how many there were, did you not? question in the Hitler Youth Leader's office.
Q Tell us this. Did it appear to you, from what you saw and heard there, that Heydrich and Schirach were very friendly, or on a very friendly basis? one of the officials from the Reich Youth Leader's office who was talking to Heydrich as the Chief of the HJ Legal Administration.
Q Were you ever present when Heydrich talked to von Schirach? Were you ever present?
A No; no. to you about Heydrich?
A No, I can't remember that.
MR. DODD: We have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire.
DR. SAUTER: With the permission of the President, I shall now call my next witness, Gustav Hoepken. fellows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name, please?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Mr. Hoepken, I have already examined you on the Schirach case in the prison? always wait a little after each question before you give your answer so that the interpreters can catch up?
Q How old ere you?
Q What does your father do?
Q And yourself?
Q You are now in American detention, are you not?
Q Since when?
Q Have the prosecution interrogated you about this matter?
Q When did you join the Hitler Youth?
Q Please, will you always wait before you answer?
You joined the Hitler Youth in 1933?
Q How old were you at that time?
Q And in what capacity did you join? Unterbannfuehrer of the Hitler Youth.
Q Unterbannfuehrer?
Q Was that your main occupation, or was that an honorary capacity?
Q Please, tell you speak more slowly, and tell you repeat that?
Q And in 1935? PT in schools.
Q But that had nothing to do with the HJ, did it? which I led. apart from that, an honorary leader of the HJ?
the unit of Hitler Youth at Potsdam. Leader office, did you? Leader under Von Schirach then in 1939.
Q And how long did you hold that office?
Q Before you joined Schirach's staff did you not serve in the armed forces? maneuvers in the air force, and apart from that I had no military training. until then. I was not an officer. importance to their being officers or trained soldiers? that is, officers were either officers or soldiers to the country. It was his view and he told me repeatedly that soldiers and officers as far as he could see were leaders to the youngsters. it interminably, I just want to ask you one single question, and that particular because you were sport instructor, or you are sport instructor officially. It is a question about the training of Hitler Youth in shooting. Were they trained militarily in that respect, or how were they trained? They were not using military weapons for shooting.
Q In that case I won't put any further questions to you but there is one other thing in which I am interested and that is the relationship to the Church. Do you know, witness, whether the defendant Von Schirach in 1937, that is, of the 14th of January 1937, issue of the Berliner Zeitung there was an article which his press officer, Mr. Kaufman, had written, and which was headed: "Can the Gap Be Bridged?" That article, a copy of which I have before me deals with a problem in which I am interested, and that is why I want to ask you:
Do you know what Schirach had written through his press officer in that article about that question, whether the Leaders of Hitler Youth should consider the church service requirements or not? Youth Leaders stating that on Sundays there should be no duties in the H J, as all boys and girls who wanted to could visit the church service. Every boy and girl in the Hitler Youth of that time had the possibility of attending religious services of their own free will and he made it a duty for the H J Leaders at the time that there were not to be any arguments about any controversy of that kind. He prohibited that.
Q Mr. Witness, this is a point in that article on the 14th of January, 1937, but you know the defendant, Von Schirach, had certain difficulties because of this article, difficulties coming from Hitler. Will you tell us briefly what you know about it? made that article in the Berliner Tagesblatt, the day that article appeared, Von Schirach was in Rosenberg's office for the purpose of attending a meeting. At that time Schirach was called to the telephone to talk to Hitler, first of all because of the agreement between the Church and the H J and because of the publication of that article Schirach was reproached by Hitler, and to serve the purpose that the agreement should be cancelled in that wry, further printing of that paper was to be discontinued, neither of which two purposes were achieved.
Q It was used to withdraw that article?
Q In 1940, you together with Schirach went to dinner?
Q When did you?
Q Where had you been in the meantime? force and at that time I was a soldier. I was one of a group of flying instructors of the air force.
Q And then you did not join Schirach's staff until 1941, is that right?
Innitzer, right? you right now why I am asking you this, whether it is true that Innitzer did interfere with the Hitler Youth and ordered it what to do and so on and so forth? Cardinal Innitzer. He wasn't allowed to do so. He said, firstly, there was a decree from the Chief of the Party, Lieutenant Borhmann, who prohibited Gauleiters from getting into contact with higher officers of the Church. actually, it was known to Schirach that he, himself, was under serveillance.
Q Schirach? such a discussion that it would certainly be known to Lieutenant Borhmann on the next day and that would have been unfortunate for us both, that is to say, Schirach as well as Cardinal Innitzer. On the other hand, it was Schirach's view that Cardinal Innitzer would certain also like to have had a talk with Schirach and Schirach thought that certainly would not have been the case if Cardinal Innitzer had not known of his own tolerant attitude toward the Church and the Christian Religion. It is furthermore known to me, and I think this happened in the winter of 1944-1945 that Cardinal Innitzer when returning from a mass was molested by youthful civilians. Cardinal Innitzer had the names of these youngsters established by the police, and it turned out that they were Hitler Youth Leaders. Still on the sane day Schirach wanted the District Leaders of the Hitler Youth to come and see him and it was demanded from him that the Youth Leaders in question should be relieved of their duties at once, which, so far as I know was actually done. I can also remember that Schirach either personally or through one of his officials had a letter of apology sent to Cardinal Innitzer.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 28 May, 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE MARSHAL. : The report is made that Defendant Goering is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: We were going to deal with Defendant Bormann's documents, were we not?
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, two,witnesses only have arrived so far. Three essential witnesses are still missing. Perhaps the Court can help to bring these witnesses quickly so that the case will not fall apart. They are the witnesses Stothfang and Hildebrandt. I have repeatedly tried to get them but they are not here yet. I have not spoken to the witnesses yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Have they been located?
DR. BERGOLD :Yes. One is in a camp Cassel, which is a few hours from here, and the other is in Neumenster. That is a little farther, perhaps six or seven hours from here.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not in accordance with the information which the Tribunal has. The Tribunal has the information that they can not be found.
DR. BERGOLD :I received the information that their whereabout has been ascertained.
THE PRESIDENT: Who did you receive that information from?
DR. BERGOLD :Officially, from the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will make inquiry about it.
SIR DAVID FYFE: My Lord, First, with regard to the witnesses applied for for the Defendant Bormann. They are, as I understand it, Fraulein Krueger to whom we have no objection. The witness Mueller is no longer applied for?
DR. BERGOLD: No, I have dispensed with that witness.
SIR DAVID FYFE: Then, Klopper, and lastly, Friedrich. These are with regard to Bormann's law making activities, and the prosecution have no objections.
DR. BERGOLD: In place of the witness Mueller, whom I have withdrawn, I have an additional request for the witness Gerta Christian on the some subject for which I had requested the witness Mueller.
THE PRESIDENT: The first witness, Miss Krueger, is going to speak to exactly the same facts, isn't she, to the death of Bormann.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes. The last of the life of Bormann its not very clear. It is very n ecessary to hear all of the available witnesses on this subject because only from the total of the testimony can one get the certainty of impression which I endeavor to obtain, that the witness Bormann is already dead.
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't seem to be a very relevant fact. It is very remotely relevant whether he is dead or whether he is dive.
The question is whether he is guilty or innocent.
DR. BERGOLD: It is my point of view that sentence can not be passed against a dead man. That is not provided for in the charter. According to the charter, the court can only condemn an absent person, but a dead person can not be included under the term "absent". If the defendatn is dead, the charter does not give any possibility of continuing proceedings against him.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you any objection to that other witness?
SIR DAVID FYFE: No, My Lord, the prosecution do not make any objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID FYFE: Now, My Lord, with regard to the documents, the first batch of documents are a series of treaties and diplomatic pronouncements and documents to counteract the statement of Sir Hartley Shawcross as to the position of the international law before the charter, the statement that the Axis nations had constituted aggressive war and international crime before this Tribunal was established and this charter became part of the law of the world. The position of the prosecution is that evidence on that point is really irrelevant because after all, the Tribunal is covered by the charter, and it seems unnecessary to translate and publish, by way of document books, all these matters which the learned Counsel has set out in his application.
That is, shortly, the position of the prosecution with regard to that first batch of documents. Especially, I don't want to discuss the problem for the reason that I have given.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What are the numbers of them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: One to eleven -- no. 1 to 7. They are in the application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Are they long documents?
DR. BERGOLD: I have not seen them yet. I applied for these documents three months ago, i norder to look them over, but I have not received them yet and unfortunately I cannot give the Court any information as to whether they are long or not and what parts of them I will need for my defense.
THE PRESIDENT: I looks like a long document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord.
DR. BERGOLD: But I won't read everything that is in this document, if I have it. Presumably -
THE PRESIDENT: When you say you applied for them three months ago, you don't mean you applied to the Tribunal, do you?
DR. BERGOLD: I applied to the General Secretary, but perhaps it was put aside when your Lordship decided that my case would be postponed to the end. Perhaps it was forgotten.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there any order on your application?
DR. BERGOLD: No.
THE PRESIDENT: You applied, I think, for an adjournment, didn't you, in order that the matter might be brought up later?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes. I am in an especially difficult situation, your Lordship. I have tried very hard but I can find nothing further on the defense of Bormann. All the witnesses are antogonistic to him and they want to place the guilt on him rather than contribute to his exoneration. That makes my case difficult. The man is probably dead and, of course, can give no information. A few days ago one of Bormann's co-workers, a Dr. Hummeln was arrested in Salzburg. I will go to see him and perhaps get now information perhaps not.
THE PRESIDENT: We need not bother about that now, only the application with reference to the documents.
Sir David, have you anything further to say about the documents?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, that is my short point. I don't want to discuss the merits of my points because that is the issue that I am saying is irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: What about No. 11?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I am not disposed to object to any of the other documents, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any others -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. 11, I can see a possible argument on that and therefore I won't object to it. The other documents, certainly we have no objection to the ordinances of the Fuehrer's Deputy.
THE PRESIDENT: All under "B"
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. The Prosecution make no objection to these.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Now, what do you say to Sir David's objection to these documents, 1 to 7?
DR. BERGOLD: Well, your Lordship, I have already made my point of view clear in my application. In order to save the time of the Court, I will merely refer to this written application. I won't say any more at the moment on the subject, but if your Lordship wants me to explain it here now I am ready to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Did your Lordship wish to deal with the other outstanding applications or would you prefer to deal with that later on at the end of the case of von Schirach?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think we have the papers here. We were only going to deal with the Bormann application.
(Mr. Dodd of the American Prosecution came to the lectern) Mr. Dodd, we have a document here, D-880, said to be extracts from testimony of Admiral Raeder, taken at Nurnberg on the 10th of November, 1945, by Major Monigan.
Have you offered that document in evidence or not?
MR. DODD: May I have a minute to check it? I am not certain.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and we will give you the document.
MR. DODD: I believe not; I don't believe it has been offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and we will give you the document.
MR. DODD: I believe not; I don't believe it has been offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to have been handed up yesterday or the day before -
MR. DODD: I think through a mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: -- or last week. Yes. But you will find out about that and let us know.
MR. DODD: Very well, sir. Would you like to havethis copy back.
(Paper handed up to the Bench.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you were still examining Gustav Hoepken, weren't you? the stand and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued) BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Dr. Hoepken, ire stopped yesterday when discussing the question whethter the Defendant von Schiracht during his period in Vienna was opposed to the church or was tolerant in this connection. The last answer you gave me yesterday referred to the relationship of the Defendant von Schiracht to the Viennese Cardinal, Innitzer. Is it correct that at the suggestion and with the knowledge of the Defendant von Schiracht during his Vienna period you periodically had talks with a Catholic clergyman there, a dean, Professor Ens, for the purpose of discussing church questions with him and removing differences which might arise?
A Yes, that is true. The Dean, Professor Ens, was not -- as you assume -Catholic,-but Protestant. He was Dean of the theoligical faculty of the University of Vienna. On the occasion of his visits he discussed many church and religious questions with me. I discussed thorn with him. We then asked me to report on them to Mr. von Schiracht and if it was possible to obtain relief. This was done as far as possible. the Party Christmas songs were to be sung but the old Christian Christmas hymns? Christmas celebrations for wounded soldiers the old Christian Christmas carols, such as, "Es Ist Ein Ros Entsprungen," "Silent Night, Holy Night" -
THE PRESIDENT: This is surely not a matter which is worthy to be given in evidence. magazine of the Hitler Youth had a special edition published with regard to the humane treatment of the Eastern peoples, and when was that?
request of the Defendant Bormann, a special edition was to appear but that von Schiracht refused it? also by the party chancellory, von Schiracht refused each time.
Q Which one? of other witnesses, I am interested only in one question. When was this visit to Fauthausen?
A I cannot say exactly. I can say with certainty, however, that it was not after April, 1943.
Q Why can you say that? Vienna. From that day on I know until April, 1945, I know every day where von Schirachs was. In addition immediately after my arrival in Vienna in April, 1943 when I asked him, since because of my wound I was rather run down physically, and I was also a sport teacher, I asked him whether I might between seven and eight in the morning carry on a little sport.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to know about the itness' health, do we? BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, you heard what the President just said. I have already told you I am interested in wean this visit to Fauthausen was. You see if I understand you correctly
THE PRESIDENT: He said he couldn't say when it was and it was after April, 1913. He said he couldn't say when it was.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe you misunderstood the witness. Witness, please pay attention. I understood the witness to say that it was before April, 1943. The visit must have been before April. 1943. It could not have been later.
THE PRESIDENT: He also said, according to the conversation I heard and took down that he couldn't say when the particular time was.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, but through the testimony of the witness I should like to May-28-M-RT-3-2 settle the fact that it was not later than April, 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: But he said it. He said, "I can't say when it was, but it was not after April, 1943." We said; "On April, 1943, I was released from the hospital and began my service in Vienna. I knew every day where Schirach was." I have got all that written dorm.
DR. SAUTER: Very well. BY DR. SAUTER: dant, von Schirach, tell you anything, that at this visit he had heard of Atrocities, mistreatment, et cetera?
Q Now, I turn to the question of the deportation of Jews from Vienna. As far as I know you were an ear witness of a conversation between the Reich fuehrer SS Himmler and the defendant, Schirach, will you tell us what was said in this conversation on the qestion of deportation of Jews? Prussia. In the car Himmler asked von Schirach: "Tell me, von Schirach, how many Jews are still in Vienna?" von Schirach answered: "I cannot say exactly. I estimate forty to fifty thousand." And Himmler said: "I must evacuate the Jews quickly from Vienna". And Schirach said: "The Jews don't give any difficulty, especially since they are wearing the yellow star." And Himmler said: "The fuehrer is already angry that Vienna in this point, as in many others, is an exception, and I am instructing my SS agencies to carry this matter out quickly." That is what I remember of this conversation.
defendant, von Schirach, in September 1942, at a Congress in Vienna, which the Prosecution submitted to the Court. Schirach said anything to you about why he made this anti-semitic speech? directly after this speech von Schirach instructed Guenther Kaufman that the point from the speech should be telephoned to the D N B in Berlin, with the remark he had every reason to make a concession to Borhmann on this point.
Q Why a concession? rious, and that he constantly heard this, especially from the party chancellor that he should take a stricter course in Vienna.
Q You were Chief of the Central Bureau with Schirach in Vienna. In this capacity, did all of Schirach's mail go through you?
A Not all of his mail, but the great majority of it. Mail stamped "direct to personal" did not go through my hands.
Q Did the other mail? to the Court. They are the activity and situation reports for the Chief of the Security Police made, I believe, monthly or weekly, and which have been submitted from Vienna, Since you know the situation in the Central Bureau in Vienna, I now give you various of these documents. Please look at the documents and then tell us whether from these documents which are photostatic copies, you can tell whether these reports of the SS to you, came to you, to the defendant, von Schirach, or whether they went to a different office. I call your especial attention to the manner in which these documents are annotated. Please note on the individual documents who signs the document and what was done with the document after that, laid then please tell us who these officials are from the document code of the Reich Defense Commission, for instance, a Dr. Fisher, et cetera.
DR. SAUTER: Those are the documents, Mr. President, about which the Court asked questions the other day.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear the questions exacrly. It appears to me to be a great number of questions. Well, let's get on, Dr. Sauter. We shall have to consider these documents and the witness ought to be able to give his answer.
DR. SAUTER: Yes. Mr. President, of course, the witness has to look at the document first. He must note what officials initial the documents and what the officials did with them. That is what I am asking the witness, in order to ascertain -
THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought that he had seen these documents before.
DR. SAUTER: No; they were just handed over in cross examination. I could not discuss them previously with the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: They were certainly handed over before this morning.
DR. SAUTER: To the witness, no; to me, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, get on, Dr. Sauter; get on. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Mr. Witness, what do you learn from these documents? Did they come to the attention of the defendant von Schirach, or how were they dealt with?
A These documents did not go through the central bureau. As I see here, they are signed by a Dr. Felber. I know him. He was the assistant to the Regierungspresident in Vienna for all matters which dealt with the Reich defense commissioner. Berlin SD agency sent them directly to the office of the Regierungspresident, and from there they were put into the files, as I see here. I do not see any signature of von Schirach on here.
Q The Regierungspresident was a certain Dellbruegge; and this De. Felber whom you mentioned was an official of the Regierungspresident? office or other agency deliver them? To you or to the Regierungspresident in his own office, or how was that? Regierungspresident, who had his own office for receiving mail. of those documents?
A Because he did not initial these documents. Otherwise, if documents were submitted to him, they were initialed; and these documents, as I see, were not initialed by him.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think the prosecution suggested that they were initialed by von Schirach. It was quite clearly brought out in von Schirach's evidence that he had not initialed them, and that fact was not challenged by Mr. Dodd.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe that a decisive weight should be placed on the fact whether defendant von Schirach had any knowledge of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you keep asking whether they were initialed by him or not? That fact, as I have pointed out, has already been proved and not challenged. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Mr. Witness, I have here a collection of further documents under the number 3876-PS. They are further reports from the chief of the security police. There is another address on these. It says here, "To the Reich Defense Commissioner for the Defense District 17" -- that was Vienna -- "for the attention of Regierungsrat Dr. Fischer in Vienna."
I am interested in knowing who Dr. Fischer was. Was he in the central bureau, or who was he?
A I know no Dr. Fischer, either in the central bureau or in the Reich governor's office. says, "To the Reich Defense Commissioner for the Defense District 17, for the attention of Regierungsrat Dr. Fischer"?
A I assume that is a co-worker of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Sauper, who worked on these matters specifically. And since I see they were secret letters, they were addressed to himpersonally.
Q Did the Regierungspresident Dr. Dellbruegge report to the defendant von Schirach on such matters as far as you know, or have one of his officials report it? defense commissioner, reported directly to Mr. von Schirach. I was not present at these conversations; consequently I cannot say to what extent he reported to von Schirach on these matters.
the defendant von Schirach on those reports, would that be shown on the document?
A Probably yes. Then the Regierungspresident or the official would have had to write on them, "Reported to the Reich Governor." indication?
Q On the documents which are here, there is no such thing, either. Do you conclude from that that the defendant von Schirach received no report on them?
Q Mr. Witness, the defendant von Schirach was chief of the state administration in his capacity as Reich governor, as well as chief of the local administration as mayor, and finally chief of the party as Gauleiter. Now, we hear that in each of these capacities he had a permanent representative. defense commissioner and the Reich governor; that is, the state administration?
A I have already said that it was the Regierungspresident, Dr. Dellbruegge. state administration?
A He was given regular reports by the Regierungspresident. Von Schirach made his decision, and those decisions were then carried by the officials, or deputies. himself only with such matters as were reported to him by the Regierungspresident, or which were brought tohis attention in writing; is that true?
Q Mr. Witness, were you yourself a member of the SS?