I submit then Raeder Exhibit No. 102, in the same document book page 449. This deals with the order to the Second Belgium Grenedier Regiment of 13 April 1940 concerning information about Allied troops and the establishment of a fortified position. It can be seen from the document that the friendly troops mentioned are the Allies. French document of 16 April 1940 of the High Command of the French Army concerning measures about the rail transportation of French troops into Belgium. documents, which I shall not read in detail.
The same applies in the case of Raeder Exhibit No. 104, document book 5, page 455, which is the order of the second British Division concerning security measures in Belgium of 9 April 1940. There we find a directive similar to the document which has been submitted by the Prosecution. That is a directive to get in touch with Belgium civilian authorities.
Raeder Exhibit No. 105, document book 5, page 459, is the statement of a Luxembourg citizen which shows that 200 men, French soldiers in uniform, seven days before the outbreak of GermanBelgium hostilities, entered Luxembourg in armoured cars. submit anything concerning the character of my client, because I was of the opinion that Admiral Raeder, both at home and abroad, enjoyed sympathy and respect. The first trial brief against Raede made me adhere to that intention. Shortly before the presentation of that trial brief, it was changed, and the now form was considerably more severe, concerning moral accusations which seriously injure Raeder's honor. under these conditions, I ask to be permitted to submit documents which are concerned with the character of Raeder.
That is a letter from Frau von Poser to no. It is not an afficavi and quite purposely I have submitted the original because, in my opinion, it will give a more original impression then an affidavit for which as Counsel I am asking to be granted permission.
Then there is also a longer letter by Professor D. Seilt, who on his own initiative approached me. I submit Raeder Exhibit No. 120, which is also in document book VI, Page 517. I would be grateful to the Tribunal if it would take judicial notice of that letter. In order to save time, since it is ten pages long, I would not like to read it. 526, a letter from Mr. Erich Katz, which I submit with the appendices, and ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of it, in order to present one of the cases in which Raeder intervened personally, and for personal reasons, by making full use of his influence and position. In this position he intervened for Mr. Katz who had been attacked for being Jewish, and protected him and succeeded in protecting him. Mr. Katz, on his own initiative, has sent me these documents in order to show his gratitude.
Raeder Exhibit 123. I submit a letter from Guenter Jacobson that concerns a similar case. Jacobson was not approaches by me either, but on his own contacted me in order to testify that Raeder intervened for his father, who as a Jew had been accused of race disgrace and sent to a concentration camp hospital, which I believe was still a prison at that time, but he saved him so that Jacobson could emigrate to England, where is is still living now.
I submit as Raeder Exhibit No. 124 an affidavit-
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I must make the following statement. All four exhibits mentioned just now by Dr. Siemer are personal letters from various persons to Dr. Siemers. They are not sworn affidavits. They are not interrogations. Therefore those documents have little probitive value, and I wonder whether they ought to be admitted as evidence. Many letters are received, and if they were all to be submitted to the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have great difficulty in establishing the truth and how far they are of probitive value.
In that connection, I personally object to the fact that these documents should be accepted as evidence in Raeder's case.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think that the matter is of sufficient importance to insist upon the evidence being upon oath. The documents are admitted.
DR. SIEMERS: As Raeder Exhibit No. 124 I submit an affidavit of Konrad Lotter. That is a very short statement, and with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to read that one page:
"Admiral Raeder has always appeared to me as a man who embodied the best traditions of the old Imperial Navy. This was true particularly in a world-philosophical respect. As a man and as an officer he was at all times the best model imaginable.
"In 1941, when the anti-Christian policy of the Hitler regime commenced with its full might in Vavaria, when Monasteries were closed and in the education of youth the intolerance against every creed became crassly manifest, I sent a memorandum of twelve pages to the Admiral in which I presented to him my arguments against this policy. Admiral Raeder intervened at once. Through his mediation, I was called to the District Leader and Minister of the Interior, Wagner, at Munich. After a series of discussions between the clerical, governmental and party authorities, an agreement was reached which had the result that the school prayer was retained, the crucifix was allowed to remain in the schools, etc., furthermore, 59 priests who had been fined 500 marks each were pardoned.
"The closing down of monastaries was also halted at that time. Gauleiter Wagner had to defend himself" -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Dr. Siemers, all these documents have been read by us very recently.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well. Then I just ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the remainder.
I submit also the two last documents, Raeder Exhibit No. 125 and Raeder Exhibit No. 126. No. 125 is an affidavit by the former Reich Defense Minister Dr. Otto Gessler, and Raeder No. 26 is an affidavit by the Navy Chaplain Ronneberger. I ask you to take judicial notice of this latter document.
I would like to be permitted to read the short affidavit by Dr. Gessler because it has not only a purely personal part, but also a part which concerns the accusations against Raeder:
"I, Gassier, have known the former Admiral of the Fleet Dr. Raeder personally since about the middle of the 20's when I was Reich Minister of National Defense. Raeder was then Inspector of the Educational System in the Navy. I knew Raeder always as a man of irreproachable, chivalrous disposition, as a dutiful man. As to the subject of the indictment, I know very little.
"Raeder visited me repeatedly after my release from the Gestapo in March 1945 when I was laid up in the Hedwig Hospital in Berlin and he helped also with my removal home, as I was ill and fully exhausted. I also told him then about the ill treatment which fell to my lot, especially the torture. He was obviously surprised and indignant. He said he would report this to the Fuehrer. I asked him at once to refrain from that, for I had been told before the torture, and officially, that all of this was taking place at the explicit orders of Hitler. Moreover I knew definitely that I would immediately be rearrested, as on my release I had to sign the well known declaration (Revers) and could not even obtain a confirmation of my detention in order to get a ticket for my trip home.
"I learned nothing about secret armaments in the Navy, neither during my term of office nor later. During my term of office, until January 1928, Admiral of the Fleet Raeder would not have been responsible either, for he was at that time not Chief of the Naval Command.
"At the time of the National Socialist regime I was partly ignored by my form department and partly snubbed. One of the few exceptions to this was Dr. Raeder.
Before 1939 he invited me three times to a visit on the cruiser Nurnberg, although I refused twice.
During the visit in June 1939, he came to Kiel personally to greet me. At that time we also discussed the political situation. I expressed the apprehension that an attack on Poland would mean a European war. Raeder declared positively that he considered it out of the question that Hitler would attack Poland. When this did happen later, however, I explained this to myself on the grounds that Hitler liked to place even the highest militarists face to face with accomplished facts."
Then there is the statement "under oath" and the signature of the notary.
As to the last Raeder Exhibit, No. 126, Ronneberger, I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. It is a factual description about questions of the church and the Navy Chaplain's office.
Mr. President, with that, with the exception of three points, I can conclude my case. First and second, there are still two interrogatories missing which have not yet been returned. I ask permission to submit these as soon as I have received them. already been approved, who on account of illness could not appear until now. The British delegation, through Sir David, has been kind enough to agree that if necessary this witness can be interrogated at a later date. May I be permitted to ask the Tribunal to keep this decision open, and if possible to permit that General Admiral Boehm should be questioned at a later date. I want to point out now that it will not be a large complex of questions such as it has been with Admiral Schulte-Moenting, which is already known to the Tribun from the material I have submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 23 May 1946 at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the documents of the Defendant SeyssInquart, the Tribunal admits the following documents which were objected to:
No. 11, No. 47, No. 48, No. 50, No. 54, and No. 71.
The remainder of the documents which were objected to are rejected. I will enumerate them:
No. 5, No. 10, No. 14, No. 19-B, No. 21, No. 22, No. 27, No. 31, No. 39, No. 55, No. 60, No. 61, No. 68, No. 69.
M. DUBOST (of the French Prosecution): Mr. President, last hight at the end of the session the Defense of Admiral Raeder submitted a certain number of documents including Document 105 of Document Book 5. This document is an excerpt from the German White Book, No. 5. There is the testimony of an aged man, 72 years old, born in Luxembourg, who has lived in Belgium only for the last six months, and who affirms that he met in the month of April, 1940, 200 French soldiers in Belgium. These soldiers, who he said were French, and were with a tank outfit. ment No. 7 of the white Book No. 5, the original of which has never been submitted and is the case with a certain number of documents in the German white Book. formal protest -- very categorically be made against such an assertion. At no time during the invasion of Belgium by the German forces did any French troops enter. The rest of this document, No. 105 of Document Book 5 of Admiral Raeder, gives us to understand whence comes the error which is mentioned in the testimony. bourg and to the question put to him by the German authorities as to whether and how he recognized the soldiers he had seen were French nationality, he answered, "I recognized them as being French soldiers because I know their uniform extrendy well.
Moreover, I recognized the soldiers because of the language they were speaking when they spoke to me." time when these events took place the Belgian Army had a uniform of the same color as the French Army and a sap of the name shape. Now, as far as the language goes, the Tribunal also knows that great part of the Belgian population who live along the Luxembeurg frontier speak French and the Belgian soldiers recruited in those districts speak French themselves. man, had only been living for six months in Belgium and had most probably had a very limited experience with things Belgian -- and especially with the Belgian Army. It any rate, we assert in the name of France and in the name of Belgium that before the 10th of May, 1940, no French troops, organized French troops penetrated into Belgium and that the isolated individuals who did go into Belgium were interned there.
(Dr. Siemers came to the lectern.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: If it please the Tribunal, may I just reply very briefly?
This is a document from the white Book. A decision had already been made in this court room and temporarily it had been allowed. I urge that the Prosecution should be made to submit the original, if they deny the correctness of this document. This would be in keeping with a decision of the Tribunal which states that an application was to be made, for the presentation of the original if it were available, or that an application she ld be made to produce the Original from whomsoever possesses it. As far as I know, the Prosecution have the original, since all original documents are located in the Foreign, Office in Berlin, or in the safekeeping department, and since all the originals of these white books were -
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by "original"? The original, I suppose, is the original of the white Book. Is that what you mean?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I now mean the original of this record, this court record.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this comes from a White Book. That is a printed document, I suppose. I don't suppose it contains the original of the statement of this Luxembourg man.
DR. SIEMERS: The White Book is a collection of numerous -- countless -documents, and the individual documents, in turn, are in the possession of the Foreign Office and partly they had been in the files of the General Staff of France and partly they had been records of court proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Monsieur Dubost, you aren't urging that we should strike the document out, but the Tribunal will certainly take into account the facts to which you have drawn our notice.
M. DUBOST: This is a request to obtain from the Tribunal that document. At the same time there is a protest against the assertion made by the Defense that French soldiers violated the Belgian neutrality in the course of the month of April. I hope the Tribunal will allow me to aid them in making their decision.
The White Book, which we have right here, is made up of two parts. The first part reproduces texts and the second part gives photostat copy of these texts. In the first Part, which simply reproduces the text, is found the document which I ask the Tribunal to strike from the record. We have looked in the second part which reproduces the photostat copies of the document, of the first part, and we do not find it. We state to the Tribunal that the original of the document, which we ask the Tribunal to put aside, has not been reproduced in the German white Book, since it is not to be found in the second part.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that Monsieur Dubost's entire explanation refers to the question of evidentiary value of the document and not the matter of its admissibility. The fact that this document is in order appears to be quite clear, since it is the record of court proceedings where a certain personality, Conjener, was interrogated or examined. Everything said by Monsieur Dubost refers to the contents of the document, therefore the question of its value as evidence. May I ask, therefore, that the document be admitted, as it has up to now, and may I ask you to take into consideration that the document has value in connection with other points which Dr. Horn and I respectively have submitted in our document books regarding Holland and Belgium.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Siemers, and monsieur Dubost, the Tribunal will consider the objection that has been made.
DR. SIEMERS: May I merely mention, Dr. President, that if the photostat copy to which Mr Dubost is objecting isn't contained in the book, then this is due to the fact that this court in its original form was German and that the facsimiles of the book are those prepared according to the original text in French that is to say, those documents which in their original version were in French. If necessary, I would refer to a witness, Geheimrat von Schnieden, with reference to this record, since he at the time had been informed about all the records of this type and worked -- cooperated -- when the book was compiled.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the matter.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for Defendant Doenitz): Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal I should like to submit the interrogatory put to the Chief of the American Naval Staff, Admiral Nimitz, which I received the day before yesterday and which I have since submitted to the interpreters for translation. With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to read it right now, after the cases for Doenitz and Raeder -
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution seen it?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got copies for us?
DR. KRAZBUEHLER: I had been informed that the copies fot the Tribunal had been passed to the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless we have copies, the document must not be read. Itt must be put off until we have copies.
DR. KRANZBUELER: There are two copies in English and one in French.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Soviet members of the Tribunal do not have a copy of the document, translated in their language, so you will present it at a later date.
Will the Counsel for the Defendant von Schiracht present his case?
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant von Schiracht): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, to start with, I propose to carry out the examination of the Defendant von Schiracht himself, and as this examination proceeds and as the individual points develop, I propose to refer to the corresponding parts of the document book and bring them to your knowledge. After the examination of the Defendant I shall then call, my four witnesses and at the end I intend to submit the remaining documents, in so far as these documents have not by that time been presented during the examination of the Defendant von Schiracht. I presume, Dr. President, that you are agreeable to this procedure. as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q ill you repeat the following oath after me: truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sis down. BY. DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, what is the date of your birth?
Q That means that a few days ago you were thirty-nine?
Q You have been married for fourteen years; is that right?
Q And you have four children; what are their ages?
Q In the Third Reich you were mostly youth leader, weren't you?
Q Which offices did you fill in that respect; that is, offices in the Party, offices in the State; and please, will you also state how long you had filled these individual offices? Students Union. In 1931 I became Reich Youth Leader of tie NSDAP; first of all in the staff of the Supreme SA Command, and in 1932 I became Reich Leader for the Youth Education System of the NSDAP; in 1933, Youth Leader in the German Reich -first of 11, under the Minister for Interior, Dr. Frick, and in 1934, in the same session, I came under the Reich minister of Education, Dr. Rust. In 1936, the Youth Leader in Germany became Supreme Reich Authority and in that capacity I came directly under the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. you have been mentioned with offices of the Reich? NSDAP and Reich Leader for Youth Education. Office posts of the state was the Youth Leader of the German Reich, first of all, in the position under the Minister of the Interior and as I have described it, or of the respective education minister and then it became an independent office. 1940, weren't you? Which position did you lose in connection with leading youth in 1940 and which positions did you hold subsequently and until the end? someone else; that is to say, I left the office of the Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP but I retained the position of Reich Leader for Youth Education and with that entire responsibility for German youth. The additional now position which I was given was that of Gauleiter, district lender, Vienna, which was connected with the state position of the Reich Governor of Vienna, and also of the Office of the Reich Defense Commissioner in the Armed Defense District 17.
leader and come back to that. There is an affidavit available from you, which is dated the 4th of December 1945, and the number is PS-3302. In December, you have stated to the prosecution in that affidavit, that you are declaring yourself responsible for all youth education in the Third Reich. conception or did you have the conception that your successor, Reich Leader Axmann, was dead?
Q You believed that he died during the final stages? that your successor in the office of Reich Youth Leader, this man Axmann, is still alive; is that right? as youth leader, do you wish to maintain the entire statement made in that affidavit to its full extent or do you want to limit it somewhat today? last years of his life, Hitler gave orders to the youth, which I do not know; and although my successor, Axmann, particularly in 1944 gave orders which I do not know, because communications between us had been severed through the events of the war -- I nevertheless adhered to the statement that I had made, expecting that the Tribunal will deal with me or consider me the only responsible person with regard to youth leadership in Germany, since no other youth leader is being put before a court for any such actions for which I am assuming responsibility. type of education of youth you carried out, principles and directives of any kind were decisive, which you received from Hitler or from any source of the Party, or from any other authority of the State, or whether for your youth education, the decisive factors were the experiences which you, yourself, have made during you own youth and amongst the circle of youth leaders of your time.
A The latter point is correct. Of course, the education of Hitler youth was an education placed on the basis of National Socialist ideas but the specific educational source originates not from Hitler nor did they originate from any other leadersin the party; they originate from youth itself, from me and from my assistants and officers. mere in detail how you, yourself, arrived at those principles and that type of youth education, based on your own education, your personal development, and so on and so forth. story very briefly of my own youth. I will just sketch it and I should descri in that connection those youth organizations with which I had been in contact. I shall save quite a lot of time through that for my further statements. I was born in Berlin and one year afterwards, my father retired and moved to Weimar where he became the head of the theatre there, the National Theater of Weimar; thus, I grew up in Weimar, and that town which, in a certain way, in a certain sense, is the home of all Germans, was regarded by me as my own home town. My father was well off; my home offered a great deal of intellectual and artistic interests, particularly of a literary and musical kind but apart from and over and above the means of education of my home, it was the atmosphere of that town, that atmosphere of the classic and post-classic Weimar which influenced my own developments, but it was most of all the Genius Loci which captured me completely later on and particularly because of those experiences of my youth I have again and again and year after year, I have led youth back to Weimar and back to Goethe.
It is that document which is important in this connection far my case, Document 80. It might prove just that. In that document there is a brief reference to one of many speeches which I made in the course of my activities as the leader of the young generation, and in this speech I pointed out to the youth of Germany what Goethe was -
Q May I interrupt you for a moment Dr. von Schirach?
DR. SAUTER: In that Document No. 80, Mr. President, there is -- on Page 133 of your document book -- a brief report of a cultural meeting og the Hitler Youth in the Reich which took place at Weimar. Quite accidentally, this happens to be a report relating to 1937, but the Defendant has already told that such culture conventions of the Hitler Youth in Weimar Shiller's and Goethe's home town, took place every year. In this report, Document 80 of your Document Book, there is a mention, for instance, of a speech of the Defendant regarding Goethe' s significance or importance for the National Socialist education of youth. It said, in this connection, that at that time von Schirach had said, and I quote
THE PRESIDENT: You needn't read it to us, Dr. Sauter. It refers to Goethe that is all.
DR, SAUTER: I see. Very well. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q In that case, von Schirach, will you continue?
A Those were not only annual culture conventions; they were meetings of the leaders of youth which took place in Weimar each year. Apart from that, ther were what we called the Weimar Festivals of German Youth. What is important in this connection is that in this speech I quoted a word of Goethe's which, shall we say, was the leading motive of all my educational work, that is: Youth educates itself again by youth. Even my worst enemy cannot deny the fact that at all times I not only was the propagandist of National Socialism but that I was also the propaganda agent for Goethe.
A certain Mr. Ziemer has given a considerable affidavit against me in which he speaks about youth education as I had carried it out, I believe that Mr. Ziemer has probably made that work a little too easy for himself. At least he should have referred to that educational activity which I carried out with reference to bringing youth nearer to Goethe when he wrote his description of the National Socialist education of youth; but I propose to deal with that affidavit later on during my statement.
I entered the first youth organization when I was ten years old. I was just old enough, or as old, at the time as were the boys and girls who later on entered the Jungvolk. That youth organization which I joined was the so-called Young German Union, Jung Deutschland Bund. It was an organization. Von der Golz and Heseler, being under the impression of being oppressed by the British Boy Scout movement, had founds Boy Scout movements and units in Germany and one of these Boy Scout units was the Jung Deutschland Bund, the German Youth Union which I havejust mentioned. It played an important part in the education of German youth until 1918 or 1919. in a bearding school in a forest. This was a country education home, a country boarding school which had been created by a friend of the well-known educational officer, Hermann Lietz, and there I was educated in the-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, do you think the education of the Defendant himslef is in any way material for them to hear? It is the education which he imparted which is the matter that is material. What he imparted, not what he himself took in.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the Defendant would nevertheless beg of you to be permitted to give a short statement of this type, particularly considering that by that means he is trying to show you that the principles according to which he later on led youth education in Germany came to him not from Hitler and not from any source of the Party, but that they were the results of his own experiences during his own youth. Up to a certain degree, it is of importance for the tribunal that the question should be examined as to which principles did the Defendant lead youth and how did he arrive at these principles; and that is what the Defendant is asking permission to explain to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Sauter, the Defendant has already taken some considerable time in telling us about his early youth and his education, and the Tribunal thinks that it ought to be cut short and that not much more time ought to be taken up in dealing with the education of the Defendant. As I have pointed out to you, what is material for us is the education he imparted to German youth and not the education which he received himself.
DR. SAUTER: Of course we shall take your wishes into consideration, Mr. President. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Mr. von Schirach, will you please summarize that part of your statement as briefly as possible?
A Yes, I can be very brief. It had been Lietz ' idea that youth should be given an education through which they would receive, through their schools, a true picture of the State. You see, the community of the school there developed a self administration of youth. I shall only briefly hint that Lietz himself eveloped ideas which eighty years ago had been developed by Froedl, with the first educational home of that time at Cairo, and that, of course, he was continuing to work on ideas which Pistelozz, in turn, had had under Jean Jacques and Jean Jacques had had many years before that. All education, of course goes back to Russaud, be it through Hermann Lietz or the Boy Scouts, or any other youth movement, At any rate, that idea of self administration of youth in a school comnunity gave me the idea of self leadership of youth. Lietz wanted to from the school to the younger generation and it was my thought that I should go from the younger generation to the schools. May I perhaps mention very briefly that in 1898 Lietz was -- his educational work had begun and that in the sane year, in a South African term, the British Major Powel, had been surrounded by rebels and had trained younsters to be spies and patrolmen which was the basis of his own Boy Scout movement; so that in 1898 Karl Fisher founded the Wandervogel movement in Germany. perhaps, in accordance with the wish of the President, be terminated now. which you yourself employed when you became Reich Youth Leader, that you learned these principles during your own youth and during your own participation in the youth movement of the time; is that right? That education at that time, did it have any political or anti-Semitic tendencies and know did you actually happen to go into politics?
anti-Semitic tendencies, because Liezt came from the circles of the Democrat Naumann.
Q But how did you go into politics?
Q Do you mean the revolution of 1918?
A. Yes, my father had been thrown out of his job by the Reds. The National Assembly in Weimar had convened. The Weimar Republic had been founded. We had a parliamentary system and we had a democracy or what we thought in Germany at the time was a democracy. I doubt that it was one. It was the time around about 1923, and I was at the home of my parents. It was a period of general insecurity, need and dissatisfaction. Many respected families had become beggars through the inflation, and the savings of the worker and the citizen had got lost. The name "Hitler" appeared for the first time in connection with the event of the 9th of November, 1923. I didn't have the possibility at the time to find anything out, anything exact, about him, but the trial later on informed me and boys of my own age of what Hitler actually wanted. At that time I wasn't a National Socialist. had the name "Kameradschaft". Somehow it came under the national movement, but it wasn't tied to any particular party. The principle thoughts in that organization were self-control, comradeship. There were about one hundred boys from my own home town in it at the time who in this youth movement fought against the shallow tendencies of youth in possible war days, against the loose living, against the cheap amusements of growing youngsters. It was in that circle that, as a sixteen-year-old, I first came into contact with socialistm because there was youth from every level, workers, boys, youngsters, sons of farmers; but there were some alder ones amongst us who had already filled their place in life, and there were some who had been in the war. stood for the first time the consequences of the Versailles Treaty in their entirety. The situation of the youth at the time was this: The school boy had the possibility that as a working student he might fight his way through one way or another and then later on he might in all probability become a member of the academic proletariat, if the possibility of an academic career existed for him at all. The young worker hardly had any prospect at all of finding a place to train because for him there was nothing other that the awful misery of unemployment. That was a generation whom nobody would help if they didn't help themselves.
Q. And that circle to which you belonged as a sixteen-year-old at the time gradually became subject to National Socialist influences?
A. Yes, and that was quite a natural process.
Q. How did it happen?
A. In the middle of Germany there was trouble. I've only got to mention the name of the Communist bandit leader Max Hoelz to indicate the conditions which prevailed at the time. And, even when outwardly calm had come, there were still such conditions there that it was impossible to hold any national meetings because communists used to disturb them. There came an appeal to us. us the young people, to furnish protection for these patriotic meetings, and we did. We had some wounded in chat connection, and one of us, a certain Gerschar, was beaten to death by communists. otherwise couldn't have been held in this Weimar Republic. Amongst them there were National Socialist meetings, too, and to an increasing degree it was these meetings which we had to protect because against them, particularly, the communist terror was directed. I heard Count Rebenloh speak, and I heard the first oratory attempts of Sauckel, who later on became the Gauleiter of Thuringia, of the National Socialist Party.
THE PRESIDENT: What date is he speaking of?
DR. SAUTER: This is the period around 1924, that is one year after the Hitler revolt.
A. In that manner, witness, the circle of which you were a member at the time came into contact with National Socialist influences. Was this supported by means of literature, the reading of National Socialist pamphlets, for instance?
A. Of course, I don't know what my comrades might have been reading, with the exception of one book which I shall give you in a minute. I only knew what I have read myself, and I at that time was interested in the scientist from Beireuth Chamberlain, who had written about the basis of the Nineteenth Century.
I read Adolf Mass' writings, his world history of literature, and I read the history of German National Literature.
THE PRESIDENT: I have already told you that we do not want to know the full story of the defendant's education. He is now giving us a series of the books which he had read, but we are not interested.
DR. SAUTER: Very well, Mr. President.
A. (Continuing): I shall only say one sentence about that. These were books which had no definite anti-Semitic tendencies, but through which antiSemitism went like a little rod thread. The decisive anti-Semitic book I read at the time and the book which influenced my comrades -
Q. Please -
A. The book which influenced my comrades was Henry Ford's "The International Jew". I read it and I became anti-Semitic. The reason why this book particularly impressed my friends and myself so much was because we had considered Henry Ford to be the representative of succes,, but also the representative of a progressive social policy. In that poverty stricken Germany at that time youth turned toward America. And, apart from that great man Herbert Hoover, it was Henry Ford who represented the United States to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal thinks, as I have said twice now, that the educational influence of the defendant are quite irrelevant to us. I do not want to say it again end, unless you can control the defendant and keep him to the point, I shall have to stop his evidence.
DR. SAUTER: But, Mr. President, is it not of interest to the Tribunal when judging this defendant and his personality that they know how the defendant became a National Socialist and how the defendant became anti-Semitic
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not of interest to the Tribunal. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, how did you meet Hitler and why did you enter the Party?
A. I want to say that I didn't become a National Socialist because I was anti-Semitic but because I was a pro-social. I met Hitler as early as 1925. He had just come out of the fortress at Landsberg and then came to Weimar. His incarceration came to an end and he came to Weimar, and there he made a speech.