In order, however to guard against difficulties with the general police, an arrangement by agreement with the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler was necessary because the latter was the Chief of the whole police organization in Germany and could have made difficulties for the institution of the patrol service of the HJ. reality had just as little to do with providing new blood for the SS, as with the conduct of and the preparation for war. Moreover, it can clearly be seen how much Schirach resisted any influence the Party might win over the Hitler youth from the fact that in 1938 he protested very sharply against having the eudcation of the Hitler Youth during the last two years, namely from 16 to 10 years, taken over by the SA; he sharply rejected this plan and through a personal visit to Hitler succeeded in having the Fuehrer order in question not carried out in practice. ness Gustov Hoepken who was heard here on the 28th of day 1946, and from the affidavit of the witness Maria Hoepken, Schirach Document Book no. 3 that Schirach always feared he was being shadowed and spied upon by the SS in Vienn He always had an uncomfortable feeling because at the beginning of his activity in Vienna there had been appointed for him for the business of Reichsstatthalt and Reich Defence Commissioner, a permanent representative in the person, of all things, of a higher SS leader Dr. Deloruegge, who, as Schirach knew, had direct connections with the Reich leader SS. The same man, as has been proved, proposed to Hitler in 1943 to have Schirach imprisoned for crestism and to have him placed before the people's court, which meant in practice that by Himmler's urging, Schirach would be hanged. These facts alone already prove what was the real relation between defendant von Schirach and the SS and it is then compreh ensible why Schirach finally refused even the so-called protection by the police force appointed to him and preferred to transfer his personal protection to a unit of the Wehrmacht which was hot subordinate to the order of Himmler. (Compare Affidavit Maria Hoepken figure 5 in v. Schirach Document Book No. 3 ).
which is included in the indictment concerns his attitude toward the Church question. This issue is, in fact, given a minor part in the Indictment, but turns out nevertheless to be of considerable importance for the judgement of Schirach's human personality. the Church. To the foreign critic this circumstance may perhaps appear an unimportant detail, but we Germans know the amount of pressure exercised uponranking Party officials precisely in such matters and how few, in his position, ventured to resist such pressure. Schirach was one of those few. He was that high-ranking Party Leader who constantly and invariably stepped in with extreme severity when he learnt of hostile interference and outrages against the Church on the part of the Hitler Youth. He has, indeed, been reproached of the fact that various songs were sung by the Hitler Youth, which contained outrageous remarks about religious institutions, out in this respect Schirach could with a good conscience confirm on his oath to the effect thathe was to a certain extent unaware of those songs, which is entirely conceivable where an organization of 7 or 8 million members is involved, and, moreover that certain songs now considered objectionable, date back to the Middle Ages and have figured in the Song-book of the "Wandervogel", a former Youth organization which the Prosecution surely does net propose to condemn. Schirach has, however, especially pointed out that in the years 1933 to 1936, several million youths from an entirely different spiritual environment joined the Hitler Youth and that in the first revolutionary years, that is, in the period of storm and stress of the movement, it was quite impossible to hear of and prevent outrages of this short. of this kind, which naturally represented only excesses onthe part of isolated elements and could net commit the Youth organization as a whole.
It is Schirach's conviction that the examination of evidence leaves no doubt as to his concilatory behavious in the matter of the Church, and to the fact that he strove to establish a proper relation of mutual respect between the Church on the one hand and the Third Reich, and more especially the Reich Youth Leadership, on the other hand, and to observe their respective rights and competence.
At his own request, Schirach was invested by the Reich Minister of the Interior with the direction of the Concordat negotiations with the Catholic Church in 1934, because he hoped, by his personal cooperation, to achieve an agreement with theCatholic Church more easily. He has honorably endeavoured to find, for the settlement of the Youth question, a formula upon which unanimity with the Catholic Church couldbe possible. His moderation and good will in this respect were then indeed frankly acknowledged by the representatives of the Catholic Church. But it was all ultimately frustrated by Hitler's opposition and the complications created, particularly for these negotiations, by the events brought about on the June 30 1934 by the so-called Roehm Putsch. agreement with the Reich Bishop Dr. Meuller, so that the incorporation of the Protestant Youth Associations in the Hitl er Youth was not achieved by constraint but by mutual agreement, and therefore not by the breaking up of these associations by the State or Party as the Prosecution assumes, but upon the intiative of the ecclesiastical head andin complete agreement with him.
It must be pointed out here that it was always Schirach's policy that on the part of the youth leadership neither then nor later restrictions were imposed on church services for youth. On the contrary, as he himself has testified and as was confirmed by the witness Lauterbacher, Schirach emphatically stated in 1937 that he would leave it to thechurches to educate the Youth according to the spirit of their faith and at the same time he ordered that, as a principle, no Hitler Youth duty was to be arranged on Sundays during the time of church services. If, however, in individual cases such interferences occurred anyhow and, as it was proven in the cross-examination, religious authorities made complaints about this, then the defendant Schirach can not be blamed for this nor does it liter the good intentions which he had. had made anti-religious statements; on the contrary; at numerous rallies, contained in the von Schirach document book which has been presented to the Tribunal, he not only repeatedly objected the accusation that the Hitler Youth were enemies of the church or atheists, but he positively always in-culcated the leaders andmembers of the Hitler Youth with the obligation to fulfill their obligation toward God; he would not tolerate anyone in the Hitler Youth who did not believe in God; every true educator, would have to be at the same time an educator for religious feeling, it being thebasis of all education activities; Hitler Youth dut ies and religious convictions could very well be associated with each other and exist side by side.
The Hitler Youth leader was to bring no conflicts of conscience whatsoever to his adherents. Leave from duty was to be granted to Hitler Youth members for religious services, rites and such. That wasvon Schirach's point of view. can claim that he will not be judged as an enemy of the church and as an enemy of religions life. By the way, it is interesting in this connection, What such a reliable judge as Neville Henderson, wrote in his oft-quoted book "Failure of a Mission" about a speech which he heard from thelips of Schirach at the 1937 Reich Party Rally and parts of which have been submitted in Schirach's document book: ditions evidently expected that Baldur v. Schirach would speak against the church at the Reich Party Rally and would influence the youth in the spirit of enmity to the church, as wasoften heard from theother leaders of the Party. Henderson writes and I quote two sentences: "On this day it was Schirach's speech which impressed me most, although it was quite short. A part of this speech surprised me, when he, addressing himself to the youth said: 'I do not know whether you are Protestants or Catholics, but I do knew that you believe in God.!".
And Henderson added: "Formerly I had the impression that all connections with religion were abolished with in the Hitler Youth, but these expositions by Schirach appear to refute my assumption." he influenced the youth, is proved not only by his declaration of opinion which he expressed incidentally once in his speech to theteachers of the Adolf-Hitler Schools at Ordensburg Senthofen, that Christ was the greatest to you in evidence, entitled, "Christmas Gift of War Welfare Service". This book, which was sent to thefront in large editions, was dedicated by Schirach to the front soldiers who came forth from the Hitler Youth in 1944, thus at a time when radicalism in all districts of Germany could not be carried any further.
Here also Schirach was an exception: you will find no swastika, no picture of Hitler, nor an SA song in the book of Reich Leader von Schirach but among other things on avowed Christian poem from Schirach's own pen, next a picture of a Madonna, beside it a reproduction of van Gogh who, as is generally known, was strictly proscribed in the Third Reich. Instead of inflammatory words, we find an exhortation to a Christian way of thinking and a copy of the "Wessebrunner Gebet", the most remarkable prayer in the German language, as everyone knows. firm and refused to withdraw the little book or alter it in any way. undertaken a hostile action against the Church and with having thereby taken part in the persecution of the Church. From a letter of Minister Lammers of 14 March 1941, Document R 146, it appears that Schirach proposed to keep confiscated property at the dispose of the districts, the Gau, and not to hand it over to the Reich. This case alone is no justification at all for connecting the defendant von Schirach in some way or other with the persecution of the Church. The case mentioned by the Prosecution does not concern Church property at all, but confiscated property of a Prince Schwarzenberg in his Vienna palace. This affair therefore had nothing to do with the Church. This is also confirmed unequivocally by minister Lammer's letter of 14 March 1941, Document R 143, which mentions only a "confiscation of property hostile to the people and the State", whereas Bermann's far reaching personal intention becomes apparent and betrays its hostile tendency towards the Church, when Bermann speaks about "Church properties, (Monasterial possessions ans so forth)" in his accompanying letter of 20 March 1941, referring to this case. Moreover, the confiscation of Prince Schwarzenberg's property has not been caused, pronounced nor carried out by Schirach. Schirach had nothing to do with the confiscation as such; Schirach, however, agreeing with the other Gauleiters of the Austrian NSDAP and at their request, personally then applied to Hitler and requested that such confiscated property should not be taken to the Reich and not be used on behalf of the Reich, but that it should remain in Vienna. This proposal was crowned with success.
Hitler complied with his request, the result being that, When the confiscation was rescinded later on, the property could be returned to its legitimate owner whereas it would otherwise have been lost to him. and to that person who was the owner of the seized property. This case therefore cannot be charged to the defendant von Schirach; on the contrary, it speaks in his favour just as in the other case where, whilst circumventing Bermann, he intervened on behalf of Austrian nuns and as a result obtained that the whole project of confiscating Church and Monastery property was discontinued in one day in the whole of the Reich by a direct order of Hitler. fact that the Vienna Authorities, subordinate to him, intended to put an Adolf Hitler School into the Monastery of Neuburg in 1941, it must on the other hand be pointed out that, even prior to the requisitioning of this monastery, entirely independent of Schirach, the Vienna Police and several Vienna Courts had established the occurrence of considerable criminal offences in this monastery; furthermore that the confiscation of part of the monastery seemed entirely justified to the defendant Schirach, as the very spacious rooms of this religious establishment were not required for monastery purposes. document submitted, did not complain to the Reich Minister of the Interior, of one decision to confiscate and therefore recognized the confiscation as just, although it had been expressly informed in the confiscation decree of the possibility of lodging a complaint. establishment of an Adolf Hitler school, but for the purpose of the Museum of Historical Art, thus for no Party establishment, which again testifies to the fact that the Confiscation Decree had in no way been rescinded through Schirach's hostile attitude towards the Church. Had it been of importance to Schirach to injure themonastery because it was an Ecclesiastical Institution, he would also have confiscated the rooms used for religious ceremonies. He, however, strictly forbade their confiscation.
the fact that the justification of the Confiscation Decree of 22February 1941 had one remarkable reservation. The decree restricts itself to justifying the confiscation by the fact that on the one hand Vienna badly needed rooms and on the other the confiscated rooms were superfluous for the purposes of the monastery. Not a single word mentions or oven suggests that criminal offences had beenestablished in the monastery, as mentioned in a Police report of 23 January 1941. If this confiscation had been the result of a hostile attitude of Schirach to the Church, we could have been sure that somehow or other reference would have been made to these offences for justification of the confiscation by the Prosecution.
At Schirach's instigation, a monthly rent was paid for it to the clergy who had occupied some of the confiscated rooms, for which rent there existed no political obligation whatever.
Defendant von Schirach's further behavior does not reveal at all a hostile attitude towards the Church, particularly, if one considers, whilst appreciating this behavior, that during these years a Reich Leader was also under strong pressure by the Reich Chancellory and by Bermann and that a considerable amount of courage was necessary to resist this pressure and carry on a policy in opposition to the official Berlin policy. Schirach's activities, confirmed that Schirach in Vienna also strove to establish correct relations with the Church, that he was always willing to listen to Cardinal Innitzer's complaints, and took severe measures against the excesses of individual members of the Hitler Youth or Hitler Youth Leader. In Vienna, he thus carried out a policy towards the Church quite different from that which his predecessor had favored, and it is beyond doubt that the Ecclesiastical circles in Vienna and the whole of the Viennese population appreciated Schirach's attitude towards the Church. This is also confirmed by the witness Gustav Heepken who, by order of Schirach, held regular conferences with a Vienna theologian, Dekan Prof. Ens, to be able to inform the defendant Schirach of the clerical wishes and the differences which had arisen with Ecclesiastical authorities. Schirach could not do anything more in the prevailing political circumstances, as they are described in the Affidavit of Maria Hoepken, Document Book von Schirach No. 3, Figures 5, 10 and 11, if he did not wish to expose himself to the most serious danger.
not in the bill of indictment but during the presentation of evidence, and the witness Aleis Hoellriegel, who was questioned here was asked in the witness box, whether Schirach had over been in Mauthausen concentration camp. To this I should like to remark that the defendant Schirach mentioned his visit to Nauthausen in his own examination by the American Prosecution before the beginning of the trial; it would, therefore, not have been necessary to have this visit testified to again by the witness Hoellriegel. in 1944, as the witness Marsalek erroneously stated; the exact year 1942 has been confirmed by the witness Heellriegel, and in the same way also by the witness Heepken and Wieshefer, from whom we heard that neither after 1942 nor at any other time did Schirach visit concentration camps. The visit to Mauthausen in 1942 cannot charge the defendant Schirach in this sense with having known, approved and supported all the conditions and atrocities in concentration camps. crimes. There still were no gas evens and such at Mauthausen in 1942. At that time mass executions did not take place at Mauthausen. The statements of the defendant von Schirach concerning his impression of this camp appear to be plausible, on the whole, because through the testimony of numerous witnesses, who have been heard during the course of this trial, it has been confirmed again and again that on the occasion of such official visits, which have been announced previously everything was carefully prepared in order to show to the visitors only that which did not fear the light of day. Mistreatments and tortures were concealed during such official visits in the same manner as arbitrary executions or cruel experiments. This was the case at Mauthausen in 1942 and also at Dachau in 1935, where Schirach and the other visitors were shown only orderly conditions, conditions which at a superficial glance appeared to be almost better than in some ordinary prisons.
concentration camps in Germany in which, in his opinion, incorrigible habitual criminals and political prisoners were confined. However even today, Schirach still cannot believe that the mere knowledge of the existence of concentration comps in itself is a punishable crime, since he at no time had done anything whatsoever to promote concentration comps, never has expressed his approval of this arrangement, never has sent anybody to a concentration camp, and since he also would never have been able to make any changes in this institution or to prevent the existence of concentration camps.
Schirach's influence was always too small for that. To begin with, as Reich Youth Leader he of course had nothing to do with concentration camps, and it was lucky for Schirach that in his entire Vienna district there was not a single concentration camp.
His entire relations with concentration camps were therefore limited, to attempt again and again to have people released from the concentration camps, and it is significant, after all, that he used his presence in the concentration camp Mauthausen - the one and only time he was there - to use his influence for Viennese citizens who were imprisoned in Mauthausen, to obtain their release.
larger or smaller part in the presentation of evidence of the case Schirach. In the interest of saving time I shall not deal more specifically with the alleged connection of Schirach with Rosenberg or Streicher, nor into his alleged collaboration with the program for slave workers, about which not even the High test cooperation of the defendant could be proven, nor into a telephone conversation which allegedly had been made by one of the Viennese officials with a SS - colonel (SS-Standartenfuehrer) about the compulsory work of the Jews, which has been used by the prosecution. ticularly in connection with the case of Rosenberg was dealt with. That is, a short explanation concerning the action by which thousands of youngsters in the eastern combat zone were collected and brought partly to Poland and partly to Germany. documents presented here, apparently to bring the youngsters who had been in a zone of operation, that is, immediately behind the front, and wandering around without homes, to bring them together, to lead them into professional training and into professions so that they should be saved from physical and moral neglect. The defendant von Schirach doubts whether that could be viewed as a crime against humanity or as a war crime. know anything at the time. He was not competent for it at the time. That entire affair was handled by the army group center, together with the Ministry for theEastern Territories, and it is quite credible that the Eastern Ministry, as well as the army group center, did not approach the Gauleiter of Vienna in order to get his approval of that action, or even to notify him about it.
The only thing which, a considerable time later, came to the knowledge of the defendant von Schirach, and which possibly has any connection with that action, was an occasional information by the Reich Youth Leader Axmann that so and so many thousand youngsters were brought to the Junkers works at Dessau as apprentices.
matter, because he had been Reich Youth Leader before, and he wants to make it quite clear that also after leaving that office, of course he would not have done anything against the interests of the Youth. von Schirach, at the time after the assassination of Heydrich, sent to Reichsleiter Bermann, and in which he has suggested to Bermann reprisal measures in the form of terror attacks against English centers of culture. That letter was actually sent by the defendant to Bermann. He stands for it. I have to point out at the very beginning that fortunately the suggestion remained a suggestion, and it was never carried out. strongly under theimpression of the assassination then brought against Heydrich, and it had been clear to him that a revolt of the population in Germany would necessarily lead to a catastrophe for the German armies in Russia, and in his capacity as Gauleiter of Vienna he had considered it his duty to undertake something to protect the rear of the German army fighting in Russia. And that explains that letter to Bermann, that teletype to Bermann of the year 1942, Document 3877, which, as I have already pointed out, fortunately remained unsuccessful. page 26. I shall not deal in detail with the Adolf Hitler Schools which were founded by Schirach, nor into the fifth column which somehow was connected with the Hitler Youth, about which nothing definite could be charged to the defendant. I shall no longer dwell either on the repeated attempts of the defendant Schirach and his friend Dr. Colin Ross for peace, and neith shall I discuss the merits of the defendant concerning the evacuation of children to the rural areas, which took millions of children from bomb-endangered districts during the war into mere quiet zones and which thus saved their lives and health.
in details himself, and should therefore like to refer to his own statements. As counsel for the defendant von Schirach, I shall discuss only onemore problem here, namely Schirach's position and attitude concerning the Jewish question. convinced National Socialist and thus also an anti-Semite from his earliest youth. He has also made clear to ms what he understood by anti-semitism during these years; He thought of the exclusion of the Jews from civil service and of thelimitation of Jewish influence in cultural life and perhaps also in economic life, up to a certain extent, But that was all which in his opinion could be undertaken against the Jews, and this was in accordance with the suggestion which he had already made as leader of the student's organization for the introduction of a quota in various classes. The defendant's decree concerning the treatment of Jewish youth is, for example, also important for his attitude (Document book Schirach No. 136) a decree in which he expressly orders that theJewish youth organizations should have the right and the possibility to practice freely within their framework; they were not to be disturbed in their own life. "In the youth (it says there) the Jewish community shall already today take that secluded and in itself unrestrained special position which at some time the entire Jewish community will receive in the German State and in the German economy." Obviously Schirach was not at all thinking about programs, not about bloody persecution of Jews and such he rather believed at that tire that the antisemitic movement has already reached its aim by the anti-Jewish legislative measures of theyears 1933/34; with this he believed the Jewish influence to be removed; as far as it seemed unhealthy to him. He was therefore surprised and seriously perplexed when the Nuernberg Laws were issued in 1935 which expressed a completeexclusion of the Jewish population and carried it out with barbaric severity. Schirach has in no way taken part in the planning of these laws; he has nothing whatsoever to do with their content and their formulation. That has been proved here. about the brutal excesses which were staged by Goebbels and his fanatic clique his indignation became known throughout the entire youth (compare page 10, 142) We have heard from the witness Lauterbacher (page 10,302), how Schirach reacted to the report of these excesses : he immediately called his assistants together and gave them the strictest orders that the Hitler Youth had to be kept out of such actions under all circumstances.
In this sense he also had the officers of the Hitler Youth in all German cities notified by telephone, and he warned every non-commissioned officer that he would held him personally responsible, if any excesses should occur in the Hitler Youth. that Hitler was thinking about the extermination of the Jews. He rather only heard about it that the Jews should be evacuated from Germany into other states, that they should be transported to Poland, and that they should be settled there at worst in ghettos, but probably in a closed settlement area. When Schirach received in July 1940 Hitler's order to take over the Gau Vienna, Hitler himself also talked to him along the same lines, namely that he would have the Jews brought from Vienna into the General Government; and even today Schirach has no doubt that Hitler himself was not thinking about the so-called "final solution" of the Jewish question at that time (1940). That is the extermination of the Jews. We learn from the Hossbach minutes and other evidence of these trials that Hitler was planning the evacuation to Poland already in 1937, but that he decided on the extermination of the Jewish people only in the year 1941 or 1942. Vienna; the execution of this measure was exclusively in the hands of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) and the Vienna office of this agency, and it is known that the Vienna SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Brunner has in the meantime been sentenced to death because of it. The only report which Schirach received and carried out concerning the Viennese Jews, was to report to Hitler in 1940, how many Jews there were still left in Vienna, and he gave this report in a letter of December 1940 where he gave the figure of the Viennese Jews for 1940 as 60,000. As it is known, Minister Lammers answered this letter by the defendant Schirach with a letter, dated 3 December 1940 (PS 1950), which shows with all clarity that it was not Schirach who ardered the evacuation of the Viennese Jews into the General Government, by Hitler himself, and that it was not Schirach, either, who carried out this measure, but the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler who delegated his Vienna office with this task.
It therefore has to be stated here categorically that Schirach is in no way responsible for the deportation of the Jews from Vienna; he did not execute this action and he did not start it; when he came to Vienna in the summer of 1940 as Gauleiter, the large part of the Viennese Jews had already voluntarily emigrated or had been forcibly evacuated from Vienna, a fact which was also confirmed by the defendant SeyssInquart. The remaining 60,000 Jews who were still there at the beginning of Schirach's time in Vienna were deported from there by the SS. without his participation and without his responsibility. In spite of it, Schirach held the well-known Viennese speech of September 1942 (No. 3046 PS) in which he stated that every Jew working in Europe was a danger for European culture Schirach furthermore said in this speech : If one wanted to make reproach to him now that he had deported 10,000 and more Jews into the Eastern ghetto from this city which had once been the metropolis of Judaism, then he had to answer :"He considers that as an active contribution to European culture". Schirach has openly and couragiously admitted that he actually expressed himself in this sense at that time, and he has stated here remor sely :"I cannot take back this wicked word, I must take the responsibility for it. I spoke these words which I sincerely regret. Should the Tribunal see in these words a legally punishable crime against humanity, Schirach must make atonement for this single anti-semitic rema which could be proved against him, though they merely remained words and not result in any harmful aftermath, Schirach's attitude here does not exempt the Tribunal from its duty to verify carefully what Schirach has really done, further more under that circumstances he made this remark, and finally whether Schirach had also made any other spiteful remarks against the Jews, or committed any malicious actions against Jewry as a whole.
The foremost question is : what has Schirach really done ? The re to it as arising from the results of these proceedings can only be :
apart from the fact that he made some isolated anti-Semitic remarks in September 1942, he has not committed any crime against the Jews. He had no competence in the question of the deportation of the Vienna Jews, he did not participate in it at all, and having too little power he could not prevent them altogether. It is just as the prosecution incidentally stated He boastfully attributed to himself an action which in reality he had never committed, and in view of his entire attitude could never have done.
What, however prompted Schirach to make this remark ? How did he come to attribute an incident to himself an incriminate himself for an activity which he had never committed ? The answer is given by the results of the evidence : it demonstrates how very difficult a position Schirach had in Vienna without giving any reason, Hitler dismissed him as Reich Youth Leader presumably because he no longer tursted him.
From one year to another Hitler's fear was growing that the more youth stood behind Schirach the more they would be alienated from him (Hitler) the more the black wall of his SS was separating him from his people. Hitler possibly saw in his Youth Leader the personification of thecoming generation who thought in worldwide terms, whose feelings were humane and who felt themselves more and more bound to these perceptions of true morality which Hitler had long ago thrown overboard for himself and his leadership of the nation because they were no longer concepts of true morality for him, but mere slogans of a meaningless propaganda. This feeling might have been a deeper reason for Hitler to dismiss Schirach as Youth Leader suddenly in the summer of 1940, without any word of explanation, an send him to Vienna as Gauleiter, a most difficult position in the city he (Hitler) hated from the bottom of his heart, even whilst he spoke of his "Austria Fatherlan In Vienna Schirach's position was extremely complicated.
Wherever he went he was shadowed and spied upon, his administrative activity there was sharply criticised, he was reproached for not looking after the interests of the Party in Vienna for hardly ever assisting at Party meetings and for not making any public speech. I refer for that to the Affidavit Maria Hoepken, Document Book Schirach No. 3, figures 9-11). The Berlin Party Chancellery received any complaints the Vienna Party members made about their new Gauleiter with satisfaction and this fact alone might explain the unfortunate spee Schirach made in September 1942 which was diametrically opposed to the attitude he had always maintained also concerning the Jewish question.
After the interrogation of the witness Gustav Hoepken here in this court room, there can be no doubt as to how the Vienna Speech had come about, for it indicates that Schirach had then expressly commissioned his press agent Guenther Kaufm to emphasize this particular point when telephoning his report of the Vienna speech to the German News Agnecy, "because he had to make a concession to Bormann in this respect.", a point stressed by Schirach himself in the cours of his interrogation with the words "out of false loyalty he had morally identified himself with these acts of Hitler and Himmler. This malicious speech which Schirach made in September 1942 is however, in another sense a very valuable point in favour of Schirach : in the course thereof Schirach speaks of a "Transfer of the Jews to the Ghetto of the East Had Schirach known at that time that the Vienna Jews were to be sent away in order be murdered in an extermination camp, without doubt -in view of the pu pose of this speech- he would doubtless not have spoken of an Eastern Ghetto to which the Jews had been sent, but he would have reported the extermination of the Vienna Jews; but even at that time, in the fall of 1942, he never had the slightest idea that Hitler wanted to kill the Jews. That he would never have approved of and never accepted, his anti-Semitism had at no time gone so far. Schirach has also frankly stated here that he had at that time approved of Hitler's plan for a Jewish settlement in Poland, not inspired by anti-Semit or hatred of the Jews, but by the reasonable consideration, that with regard to actual conditions, it would have been in the Jews own interests to leave Vienna for Poland, because the Jews could not in the long run have been able to stay in Vienna for the furation of the Hitler-regime, but would have always been exposed to serious persecutions ; as Schirach declared on 24 May 1946, "considering Goebbels'temperament" it always seemed possible that inci dents, like those of November 1938 could be evoked in one night, and under such conditions of legal unsecurity the existence of the Jewish population in Germany would be unimaginable. He thought that Jewry would be safer in a restricted settlement area of the General Government than in Germany and Austria, where it was exposed to the "whims of the Propaganda Minister" who indeed had been the main supporter of the radical anti-Semitism in Germany.
Schirach was well aware of this fact. He could not shut his eyes to the knowledge that the drive against the Jews in Germany daily became obviously This conception of the Vienna speech of September 1942 and the true cause its genesis, coincide with the declaration of the defendant Schirach at the meeting of the Town Councillors of Vienna on 6 June 1942 (No. 3886 PS), na that in the late summer and fall of this year all Jews would be expelled for this city, and likewise with the file note of the Reichsleader Bormann of 2 October 1940 (USSR 142), according to which, at a social meeting at Hitle home, Schirach had remarked that he still had more than 50,000 Jews left in Vienna, which the Governor General of Poland must take over from him. This remark finds its reasoning in Schirach's embarassing situation at that time Hitler on the one hand pressed more and more for the expulsion of the Jews from Vienna; the Governor General Dr. Frank on the other hand strove against the acceptance of the Vienna Jews in the General-Government. This disagreement was evidently the reason for Schirach discussing this fact at the above mentioned meeting on 2 October 1940, in order to avoid renewed reproaches by the Fuehrer. He Schirach personally was not interested in the slightest in the removal of the Vienna Jews, as was proved by the testimony of the witn Gustav Hoepken regarding the discussion between Schirach and Himmler in November 1943. May I also add here concerning that discussion and that conference with Himmler that during that conference, Schirach presented the poi of view that one should leave the Jews in Vienna because they were wearin the Star of David anyway. That has been testified to by the witness Hoepk as being a statement made by Schirach during the conversation. I continue : Hitler demanded it, and Himmler insisted on its Execution. having made another malicious anti-Semitic remark, namely a speech which h supposedly made in late December 1938 at a Student's Meeting at Heidelberg Across the Neckar River he pointed to the old University town of Heidelber where several burned-out synagogues were the silent witnesses of the antimitic activities of the students of Heidelberg and I quote from the affida where the "little stout Reichstudents'leader" -as it is stated literallyis said to have by this incident approved and praised the anti-Jewish pogroms of 9 November 1938 as a heoric act.
This accusation, as already mentioned, is supported by the declaration in lieu of oath of a certain Gregor Ziemer. However, there can be no doubt that this claim of Ziemer is false. Ziemer never belonged to the German student movement or the Hitler Youth, and obviously was not personally present at the student assembly in question. The affidavit does not state from what source he is supposed to have obtained his knowledge. However, that his claim is false is already proven by his description of physical appearance when he speaks of a "little, fat student-leader"; for this does not at all apply to Schirach. Perhaps it would to some extent apply to his successor, who was Reich Student Leader at the end of 1938, but it certainly was not Schirach. As is known he had already in 1934 given the office of Reich Student Leader back into the hands of the Fuehrer's deputy, after he himself had in the meantime been appointed Reich Youth Leader. Schirach did not hold a speech at the end of 1938 or at any other time before Heidelberg students, and by the affidavit of the witness Mrs. Maria Hoepken, Schirach Document Book No.3, it has been clearly proved that at the time stated Schirach was not in Heidelberg at all. Schirach has also stated this under oath and his own statement can lay claim to credibility because he has not white-washed anything for which he was responsible, and he has not wrongfully denied anything, but on the contrary has accounted for all his actions like a man and with love of the truth during his entire examination. affidavit is untrue, at any rate in regard to the person of Schirach. In the presentation of evidence it happened to be stated by chance how Schirach reacted to the November-pograms of the year 1938. on another occasion, that Schirach on 10 November 1938 had condemned most vehemently the events of 9 November 1938 before his collaborators, and declared that he felt ashamed for the other s and for the whole party. The 9 November 1938, Schirach said,"would go down in German history as a unique german cultural disgrace. Such a thing could have happened with an uncivilized people but it should never have occurred with us Germans who imagine ourselves to be a highly civilized people." The Youth Leader had to prevent such excesses under any circumstances. Of his own organization he did not wish to hear anything like it,neither now or in the future. The Hitler Youth, under all circumstances, must be kept outside such things under any circumstances.