teitag in Nurenberg, 1936, H-9. Then follows a speech which can be found on page 59 in the document book in excerpts, Exhibit H-10. A speech of the 14th of May 1938 at Stockholm, on page 70 of the document book, Exhibit H-11.
The next exhibit is on page 78 of the document book, exhibit H-12. And submitted last Friday.
It can be found on page 164 of the document book. It is an affidavit made by the former Secretary, Hildegard Fath. It will bear the exhibit number, H-13.
The next exhibit is on page 86 of the document book. That is the second volume of the document book. That is a directive of 3 June 1936, Exhibit Nunber H-14. the conference between the Defendant Hess and Lord Simon, held on 10-6-41. These minutes begin on page 93 of the document book, and it will have the number H-15. flew to England. Nobody knew of this flight except his adjutant at that time. Hitsch. The Fuehrer himself was informed about the flight and the intentions connected therewith in a letter which was delivered to the Fuehrer after Hess had already landed in England. of the Foreign Office, and, as it has been mentioned before, on the 10th of June 1941 the conference took place between him and Lord Simon. This conference lasted two hours and a half, and in the course of the conference the Defendant Hess told Lord Simon about the motives which caused him to make this extraordinary undertaking. is to say, four points, which he maintained represented the intentions of Adolf Hitler, and that he expected that they would result in understanding and in the bringing about of peace. seen in the minutes that shortly after the conference the minutes showed him a Dr. Guthrie. As much as I am informed, this measure was taken to assure that the stenographers or the translators should not know from the beginning what it was all about.
In the minutes we also find a Dr. Mackenzie, and he is an official of the Foreign Office, and Mr. Kirkpatrick, who had already had converse with Hess.
to explain the reasons which caused him to make this step, and I quote on page 93 of the document book, about the middle of the page, literally:
I have to say that in the minutes, the Defendant Hess appears under the name -- the capital letter "J". The Defendant Hess, after the introductory remarks, stated:
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, there seems to be a typographical error, probably in the date. The date is given as the 9th of August. You said the 10th of June, did you not?
DR. SEIDL: The 10th of June, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a mistake at the top of page 93 -9.3.41.
DR. SEIDL: On the cover of the document there is the following remark: "Minutes of a conference which took place on the 9/6/41 somewhere in England. On the inside of the document, there is the 9/8/41 and there must be a typographical error somewhere.
THE PRESIDENT: There must have been. They put "8" instead of "6".
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: "I know that my arrival has not been understand correctly by anybody, my coming here; because it is an extraordinary step that I have taken that I cannot expect it -- the understanding. Therefore I would like to begin by explaining how I arrived at this."
I continue on page 94:
"The idea came to me when I was in June of the last year, during the French campaign, with the Fuehrer."
The following remark, I believe, I can leave out, and then I quote:
"I have to state that I came to the Fuehrer convinced, as we all were, that sooner or later -- but in the end certainly -- we could conquer England; and I expressed the opinion to the Fuehrer that we must naturally demand from England therestitution of goods, such as the value of the merchant fleet, etc., which had been taken from us once by the Versailles Treaty.
"The Fuehrer then contradicted me immediately. He was of the opinion that the war could possibly lead finally to an agreement with England, which he has attempted since he is politically active. I can testify, that since I have known the Fuehrer, since 1921 the Fuehrer has always spoken about it, that the agreement between Germany and England had to be achieved.
As soon as he is in power he will do that, he said. And he told me at that timein France that one should not impose any severe conditions, even if victorious, on a country with which it was desired to come to an agreement.
At that time I had the thought that if in England one knew of this fact, it might be possible that England on its part was ready for an agreement."
"Then came the Fuehrer's offer at the conclusion of the French campaign--his offer to England. The offer, as is known, was refused; and this confirmed all the more my resolution that under these circumstances I must go through with my plan. Closely following that came the air war between Germany and England which on the whole -- seen on the whole -definitely caused heavier damage to England than to Germany. Consequently, I had the impression that England could not give way without losing con siderable prestige.
That is why I said to myself, now I must realize my plan all the more, for if I were over in England, England could be enabled to cultivate negotiations between Germany and England without loss of prestige."
I quote then from page 97. After a short statement by Dr. Mackenzie, Hess continued:
"I was of the opinion that apart from the question of terms for an agreement, there was still in England a certain distrust of a general nature to be overcome. I must confess that I faced a very critical decision, the most critical in my life; and I believe it became possible for me through the fact that I realized, not only on the German side but also on the English side, I pictured an endless row of children's coffins with the mothers crying behind them."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, have you got the original document there before you?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Might it be handed up?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
(The document was handed to the President).
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
DR. SEIDL: "And vice-versa, the coffins of mothers with the children behind them.
I want to mention certain points which, I believe, plan a certain part here from the psychological point of view. I must assert something. After the defeat in the Great War, the Versailles Treaty was imposed on Germany; and no serious historian is now of the opinion that Germany was responsible for the World War. Lloyd George has said the peoples stumbled into the war. I recently read an English historian -Farrar -- who wrote about Edward VII and his policy at that time. This historian Farrar lays the guilt for the war on the policies of Edward VII. Germany had this treaty imposed upon her after her collapse, which was not only a frightful calamity for Germany but also for the whole world. All attempts of politicians, of statesmen in Germany, before the Fuehrer came to power, that is to say, when Germany was a democracy of the purest water, to obtain any sort of relief were unavailing."
I forego the reading of the following part of the minutes. There took place another conversation about various points, among others: the subject of the conversation then was the strength of Germany in the air and the preparations with regard to the building of U boats. I don't believe that these questions are relevant in the present connection; and then I would like to pass on to that part of the minutes where the proposals are made, which Hess submitted to Lord Simon. We find this on page 152 of the document book. From the minutes we can see that Hess, at that time, had written down the proposals which he wanted to submit previously, and these notes he had given to Dr. Mackenzie, that is to say, Mr. Kirkpatrick, who read them, or, that is to say, translated them; and I quote on page 152, at the bottom of the page, literally:
"Basis for an understanding." And here I have to ask the Tribunal to go from page 152 of the document book to page 159 of the document book, for the reason that the first point of the proposal apparently has been represented in the wrong fashion.
Dr. Mackenzie which expresses the first point quite correctly, and I quote:
"In order to prevent future wars between the Axis and England, there should be a definition of interest spheres. The interest sphere of the Axis is Europe, and England's sphere of interest is the Empire.
I ask now to return to page 153 of the document book. Here we find the second point of the proposals which Hess had made, on the last line.
"Dr. Mackenzie: 2. Return of German Colonies." top of the page:
"3"--is it possible that in the document book by error the figure 2 was repeated? It should be 3.
"3. Indemnification of German nationals who had their residence before the war or during the war within the British Empire and who suffered damage in their persons or property through measures of a Government of the Empire or through any occurrence such as tumult, pillage, etc. Indemnification on the same basis by Germany of British subjects.
"4. Armistice and peace to be concluded with Italy at the same time."
Then there is a personal statement by Hess. "The Fuehrer has repeatedly indicated these points to me on general lines in conversations as the basis for an understanding with England." reading of the other passages marked in red. bring the proposals made by Hess to the knowledge of the British Government. That was Exhibit No. H-15. Indictment of preparing the seizure of power by the Nazi conspirators, of sponsoring it; that with regard to the military, economic, and psychological preparation for the war as mentioned under Count 12, be also sponsored it; that he participated in the political planning and preparation of aggressive wars, and of wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances, as mentioned in Counts 1 and 2 and that he participated in the preparation and planning of foreign political plans of the Nazi conspirators as listed under Count 1.
Prosecution against Rudolph Hess. It is therefore my duty, in producing evidence, to also point at the circumstances since 1933 which led to the outbreak of war, and in that connection I must say the following: a non-aggression pact was concluded which has already been submitted by the Prosecution as GB-145. On the same day, that is to say one week before the outbreak of the war and three days before the planned attack on Poland, these two nations concluded still another secret agreement. This secret agreement contained es sentially the limitation of the spheres of interest of both nations within the territories between both nations.
THE PRESIDENT: You aren't forgetting, are you, the Tribunal's ruling that this is not the opportunity for making a speech, but simply the occasion for introducing documents and calling witnesses. You will have the opportunity of making your speech at a later stage.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, yes. I do not intend to make a speech. I intend only to say a few introductory words to a document which I will submit to the Tribunal. Lithuania, Finland, and Esthonia.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, we haven't yet seen the document. If you are going to put in the document, put in the document.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, I can submit the document at once. It is an affidavit by the former ambassador Dr. Friedrich Gauss. In the year 1939 he was the Chief of the Legal Department of the Foreign Office, and as traveling companion of the German plenipotentiary at that time he was present airing negotiations at Moscow, and he has actually written the non-aggression pact which has already been submitted, as well as the secret agreement. He drafted it, and I want to submit it herewith to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you hand in the document?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, but I intend to read parts of this document later.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal doesn't quite understand what this document is because it isn't included in your document book and it doesn't appear that you made any application for it or made any reference toit, and it is in German; it isn't translated.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, when I prepared the document book for the defendant Hess, I did not have this affidavit. It dates from the 15th of March 1946. At that time, when applications about material evidence for Defendant Hess were made and discussed, I had no definite knowledge of the connections which would have enabled me to make application at that time. The excerpts which I intend to read from this document are short and it will be possible for them to be translated here in the Court by the interpreters present without difficulty.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got a copy for the Prosecution?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, yes, a German copy, that is.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid that wouldn't be any use to me. I don't know whether it is to all the members of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecuting Counsel any objection to passages being read from this document?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I did not know about the existence of this document and therefore I strenuously object to having it read into the record and I would wish that the procedure that has been followed in the past be preserved now. When the Prosecution was presenting its evidence it always resented copies of it to the Defense Counsel and the counsel for Hess is presenting a document which is absolutely unknown to anybody and the Prosecution certainly would like to familiarize itself with it beforehand. I do not know what kind of secret treatieshe is talking about and what the basis or foundation for it is. I would therefore say it is at least hearsay rather than anything else.
DR. SEIDL: The Prosecutor of the Soviet Union states that he had no knowledge as to the existence of this secret document which shall he proved by this affidavit. Under these circumstances I am compelled to make the application to call Foreign Commissar Molotov of the Soviet Union as a witness, that is to say, so that it can be established first whether this agreement had been concluded in fact; secondly, what the contents of this agreement were and thirdly -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the first thing for you to do is to have a translation of this document made and until you have a translation of this document made the Tribunal is not prepared to hear you upon it. We do not know what the document contains.
DR. SEIDL: As to what the document contains, I had already started to explain that before.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal is not prepared to hear from you what the document contains. We want to see the document itself and see it in English and also in Russian. I do not mean, of course, you have to do it yourself Dr. Seidl. If you would furnish this copy to the Prosecution they will have translated into the various languages and then, after that has been done, we can reconsider the matter.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. Then I shall refer to another document against the reading of which there will certainly be no objections, that is because we are dealing here with a document which has already been submitted by the Prosecution. It Is the speech, the address made by the Fuehrer before the Commandersin-Chief of the Armed Forces on the 22nd of August, 1939. It was submitted by the Prosecution of the Soviet Union as PS-789 and as Exhibit Number 29. I quote from page 6 of the German photostat.
"Hitler stated at that time" -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got it in your document book or not, I mean just for convenience?
DR. SEIDL: The document was completely submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean it is not here: I have not got the document before me. It is not in your document book.
DR. SEIDL: No, it is not in the document book because the Court has already ruled that each defendant's counsel has the right to refer to any document which has already been submitted by the Prosecution and I quote:
"I have taken care of the regrouping with respect to Russia. In connection with the trade agreement, we got into a political conversation. Proposal of non-aggression pact. Then, a universal proposal from Russia. I took a special step which led to the fact that Russia has answered yesterday she was ready to conclude the agreement. A personal connection with Stalin has been achieved. Von Ribbentrop will conclude the treaty to day after tomorrow. Now Poland is in the position in which I wanted to see her."
Mr. President, gentlemen: I had the intention to call the witness Bohle who has already been approved by the Tribunal. The defendant Hess, however, has asked me to forego the personal appearance of that witness and concerning the probative matter in reference to which the witness was to be heard, to read an affidavit instead.
I have such an affidavit. I had it prepared and beyond doubt it would facilitate the proceedings and save time if the Tribunal would approve the reading of this affidavit. If however, the Tribunal is of the opinion -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have not had the opportunity of seeing the affidavit. As previously advised, if the witness covers the ground for which he was asked, I should want him for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the witness?
DR. SEIDL: He is here. Bohle how.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean to call him or read his affidavit?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, since the Prosecutor apparently protests against the reading of the affidavit, I would like to call the witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not seen the affidavit, of course, my Lord, so at the moment, as I say, if the affidavit covers the ground that the witness should speak upon, then I shall want to cross examine him.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the Prosecution are agreeable that the affidavit should be put in the witness must be called but if the Prosecution are agreeable to the affidavit being read and then the witness presented for crossexamination, the Tribunal is quite willing that should be done.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not mind that in the least, my Lord. If of course, I am in slight difficulty not knowing what is in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the best course would be for the Tribunal to have a ten minute adjournment now and you could perhaps see what is in the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: It is a pleasure, my Lord.
(a recess was taken)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal did not wish to hurry counsel but we thought we had better get on with other witnesses and this document can be translated and considered and possibly dealt with after the main adjournment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, I have not had the chance of reading the translation. A preliminary view of the convinced my staff that it was not of very great importance and I was going to consider whether the quickest way might be to let the affidavit be read if the Tribunal would then permit me to read three documents which I was going to put in crossexamination to the witness. That might be more convinient than to take the course which your Lordship suggests, of waiting until we have seen the full affidavit and then consider what would be the course to deal with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have perhaps seen part of the document and you can perhaps judge better which would be more convinient course. Whichever you think more convinient.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I am content if Dr. Seidl reads it but it would have to be on the terms that the documents which I was going to put in cross-examination to the witness are read.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks he had better be called.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl ?
DR. SEIDL: If I understand the High Tribunal correctly, it does not wish the affidavit to be read but the testimony of the witness personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as soon as the affidavit has been translated and the Prosecution have had an opportunity of considering it, they can let us know whether they think it will be better to treat the affidavit as the examination of the witness and he must then be produced here for the purpose of cross-examination unless you prefer to examine him orally yourself.
DR. SEIDL: I believe that under the circumstances it would be best to call the witness immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
ERNST WILHELM BOHLE: a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you tell me your name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me:
truth and with hold and add nothing?
(The witness repeated the oath.) BY DR. SEIDL: N.S.D.A.P.?
Q When you were State Secretary of the Foreign Office?
DR. SEIDL: Mr President, Mr Dodd of the American Prosecution made the suggestion in order to save time if it might not be possible to follow the same procedure as in the case of witness Blaha, that is to read the affidavit in the presence of the witness and then hear him in cross-examination. BY DR. SEIDL:
Q You signed an affidavit?
"1. The Foreign Organization of the N.S.D.A.P. was in accordance with some Germans abroad, established on the 1st of May in 1931 at Hamburg. The leader was Strasse and appointed as the leader of the Reichstag a member of the N.S.D.A.P. by the name of Dr Hans Nieland. I myself led the Ausland organization, that is I entered in December 1931 and on the 1st of March 1932, entered the party. On the 8th of May, 1933 Dr. Nieland resigned from his office as leader of the Ausland organization, since he entered into the government of the City of Hamburg and as a German at home was less interested in questions of Germans abroad.
On the basis of my experience abroad and my connections abroad -- I was born in England and raised in South Africa -- I was charged with the leadership of the Ausland Organization.
"Point 2. The purpose of the Ausland Organization was those Germans outside the boundaries of Germany at the taking over of power--members of the Party--to include them in an organizational way. Beyond that, the Germans abroad which really had just very vague motions of the political happenings at home, these Germans were to be kept informed of the ideas and the political programs of the new state.
"Point 3. Only Reichsdeutsche could become members of the Party. The taking in of foreigners or former Germans who had acquired citizenship in another state was strictly prohibited.
"Point 4. Showing a certificate of citizenship there was the basic principle of the attitude of the Party toward the organization; first of all, to follow the laws of the country to which you belong. The internal policy should be carried through by the natives of that country. Do not interfere, do not mix in in any way even in conversations. This principle was of basic importance for the work and the attitude of the Ausland Organization, as far as foreign countries were concerned, from the beginning of its establishment to the end, I personally pointed out in many public speeches, and among other things used the following sentences: "National Socialism will honor foreign folkdom because it loves its own."
"Point 5. My speeches in Porchester Hall in London on the 2nd of October 1937 and at Budapest toward the end of 1938 give a comprehensive picture of the attitude of the Ausland Organization of the NSDAP, so far as foreign countries are concerned.
"Winston Churchill in September of 1937 repeatedly attacked the activity of the Ausland Organization in newspaper articles, and in his famous speech, "Friendship with Germany," which appeared in the London "Evening Standard" the 17th of September 1937 he called this organization incriminating to the connection between Germany and England. In the same article he said that he was ready to converse with me in the most cordial manner about this question. The German Embassy art London told the Foreign Office at that time that a motion by Churchill in Commons regarding the activity of the Ausland Organization was not desirable, but it was desirable to have a conversation between Churchill and myself.
This took place on the day of my speech to the Reich Germans in London, in the flat of Winston Churchill, and lasted more than an hour. I had ample opportunity in this conversation, which was entirely cordial, to inform Churchill of the activity of the Ausland Organization and to dissipate his fears and qualms. Toward the end he accompanied me to my car, and had his picture taken with me, in order, as he said, to show the world that we were parting as friends. There was no investigation or inquiry in Commons. Since that time in no manner did Churchill object to the activity of the Ausland Organization. My speech of the same date, which was published by an English concern in English, in the form of a brochure, was very favorably received. There were excerpts from this speech. 'Mr. Bohle's Plea For A Foreign Understanding', was the title. Churchill wrote me a letter after this conversation in which he voiced his satisfaction with the result of our conversation.
"Point 6. In the proceeding concerning the murder of the leader of the Ausland Organization in Switzerland, Wilhelm Gustlov, the proceeding which took place in Switzerland in 1936 at Koor, the legality of the Ausland Organization was the matter at issue of this legal procedure. The defendant, David Frankfurter, was sentenced to eighteen years imprisonment. And as far as I can tell from memory, the Swiss authorities, who were not friendly to Nazis, had to affirm and confirm that Gustlov and the Landesgruppe of the Ausland Organization had given no reason for concern in any way. And Bundesrat Baumann gave the decisive testimony who, according to my knowledge, was Police Minister and Minister of the Exterior of Switzerland at that time.
"Point 7. I should further like to point out that after the outbreak of the war the Landesgruppen of the Ausland Organization continued to function until the end of the war, and that is especially true of Switzerland, Sweden, and Portugal. At the latest, beginning with 1943, there could have been no action; the Reich could not have taken any action if the Ausland Organization had come into conflict with the internal laws of the countries involved and if the prohibition of this organization would have been the result.
"Point 8. Aside from the indisputable legality of the Ausland Organization, as its leader I affirmed and reaffirmed repeatedly that the Auslandsdeutschen (Germans abroad) would certainly be the last people who would be war mongers or who would be conspirators against peace. From bitter experience they knew that with the outbreak of a war there would be internment for them, persecution, confiscation of money, and destruction of their economic existence would be their lot.
"Point 9. Knowing the situation abroad no one knew better than the Germans abroad, the Auslandsdeutschen, that any activity of any sor t with regard to a fifth column would be sensdess and damaging to the interests of the Reich. The expression "fifth column" is to be traceable back to the Civil War to my knowledge. It is in any case a foreign innovation. When France attacked Madrid with four divisions it was asserted that a fifth column consisting of nationalist elements was within the beleagered city underground and was ready to go to work.
"Point 10. The usage of the term "fifth column" with reference to the Ausland Organization of the NSDAP is entirely without basis. If this assertion were true, it would mean that members of the Ausland Organization in connection with local oppositional elements had been charged in one or more foreign countries or had tried of themselves to undermine this state from within. Any such assertion would be taken out of thin air, would be entirely withoutbasis.
"Point 11. Neither from the former deputy of the Fuehrer, Rudolf Hess, nor from me, as the leader of the Ausland Organization, did members of this organization in any way receive missions or were charged to make the activity in the sense of a fifth column. Even Hitler himself never gave me any directives in that respect. And in conclusion and as a summary I might say that the Ausland Organization at no time as long as I was its leader participated in any activity of a fifth column or developed any such action.
Never did the deputy of the Fuehrer give directives to the Ausland Organization which would have activated it toward such activity. Rudolf Hess, on the contrary, desired most urgently that members of the Ausland Organization would under no circumstances interfere with the internal affairs of that country in which they were living.
"Point 12. Of course, it is known that as well as the members of the then hostile countries, Germans were used in the espionage and intelligence work. This activity had nothing whatever to do with the membership in the Ausland Organization and these groups which were public and legal. And in order not to harm them in any way I always repeatedly demanded that members of the Ausland Organization were not to be used for activities of that sort without previously having the opportunity to relieve them of their membership in the Ausland Organization."
And that is the end of the affidavit of the witness Bohle. I have no questions to ask the witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask the witness any questions?
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendant von Schirach): I would like to put several questions to this witness, Your Honor. BY DR. SAUTER: German Youth, and I am interested in knowing the following points:
Did the Hitler Youth (H.J.) exist in foreign countries or did it exist only in Germany?
Q Please tell me whether the Hitler Youth (H.J.) was the subordinate to the political directives of the competent authorities of the Ausland Organization or is that not right? Hoheitstraeger (bearers of sovereignty) of the party.
members of the Hitler Youth had been used for agent services and espionage service; that they were being trained in foreign countries, not only trained but also used for these purposes. Certain facts are noted here. It is only an assertion. In connection with this it was asserted that the Hitler Youth abroad were being used as paratroopers, had been trained internally and used as paratroopers abroad, and that is the assertion which I am submitted to you, and I ask to have your opinion on this. Whether on the basis of your knowledge as the competent leader of the Ausland Organization such happenings did take place or whether anything like that would be possible at all.
A I would like to say the following in reply: abroad could have been active, could have been misused in this way. I can assert that all the more since I know from the leaders of the Party in the various foreign countries I would have heard everything to the contrary. I know nothing at all about the training of the Hitler Youth as paratroopers or anything similar. I have no knowledge of anything like that. I consider that assertions of that kind have no basis whatsoever. that sort on the basis of the entire organization would certainly have come to your knowledge if things like that had taken place or if they had just been planned; is that correct?
Q Then, witness, I have a last question. In the Tribunal in the course of the proceedings a further assertion was made about the H.J., that is about the Hitler Youth. It was asserted that at Lemberg the following took place: little children as targets. Particulars even in this report are not given, just the assertions stated. I am interested to know--you know, of course, that the Hitler Youth had a membership toward the end of about seven to eight million people.
THE PRESIDENT: With the Ausland organization?
DR. SAUTER: With the Ausland organization, only since in connection with my client the Defendant von Schirach it is charged that the Hitler Youth abroad committed such cruelties and atrocities.
THE PRESIDENT: It wasn't suggested that they did this abroad; it was that they used children as targets abroad.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, it was said at Lemberg, not in Germany. In Lemberg. And that is, of course, for abroad.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean after the war began?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought this witness was speaking about the Ausland organization before the war.
DR. SAUTER: I don't know but the Ausland organization during the war is concerned here. But Mr. President, the witness knows conditions, for he was the head of the Ausland organization and therefore this witness seems to be especially qualified to give us information on these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that we are very far from the point, but you can go on.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, then I would have to call this witness for my client again. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, do you recall the last question I put to you? members of the Hitler Youth abroad, which was under your jurisdiction, committed atrocities of that nature? belong to the Ausland organization, that I wasnever there, and am not in a position to give you any information on that point. Obviously the erroneous opinion seems to exist that the General Government was connected with the Ausland organization and the party, but that is not true. I had no organizational powers there.
DR. SAUTER: I have no further questions.