism and Christendom, as seen from his point of view. As I remember, any of the following can be concerned in this. At one time I heard that Bormann had written to a Gauleiter and then sent copies to all Gauleiters. I asked him to give me official knowledge of this fact. After much hesitancy I received this letter. I received it in form. I did not consider it possible. I held Bormann--and I believe the letter that to him should be found in my records --that I did not consider it possible for a circular letter of that sort to be circulating. So that nothing could be overlooked, in my own handwriting I added that in my opinion the Fuehrer would not approve a circular letter of this sort. Then I spoke with Bormann about this personal matter and told him that each one of us had the right to define his position towards this problem, but official circulars, and especially in this form, were absolutely impossible in my opinion.
A tern this conversation Bormann became greatly embrassed and, as I just accidently heard from Schirach, he also know of this circular letter, and he further said that this was rescinded and declared null and void.
Mr. President, I would like to call the attention of the High Tribunal that I gave the number 075 to this document, but I wish to make a correction; it should be "D", as in "Denver", 75.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What should it be?
THE WITNESS: D-75, rather than 075.
THE PRESIDENT: It should be D-75?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Document 072-PS is a letter of Bormann's to me in the matter of research into the libraries of monasteries confiscated by the state. As far as the political reasons and motives for this act are concerned, I was never told about that; but I did hear that the police was demanding to take over the research into this problem. This was a problem which brought about strong conflicts between Himmler and me in these years. I considered it completely impossible that now research was to be brought under police control and that motivated me. That is seen from Document 071. Bormann took exception to this view of mine.
Document 072 gives the answer of Bormann's to me, in which he points out that Heydrich was insisting on continuing this research and said, "The scientifice treating of an ideological antagonist can only be carried out in political and police positions." I considered this view absolutely impossible and I protested against it. would like to make to this wealth of documents submitted to mo. I rejected giving out religious writings or to publish catechisms through my office. I was always concerned with vehemence to represent what I considered to be a National Socialist position and view. But I did not consider my office a spiritual police office; but the fact existed that the Fuehrer had charged Bormann with the official representation as far as church policy was concerned. recall whether I answered and replied to everything that was directed to me or whether I gave these answers and replies orally to Bormann. But since all of these answers are lacking, the Prosecution has stated that both of us, that is Bormann and I, had given instructions and decrees for religious persecution and had persuaded other Germans to participate in these religious persecutions.
I would like to summarize and state as a basic principle that this was a problem of a thousand years duration between secular legislation and church power, and that many states had taken measure.
The churches were always protesting. In recent years when we look at the laws of the French Government under the ministry of Compe, and when we look at the legal system of the Soviet Union, we see brochures and caricatures were given out. the National Socialist State--I know that even to the end more than seven million Marks were given to the churches by the State. more critical of you. What was the reason for the hostility between you and Bormann? Could it be that as far as church matters were concerned you were vastly more tolerant than Bormann himself? Could that be one of the reasons for your conflict with him?
A That is rather hard to say. It is difficult for me to say just which reason applied, but this hostility was very deep, and it was shown in the end in local problems. But I did not realize just how deep our enmity was until later. I must, of course, say that ina large movement many different temperaments and many different, divergent views may exist, and I did not except myself from having shortcomings and faults which would be criticized by others. I did not believe that differences of opinion could lead to a hostility of such proportions that it would bring about an undermining of the official position of the opponent, and that they would have to necessarily lead to that. were concerned, were these religious services limited in any way?
A I cannot tell you that at this moment. As far as I know, as far as religious sevices were concerned, it was never curtailed in Germany, it was never denied. you Document 1,015. In this document the most vital problems are summarized, and I am referring to the document submitted by the French Prosecution, FA-1 in particular. How was it that this Einsatzstab, this Special Staff, was established?
range duration as far as the plundering of cultural treasures of other states was concerned, In reality the following was true:
We were dealing with a reason or decree which had not existed before. A collaborator of mine when the German troops marched into Paris, accompanied by a press delegation, noticed that Parisians were returning, with the exception of the Jewish population, so that all organization of this type was remaining behind and that the flats and living quarters of these leading personalities were unoccupied. He suggested that a matter of research into archives, and so forth should be instituted. ing out of this suggestion and whether he could approve of it. This letter of mine to the Fuehrer was submitted to me in a preliminary interrogation but was not submitted to the High Tribunal by the Prosecution; even though the proof for the reason for this entire system is at hand, the Prosecution is still maintaining the idea of a long range plan. with the other archives, and the safe keeping and the transporting of those objects of art was decreed by the Fuehrer. these measures?
THE PRESIDENT: Just one minute. I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you made a suggestion to the Fuehrer, and that there is proof of your letter making that suggestion and that the Prosecution are concealing that proof? Is that what you are saying? Mill you answer that question? Are you suggesting that they are concealing a proof of the suggestion which you made to the Fuehrer for this scheme of taking away Jewish property from France.
THE WITNESS: Yes. I do not wish to say conceal, but I do wish to say that it was not submitted even though it was shown to me in a preliminary hearing.
DR. THOMA: May I add at this point, Mr. President, I would like to point out that I repeatedly in my written proposals suggested that it would have to be brought forth, since it was submitted to my client in the preliminary hearings.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you made any application for the document to be produced
DR. THOMA: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: When?
DR. THOMA: I made several requests.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal is quite unaware of having turned down any such request. Let me see the written request.
DR. THOMA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It probably isn't a matter of very great importance. I only wanted to know what the witness was talking about.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I will send for my files.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you can go on in the mean time.
THE WITNESS: Of course it was clear that we were concerned with an extraordinary problem, an unusual problem, and I did not talk about this matter with the military administration but went directly to the Fuehrer so that I could got his opinion. But I believe it can be understood that we were interested in going into historical research as to different organizations and how these organizations had taken a position in this problem. Some very prominent personalities were working in this direction. Germany despite the agreement of 1815, had not been returned to Germany for many, many decades. Allies through the Hague Convention. At that period a certain category of German citizens--that was the racial Germans abroad, foreign countries, occupied countries and colonies--their property was confiscated, and later they received no reparations, no compensations. The value of all of this confiscated property was 25 billion Reichsmarks. and to compensate these people who had property confiscated and to set up a special fund for this purpose. basis of the Hague Convention, and is resting on that basis. Therefore, I drew the conclusion that this measure against a certain category of citizens was taking place and was justified.
started to point out the legal bases, but I was interrupted with the remark that we were not concerned with that problem at the time. In the record of this interrogation which the French prosecution presented here, it may be seen that I said yes -
THE PRESIDENT: We are not concerned with the interrogations until the interrogations are put in evidence.
These interrogations haven't been put in evidence yet.
You can give your explanations of them if they are put
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, this document, was referred to here and
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, the defendant wishes to say that from the be a legal parallel.
He wanted to say that he did not invent that later
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, all I was pointing out to him was that the evidence.
Of course, If he is referring to interrogations which have been put in evidence -- but is he?
DR. THOMA: Yes. This is FA-16. That was submitted, Mr. President.
THE WITNESS: The record of the other interrogations was not
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Just a moment. If he is referring to
DR. THOMA: I have the record in the document book, and it is known
THE PRESIDENT: If he is referring to an exhibit, no doubt he can do
THE WITNESS: I would like to rectify an error in translation. I did not say, "Yes, it is true I remember that this measure was taken," but I did say I thought of it, I contemplated it.
That is to say, I had When I received the translation which I had not seen prior to that time, I saw that.
valuable time I would like to point to just a few vital spots in the report of 40-44. On page 2 it is referred to that the origin was determined, and on page 3 we see that the inventory taking was to be done in a scientific and conscientious manner, that a restoration shop was to be put up so that any damage was to be prevented. ant to no since the Soviet prosecution has mentioned the treating of cultural objects by the Einsatzstab in the occupied countries of the East. The report stated, and I quote, under the title "Work in the Occupied Eastern Regions":
"The activity of the special staff was limited to a scientific and photographic reproduction of public collections, their safeguarding in collaboration with military and Soviet officers. Then, several hundred of the most valuable Russian icons, several hundred paintings of the 19th and 18th centuries, pieces of furniture, from castles, were put in safekeeping with the help of some troops, and they were brought to the Reich for safekeeping." not transport any objects of art to the Reich, but when the areas were evacuated, as may be seen from the documents, these objects were transported, during battle, into the rear regions farther and farther back, and some of them were taken into the Reich for safekeeping. July 1942, a letter from the leader of the Reichschancellory. This document deals with the accusation by the Polish Government that the transporting of Polish works of art was concentrated in my special staff in Berlin. I will return to this special Polish accusation. I am just pointing to the paragraph in the letter which says that the Fuehrer had decreed that some libraries of the Eastern region were to be confiscated, but that the Government General was not included in that decree. for the occupied Eastern countries on the 20th of August 1941 to the Reichsk ommissar.