such a verdict will be greeted with satisfaction by all of progressive mankind.
THE PRESIDENT: Now we will deal with the applications for witnesses and documents by the Counsel for the SA.
MR. BARRINGTON: May it please the Tribunal, there were initially seven witnesses applied for for the SA: four for the General SA: two for the Stahlhelm, and one (Riding Corps) for the SA Reiter Corps/. Since then there has been an eighth application for a witness for the Stahlhelm which, I understand, is to be a substitution for the other two for the Stahlhelm.
That would reduce the total number of witnesses applied for for the SA to six. heard by the Commission, but the one recently applied for, by the name of Gruss, has not yet been heard by the Commission, and if the Tribunal approve of that witness, it would involve his being heard by the Comission new. tion of the Commission before them when they are deciding this. In the circumstances, the Prosecution only desire to say that they have no objection to these applications.
THE PRESIDENT: That means no objection to any of them?
MR. BARRINGTON: No objection to any of them, on the understanding, My Lord, that Gruss is applied for in substitution for the other two Stahlhelm witnesses, Waldenfels and Hauffe.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Boehm.
DR. BOEHM: I have applied to hear as witnesses for the SA the witnesses Juettner, Bock, Klaehn, Schaeffer, von der Borch, and, first of all, the witnesses Waldenfels and Hauffe. to bring another witness to Nuremberg; that was the witness Gruss. questioned before the Commission so that he, can also be heard before the Tribunal later. Grass could only be called a few days ago, because my application to hear him had already been made in the month of May, and one had to look for him for about two months. He is an important witness for the Stahlhelm and the SA, and on account of his functions in the Stahlhelm he knows essential elements of conditions throughout Germany, particularly for the period after 1935. But since I can only make the application to near the witness here after he had been heard before the Commission, I request that this witness be heard by the Commission first. And still I should maintain my request for the witness Waldenfels, so that the situation will be the following, that for the SA not six but seven witnesses should be heard, as had been suggested originally.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what would be the names? What will be the names?
DR. BOEHM: Juettner, Bock, Klaehn, Schaeffer, von der Borch, Waldenfels, and Gruss.
But I should like to ask, Mr. President, since I do not know the extent of the statements of the witness Grass, to be permitted to choose between the two witnesses Grass and Hauffe. Therefore after the witness Gruss has been heard by the Commission I should like to be permitted to make the decision whether, besides the witness Waldenfels, I want the witness Hauffe or the witness Gruss to be called before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you wish to say, Dr. Boehm?
DR. BOEHM: In connection with the witnesses, yes, Mr. President, but I should like to speak in connection with the document book for the SA, if I may be permitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Barrington, do you wish to say anything more about the application which Dr. Boehm now has, which is for seven, and not for six?
MR. BARRINGTON: Well, the Prosecution are of the opinion that one witness for the Stahlhelm would be enough, but your Lordship will, of course, have the Commission's recommendation on that. They will have been heard. On the question of the choice between Gruss and Hauffe after Gruss has been heard, there would be no objection to that, of course.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, may I say that the Stahlhelm within the oil was about one-fourth of the members of the SA. There were about one million people who had transferred from the Stahlhelm into the SA. And I believe that their interests, since there are so many of them, need two witnesses before this Court.
THE RESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that matter. Now will you deal with the dockets ?
MR. BARRINGTON: Would it be convenient to your Lordship if I started on the documents?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: Agreement has been reached, on the document books with the exception of one group of five documents, to which the Prosecution object. that among the other documents which were agreed to be excluded there were a considerable number of photographs of members of the SA Reiter Corps in civilian clothes. The great majority of those photographs were excluded. A few have been included. But I just want to say this, that those photographs were intended to show that the object of the Reiter Corps was purely that of sporting activities. Of course the Prosecution admit that the object of the Reiter Corps included sporting activities, although naturally -the Prosecution say that wasnot their only object. quite briefly. I have prepared a short summary, which I think the Tribunal have at the back of that sheaf of papers.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: These five documents are all extracts from writings by English liters and publicists during the period, I think from 1936 to 1939, and they all represent, in my submission, the unofficial opinions and arguments of these writers. Your Lordship can see roughly what they are about.
The first one, SA 236 is by MR. Dawson in "The Nineteenth Century", to the effect that Hitler's policy to the statesmen of Europe is to peace and not war, and that Hitler has saved Germany from chaos and collapse, that he does the same to Europe by his peace proposals.
And then SA 237 by Dr. A. J. McDonald from the book "Why I believe in Hitler's Germany re the Third Reich" says, "Perhaps the best guarantee for the stability of Hitler's regime is his own moral purity and that which he has imposed on Germany. He has tackled the problem of youth", and so on.
SA 242 is an extract from "Das Archiv" quoting Professor Cornell Evans and Professor Dawson again. "Hitler's withdrawal from Locarno and the occupation of the Rhineland was a good things". "Hitler's peace proposals are very valuable." "The Versailles Treaty was unjust", and so forth.
And SA 246, another extract from "The Nineteenth Century and illustrates "Germans marching into parts of their own country", and maintains that this is justified.
And SA 247, an extract from a book by A. P. Lorry, "The Case for Germany", which says, "The complaint that Germany applies force is wrong, and the attack on Austria cannot be called an attack." they clearly don't prove any direct evidence of facts, but are purely conclusions of fact, and as such they prejudge the issues which are for the Tribunal to decide. that these writings led the SA to believe that the Nazi regime was a things to be admired or waswell thought of abroad, I only- need to say two things: first, these were unofficial writings; secondly, there is no evidence to short that they were even read by the SA. There is no evidence in any case that they influenced the SA at all, if they were read. That is all I can say.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, originally I did not intend to discuss the contents to such an extent as representative of the Prosecution has done it now, so that I should not be accused of trying to make National Socialist propaganda. But we are confronted here with short quotations from the English and American literature which will not bring a bout any difficulty for translation, and I did not intend to read anything from them here in court. Neither do I intend to read the contents of these documents during my presentation of evidence, but I only wanted, to have the opportunity to refer to them during my final argument.
These quotations have appeared in German newspapers. They also appeared in encyclopedias and in "Das Archiv". Thus they could be read by the German public, and they were known. It is not sc that these excerpts were only translated now, and could not have been known before to anybody in Germany. They appeared in the "Voelkischer Beobachter" and in "Das Archiv" and every German could read them and acquaint himself with them. people who made those statements in their own country, these statements have been important for the Germans because the authors were men who made statements in loading foreign countries on German problems, and. I would regret very much if the Court could not decide that I may be permitted to enter them into my document bock. They present very little work for translation. They are not extensive and there are no obstacles connected with them.
THE PRESIDENT: Have all the documents been translated?
DR. BOEHM: I don't think they have been translated. A considerable number were requested.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they very long?
DR. BOEHM: These five are not very long.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't mean the five. I mean the other things.
MR. BARRINGTON: They vary, but for the most part they are short extracts.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, in my document book only a few documents have been translated entirely, only excerpts to which I intend to refer during my presentation of evidence and during my final argument.
Therefore the translation of the entire document book will create very little work, and these documents which I ask to be permitted to have translated certainly will not create any difficulties.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything further you wish to say, Dr. Boehm?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, unfortunately I have to make another application, which I would rather not have made, but conditions and circumstances are such that it has to be put in. I request that the witnesses Fuss, Lucke, Wallenhoefer, Alvensleben, Dr. Geier, and Dr. Meder should still be heard before the Commission. For these witnesses I have already made application; the witness Fuss on the 25th of April; for the witness Lucke, on the 7th of May; for the witness Wallenhoefer, on the 21st of May' for the witness Alvensleben, on the 20th of May; for the witness Dr. Geier, on the 25th of April; and for the witness Dr. Meder, on the 25th of April of this year.
These witnesses-are important witnesses. To give only one example, the questioning of the witnesses Fuss and Lucke would mean a rebuttal of one of the most important documents in this trial. That is document 1721, in which the Brigadefuehrer is accused, that the Brigadefuehrer, the Chief of the Brigade, had reported to the Gruppenfuehrer about thirty-eight synagogues which had been burned. not speak now, and the questioning of whom Col. Neave has promised me, have not yet arrived. I believe I heard yesterday that possibly Dr. Geier has already arrived a few days ago. The subjects are important, and the length of time for the questioning before the Commission will be very short. These witnesses. whom I have repeatedly-requested. I cannot forego. These witnesses must be heard and I believe that they can be brought here in time so that it would be possible to hear them during the presentation of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: How many is it you are asking for?
DR. BOEHM: In addition, seven witnesses which are to be heard by the Commission -- six witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: How many have you already had heard before the Commission?
I am told it is sixteen; is that right?
DR. BOEHM: Sixteen. I could not give the exact number right now, MR. President, but of course I am in a position to find out at once.
THE PRESIDENT: And how many have been brought to Nuremberg for the purpose of being questioned by you?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, the witnesses that have been brought to Nuremberg to be heard here were primarily the wrong witnesses. A number of witnesses had to come twice or three times until we got the right one, as for instance the witness Fuss.
THE PRESIDENT: I asked how many.
DR. BOEHM: Altogether, of all witnesses, or also witnesses who have come only to give an affidavit, or just the witnesses who were heard by the Commission? Which ones?
THE PRESIDENT: How many witnesses have been brought? How many persons have been brought to Nuremberg for the purpose of being questioned?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I believe there is a matter which has to be cleared up. Witnesses have been brought here in order to be questioned by the Commission or the Court. But witnesses have also been brought here for the purpose merely to give an affidavit, merely to make an affidavit about any particular subject that appeared important and relevant, witnesses who could not be heard before the Commission or the Tribunal. These witnesses have been sent back after they had given an affidavit, signed an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you how many. How many? Can't you answer?
DR. BOEHM: I would like to know whether the question is designed to mean the people who have been heard by the Commission, or all the witnesses that came here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, out of the people who have come here, some of them have been examined before the commission and others have made affida vits, and possibly there may be others who have done neither. I want to know how many in all.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, certainly. That may have been sixteen. I could not give the exact figure because I did not question all of them. I would like to find out and tell you exactly after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
( A Recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal first with the documents.
30 July M LJG 6-1 The documents to which no objection has been made will be translated and will be admitted subject to objections as to their admissibility. The documents to which objections have already been made, namely SA 236, 237, 242, 2 46, and 247, are all rejected and will not be translated. following witnesses, the following witnesses which have been examined before the commissions may be examined before the Tribunal: The witness Schaeffer, the witness Juettner, spelled J-U-E-T-T-N-E-R, either the witness Bock or the witness Klaehn according as counsel for the SA decides; and one out of the three witnesses, Waldenfels, Hauffe, and Gruss, is to be examined before the Tribunal. be given by affidavit.
With reference to the other six witnesses for whom 30 July M LJG 7-1 application has been made, every effort is being made to trace then and if they arrive within a week from today, that is to say, on or before Tuesday of next week, they will be heard before the Commission.
That is all.
DR. BOEHM (Counsel for S.A. ) : Mr. President, may I make a brief explanation? The Court has just approved the witnesses Waldenfels, Hauffe, and Gruss to be examined before the Commission
THE PRESIDENT: No, the witnesses Waldenfels, Hauffe and Gruss have already been examined before the Commission, have they not?
DR. BOEHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What I said was that one out of the three witnesses -- Waldenfels, Hauffe and Gruss -- after Gruss has been examined before the Commission. One out of the three, so that in all you will have four witnesses -- Schaeffer, Juettner, one out of Bock and Klaehn, and one out of Waldenfels, Hauffe and Gruss, making four. And you will have Von Der Borch on affidavit.
DR. BOEHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Barrington, with reference to the Reich Cabinet, I see there is one witness that has not yet been granted as a witness, and that is the witness Schlegelberger, who has not yet appeared before the Commission. Yes, Dr. Kempner?
DR. KEMPNER: Schlegelberger appeared before the Commission yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection....
DR. KEMPNER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then are there any other witnesses for the Reich Cabinet?
DR. KEMPNER: Not that I know of.
THE PRESIDENT: It would perhaps save time if we granted him now and ask for the documents. Are there any documents for the Reich Cabinet?
DR. KEMPNER: We agreed on all the documents already.
30 July M LJG 7-2
THE PRESIDENT: You agreed? Well, very well.
DR. KEMPNER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: And now we will hear the witnesses for the political leaders.
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the S.A.): Mr. President, according to the decision of the 25th of July, I am first to offer the documents and affidavits so that they may be incorporated into the record. Should I do that first or should I fi rst examine the witness? I have prepared it according to the decision.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, do it that way.
DR. SERVATIUS: According to the decision of 25 July, the evidence is first to be submitted. The examination of the evidence, the discussion of the evidence, is to be subsequent, so that first I will only submit the evidence without any special comment. I go according to the decision. Commission whom I want to submit in evidence. There are twenty witnesses. If I am to read it, they are the following. Does the Court consider it necessary for me to read the list of witnesses?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need read the names of the witnesses. If you would offer, formally, the translation of their transcripts of their evidence before the Commission, that will be sufficient.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, very well. evidence, the original of which the Commission has. The record of the witness Mehr is still lacking. is No. 7 on the list. I have not yet received this record. I will submit it later.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the General Secretary will file the original of the transcripts.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you will give it some number, I suppose, some exhibit number?
30 July M LJG 7-3
DR. SERVATIUS: Perhaps I will adjust the exhibit numbers after consulting with the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I submit.....
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. You will adjust that with the General Secretary as to whether or not it is necessary to give these transcripts on evidence before the commission an exhibit number or not?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I will adjust it. by the Commission. There are fifty-two of them. The list gives these documents, the translation of which was approved by the Commission, which are especially important. The affidavit? themselves are in the hands of the Commission and I will discuss with the General Secretary in what form it should be submitted as an exhibit. in writing. If the court wishes, I will read this summary which contains an explanation of this document, but I do not believe that it will be of any great use at the moment, but it will be better if It is read later in their proper connection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I would like to submit further affidavits which are not yet available and which have not yet been dealt with before the Commission. There are 139,000 affidavits which are divided Into various groups. These groups have been gone over by members of the organizations in prison here, and one collective affidavit has been made for each group. Three especially important and typical ones have been added to this collective affidavit and the majority of the pertinent documents belonging to it I could just submit to the Tribunal. I will offer them to the Court if the approval is given us. I will have to reach an agreement with the General Secretary as to how they will be submitted.
In effect, there are twelve different groups --
30 July M LJG 7-4 that will be twelve affidavits with three annexes of the most important ones on the Church question, on the question of low level flying, and on the question of concentration camps there are nine groups. camps in which there are many thousands so that one can get a clear opinion of the inmates of the camp. They are also summed up. I attempted to reduce this great amount of material so that the Court will be in a position to take notice of it and I will be glad to submit the whole thing so that the Court will be able to take official notice of it.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, there are 139,000 affidavits. You have divided then into twelve groups?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you have twelve collective affidavits for those twelve groups?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: To be appended to each of these twelve collective affidavits are two or three....
DR. SERVATIUS: There are three. In the group which I have just mentioned a larger number Is appended. I would go over it again so that on principle there would be three of each group.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, them the Tribunal thinks that the whole 139,000 should be deposited with the Tribunal, and the twelve collective affidavits with the appended affidavits will doubtless be of great convenience to the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. The Commission yet has to see them and approve them.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commission will receive them and approve them, yes, and then they will be deposited before the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. Then I have to submit the document books which the Tribunal has; the original of the documents I have here, I submit them. A number of documents I can not submit in the original. There are twodocuments which are at the University of Erlangen. That is document PR 15; that is the book "Die Amtstraeger der Partei" (The dignitaries of the Party). And the document PL 58; it is a book of the law of the NSDAP (Das Recht der NSDAP) by Dr. Heim and Fischer. All others I have submitted. A large part of the documents are from collections of regulations and from books which are already in the library of the Prosecution. The title of these collections of regulations is shown by the heading of the document concerned in the document book. I ask that these collections of regulations and books may be consulted in the original. They are in the library of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, subject to any objections.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. the Commission, and now, with the approval of the Court, I shall call my witnesses. Kauffman. fallows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name, please?
A. Karl Otto Kurt Kauffmann
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: pure truth and will withold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. You were a Gaulieter from 1925 to 1928 in the Gau Ruhr and from 1928 to 1945 in the Gau Hamburg?
A. Yes.
Q. How many people lived in these Gaus?
A. In the Ruhr about seven to eight million; in the Gau Hamburg about 1.8 million.
Q. Do you know anything about conditions in other Gaus?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. In 1921 you joined the Party and after the dissolution of the Party again in 1925?
A. Yes.
Q. And in the meantime you were a laborer, from 1921 to 1925, in the Ruhr district and in Upper Bavaria
A. No, from 1923 to '25.
Q. According to National Socialist terminology, when is a person a political leader?
A. A man holds this position when he is in possession of the appropriate documents and has the right to wear a uniform.
Q. Were there Block and Cell Leaders among the political leaders?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, will you ask the date of the witness' birth? BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, when were you born?
A. I was born on the 10th of October 1900.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Were the Block and Cell Leaders not a different type of political leaders from the political leaders in higher positions?
A. The Block and Cell Leaders were small executionary officers of the Ortsgruppen Leader.
Q. Was the activity of the Block and Cell Leaders subordinate and insignificant to that of the Amtsleiter in the local groups?
A. Under the Amtsleiters of the local groups there were essential tasks and non-essential tasks. These in charge of the essential tasks were more important; now they can but put on the same level as these in charge of the non-essential tasks.
Q. Were not the Block and Cell Leaders dignitaries and especially important political leaders?
A. I have already said that they were dignitaries but small executing organs of the local group.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if I might make a suggestion for the consideration of the Court. I think it would be more helpful if the translator could use the German term, because we are all used to it in this contact, and continue to use the Ortsgruppenleiter instead of a local group, because when we use a term like "local group " there may be some difficulty as to what the reference is. I just put it for a suggestion. Personally, it would be helpful to me, I don't now if the Court will agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. What was the general practical activity of the political leaders? How was it before the war and how was it after the beginning of the war?
A. The activity of the political leaders was according to their office. There were political leaders who were purely technical experts and there were political leaders who had tasks of political leadership. The tasks before the seizure of power were, as in any Party, essentially to recruit for the idea, to organize the Party, and in election contests to recruit votes among the population for the success of the Party. After the seizure of power, the essential activity of the political leaders was primarily the social care of the population and in the realization of the set social aims.
In addition, in organizational questions, training tasks, and propaganda questions. During the war these tasks were influenced by the great welfare problems brought about by the war and events.
Q. How great was the number of political leaders before the war and during the war?
A. I can only give figures from my Gau. I estimate that the number of political leaders in the Gau Hamburg before the war at about 10,000, without branches. The number was greatly limited by the fact that many were drafted during the war.
Q. How great was the percentage of political leaders in your Gau who were drafted for military service?
A. Aside from armament, many political leaders were only honorary officials. A maximum of 10 per cent of the Party were deferred at the beginning of war.
Q. That many remained in the Gau?
A. Yes. In 1944, the age groups of 1900 and younger. For the whole Party in Hamburg there were twelve, with the exception of administration and armament.
Q. Dod you mean twleve per cent?
A. No. Twleve men.
Q. And in percentage?
A. I estimate we had 6,000 political leaders.
Q. The staff of the Gau, Kries and Ortsgruppenleiters were the heads of the technical offices. Did these officials of the technical offices have political leadership tasks?
A. No. The great majority of political leaders and technical officers were concerned exclusively with technical matters of their organizations.
Q. Did the officials of the technical offices take part in discussion or was a distinction made between the closer or more distant officials?
A. That depended on the subject of the discussion. If it was of general political interest a larger circle was included; if it was a discussion which concerned only special offices, the circle was limited to these.
Q. Was the Office of political leader taken voluntarily, as a duty, or on a compulsory basis ?
A. Ore must distinguish between different kinds; before the seizure of po of course, it was voluntary. After the seizure of power, every party member had the obligation and principle of cooperating. I personally considered it important to maintain the principle of volunteering in the Gau under all circumstances because, as you can understand, I did not expect any political success from forced cooperation. I know that the matter was dealt with in a similar way in other Gaus.
Q. Why did party members refuse to take honorary offices as political lea ders; was this done for political reasons orfor personal reasons ?
A. The reasons varied. Some refused because they were too busy in their occupation; that is especially true of many professions during the war and others refused because they did not want to expose themselves politically.
Q. What was the activity of the Blockleiter ?
A. The Blockleiters were the assistants of the Orstgurppenleiter, when it was necessary in peace and in war to approach the population and that was essentially the case in social measures; The Ortsgruppenleiter used the services of the Blockleiters and in the Gau Hamburg the Block and Zellenleit as well as the whole party, in war and peace, were primarily concerned with socila measures.
Q. From where did the Gauleiters get their instructions ?
A. The Gauleiters received their instructions from the Fuehrer. They were directly subordinate to the Fuehrer, on his behalf from the deputy of the Fuehrer and in many cases from theParty Chancellery and behalf of the Fuehrer
Q. Could the Reichleiters also give instructionsto the Gauleiters ?
A. No, the Reichleiters were limited to their specialized offices in the Gaus. The Gauleiter had the right to stop measures originating from the Reichsleiters if he considered them inexpedient. In the case of differences the deputy of the Fuehrer or the Fuehrer himself decided.
Q. How were the Gauleiters instructed on political intentions and measures
A. The basic political intentions and measures of the Fuehrer were made known to us through the party program and in part through his book "Mein Kampf." In this connection, our propaganda and information were brought to our co-workers. After the seizure of power, the Gauleiters were informed of intended political actions, especially foreign political ones, but even domestic ones only after the action had taken place.
Q. Were there orders, instructions, or conferences; what can you say ab*--* that ?
A. There were conferences which took place comparatively seldom.
Q. In which form did these conferences take place ?
A. For the Party leaders, in the form of Reichslieter and Gauleiter conferences. I must clear myself -not conferences but meetings.
Q. What is the difference between a conference and a meeting ?
A. In a conference I see a possibility of discussion. This possibility of discussion in Fuehrer conferences existed without limitation up to the resignation of Strasser in 1932 in a limited form until the departure of Hes and was impossible when Hess was no longer there. From this time on, the meetings were exclusively the issuing of orders at which there was no possibility for discussion or for inquiry. These meetings were directed by Bormann. The other way was the way of circular letters -- by this way of circular letters, by Hess, the deputy Fuhrer -- later through the Party Chancellery, either by direct orders of the fuehrer or orders in the name of the Fuehrer were transmitted to us. That was the customary chain of comm
Q. Did conferences with the Reichsleiters take place ?
A. I do not recall any conference at which all Gauleiters were present with all Reichsleiters.
Q. Did leading political leaders have special tasks outside of their activities as political leaders ?
A. There were high functionnaries of the party who, besides their party office, had state and other offices. There were also those who were limited exclusively to their party office.
received through official party channels; must one make a distinction between
Q. What was the content of the instructions which the political leaders various periods up to the seizure of power, up to the war, during the war ?
A. I have already partially answered that question. I can sum up briefly Before the war, of an organizational propagandistic nature and during the we determined by the tasks of war, essentially social measures.
Q. Did the political leaders receive instructions on point one of the par program which in effect contained the Anschluss of Austria to Germany and di such instructions refer to the preparation of a war of aggression.
A. The political leaders were in no way informed about the Anschluss of Austria, the way in which it was done and the time -- the Anschluss has been Austria's will since 1918 through the law of the then Chancellor Renner, through the result of the plebiscite in 1921 of the Federal state of Salzburg and Tyrol and later through Austria and reaction to the entry or the Anschluss was known or became known to the political leaders.
Q. Did you receive instructions on point two of the party program which refers to the denunciation of the Versailles Treaty; did these instructions refer to the preparation of a war of aggression ?
A. The revision of the Versailles Treaty -- and I emphasize "revision" -was an essential part of our political aims. The political leaders were, before the war and even before the seizure of power, of the firm conviction that this aim by way of revision, that is, by way of negation would have to be achieved. Any other insturction or methods by which to attain this goal, the political leaders never received in all the time before the war.
Q. Did you receive instructions on point three of the program which demand area or settlement --did such instructions refer to the preparation for such a war of aggression ?
A. This point of the program -- I believe it is the point of the program-was understood by the political leaders and they were instructed to that effect, that this meant the return of the German colonies. The discussions on other territories did not arise before the war but during the war. I emphasize "discussion."