Q. What instructions did you receive on the Jewish question which is deal with from point four to eight of the program; did such instructions refer to the removal of the Jews because they would interfere with the war of aggression ?
A. The program points on the Jewish question were set. The attitude on *--* Jewish question varied greatly. The political leaders with whom I was in con tact were instructed by me at least in the interpretation of this point of the program to the effect that this question could be solved only in a constructive way; that is, by a basic change in the existing system. German propaganda on this point never had anything to do with a war of aggression.
of the Party program? Did you receive instructions to eliminate the Church as an enemy of war? any such instructions and such explanations. The political leaders up to the end, in spite of the interpretation of the different personalities of the party.
gave up to this point. The party program was considered as a confession of positive Christianity. That proves that the majority of the political leaders were and r emained members of the church.
Q. What instructions did you receive on point 25 of the party program on the dissolution of Labor Unions? here they to be removed as opponents in war?
A No. Whether that includes my political leaders in the dissolution of the Labor Unions, only a demonstration could have developed. The mass of union members, even before the dissolution of the unions, were members of the NSBO, and thus members of the National Socialist Labor organization.
Q I would like to break off here. The witness Hupfauer, will be questioned. Was not the Anschluss of Austria taking place -- the entry of German troops? Did the political leaders approve of this? informed nor questioned on the entry of German troops into Austria. That they welcomed the Anschluss because it was a historical fact that the will of the people agreed with this act.
Q Was not Alsace Lorraine incorporated into the German Reich? Did the political leaders approve of it? peace treaties. The political leaders were of the opinion that Alsace Lorraine, for the duration of the war, was under the special German Civil Administration, and after the victorious end of the war, the incorporation of this territory in to the German Reich could be considered among German demands, just as after the first world war occurred in the opposite sense. and did the leaders approve of this?
political leadership as a preventative war. This fact indicates that such an explanation, at least at the beginning of this war, was not commented in the instructions to the political leaders, with intentions of annexation. approve this? acknowledges positive Christianity, and deviation from this particular point occurred in some gaus. The church was exposed to some persecution in some gaus. The Fuehrer himself never deviated from the prosecution of the party program.
Q Then you did not approve of this persecution? in my gau.
Q Were not in fact the unions a bolished? Did not the political leaders approve it? development for a great unified labor organization. If there were any doubts the social achievements for the German worker caused them to disappear. book "Mein Kampf", and thus generally known and approved by -the leaders?
A The book "Mein Kampf" was certain known to part of the political leaders. Also the party program. The opinion about both in the Nazi party was like in any other party, that one approved some points. They are the reasons for joining. The other points do not interest one, and -the third group of program points are even rejected. And also in the NSDAP as well, there was a discussion and argument for the final aims of the party, and this process was by no means completed.
Q Were there various tendencies?
Q What groups were they?
A I should like to differentiate between three great groups. The Socialistic group, which in my opinion included the most of the members and followers.
The more Nationalistic group, and a negative anti-Semitic group.
Q What do you mean by a negative anti-Semitic group? Is that the Streicher tendency?
Q To what party tendency do you belong in the party?
Q To what group do the majority of the Reichsleiters belong?
Q The Gauleiters? Socialists.
Q How about the Kreisleiters?
Q The same is true of the Block-u-Zellenleiters? of party members.
Q What is the political influence of the various groups? Socialistic, Nationalistic, or anti-semitic?
A That is very difficult to say. If you speak on influence, I submit that the most of the party members like me believed in the Socialistic tendency of the Fuehrer. But there were men in the entourage who were less interested in Socialism and were more interested in other aims, seems to me probable.
Q Do you agree that the party leadership was Socialist?
A I absolutely agree with the Socialistic aims of the Fuehrer. On the other hand I do not agree with loading men in leading positions with other ideas. aims, why did you not leave these affairs, when you saw the Socialistic policy was going away and the persecution of the church and Jews arose? impression that the Socialist aims had been given up.
almost twenty-five years for a party, it is his duty to fight as long as possible to put through the ends at he understands them and that is not possible outside the party but only within the party. That is one of the essential reasons why I remained in the party.
Q. How were the subordinate Kreis and Ortsgruppenleiter instructed?
A. To answer this question one must make a distinction between the city Gaus on the one hard and the provincial Gaus, on the other hand. together and received their instructions orally. For the provincial Gaus this was mostly done, because of the distance, in writing, that is their instructions were issued orally and in writin.
Q. Were the Kreisleiters instructed to the same extent as the Gauleiters or did they receive knowledge of only less important matters?
A. Up to the beginning of the war I do not recall any case in which my Kreisleiters, and I assume it was similar in the other Gaus, did not learn of everything that I knew of. During the war that was somewhat different for reasons of secrecy.
Q. Did the political leaders receive instructions to commit war crimes or to permit them? How abour the lynching of low level flyers?
A. Such orders as you mention were not known to me in a direct form, that is a direct demand. I assume you are speaking first of the newspapter article by the former Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels; second, of the well-known decree of the Reichsfuehrer SS to the police and third of the repeatedly mentioned circular letter of Reichsleiter Bormann.
Q. Yes.
A. These orders were not clearly formulated in the sense of your question I admit that an interpretation could lead to a development which then led, in individual cases, to the events described here. These orders came through the Gaustabsamt and were then sent from there to the competent Kreisleiters. The circular letter by Bormann was stopped by me in my Gau and I assume that was done in other Gaus too. In view of the fact and considering the intensity of the air warfare and its results, I wanted to keep my political leaders from a dangerous interpretation of this order.
In addition, in view of the Goebbel article and in view of Himmler's decree, I sent the Kreisleiters and police presidents orders to the contrary. I hope that similar stops were taken in other Gaus.
Q. What about the treatment of foreign workers? Did you receive instructions tending toward war crimes in that regard?
A. All instructions which I know of in this field refer exclusively to a demand for support of the social welfare work. For me, as a socialist, it was a matter of course that my agents, that is the Labor Front and the Kreisleiters, were instructed to give positive social care to these workers and I inspected the camps to ascertain whether this was done.
Q. What about the events in the concentration comps in regard to foreigners? Did you have instructions to put foreigners in concentration camp Did you know of events in the concentration camps?
A. I assume that the question of competence for the concentration camps is know to the Tribunal. As the supreme political leader of the Gau -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I do not know what the witness means by that, that the question of competence with reference to the concentration camps is know to the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: He did not want to say that he, as a Gauleiter, was not responsible for the concentration camps themselves. He only wanted to explain that he will pass over to his responsibility and that he does not wish to give a long explanation on competence. For that reason he said -- I assume the Tribunal is informed on that matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, are you saying that you were in charge of the concentration camps or responsible for them?
THE WITNESS: No, by no means.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what do you mean by the competency for the concentration camps?
THE WITNESS: I wanted to interject or say that I might assume that the Tribunal knows of this competency. If not, I am prepared to explain it briefly
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you explain it briefly.
THE WITNESS: Yes. and in their management were completely outside of any orientation and influence of the political leaders. They had no powers with reference to concentration camps and no knowledge of what actually happened in them. I myself if I wanted to enter a camp had to have a special written approval from the Reichsicherheitshauptamt. I believe that that is sufficient explanation. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Were not flyers lynched and was that not so well known that every political leader knew about it and approved it by remaining in office?
A. I have already stated that in the Gau Hamburg such things did not take place and since I myself learned of such cases only as a prisoner, I must assume that my political leaders, like myself, learned of these things only in captivity.
Q. Was the ill-treatment of foreign workers throughout the Reich not so well-known that every political leader knew about it and approved it by remaining in office.
A. The political leaders were bound to their own districts, especially during the war. They could have an insight only into their phere of activity and what I and my political leaders in Hamburg saw of these camps was only positive. The Kreisleiters had the obligation where there were poor conditions, to take steps to remove them, as well as other officials.
Q. What was the relationship of the political leaders to the state organization, its administration and other arrangements?
A. The functions were completely separate, except in those cases in which one person held both positions.
Q. And what relationship did the political leaders have to the SA and General SS?
A. The SA and the General SS were independent organizations with their own chain of command. The political leaders could ask them to support their work.
Q. Did the political leaders have any executive powers?
A. Not at all. If they had no state function, as I said, they were exclusively limited to their party sphere.
Q. Could the political leaders give instructions to the Gestapo or the SD?
A. What is shown from the answer to the previous question. In the State Police and the SD the vigilance over their own organizations was even stronger than in other formations; that was as a matter of course.
Q. Witness, what was your relationship to the Fuehrer?
A. In the first years I venerated the Fuehrer. Later on I still venerated him but did not understand him on many points and the measures which are now ascribed to the Fuehrer I would formerly not have considered possible.
Q. Can the political leaders essentially be considered of good faith in believing Hitler on idealist and that they had no knowledge of the extermination of the Jews and other events?
A. In the correct judgment of their functions and their attitude and what they had to know or could know, this good faith must, in my opinion, be granted to the political leaders without reservation.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) ( The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 30 July 1946) BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL EYFE:
Q. Witness, do you remember Hitler saying in his Reichstag speech on 20 February 1938:
"National Socialism posesses Germany entirely and completely. There is no institution in this state which is not National Socialist." do you remember the sense of these words being stated by Hitler?
A. I remember the sense of the words, but not the words themselves. BY SIRDAVID MAXWELL FYFE: 2715-PS. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q. Do you agree with the sense of these words?
A. No.
Q. Do you think it was an exaggeration ?
A. I am convinced that not all institutions were National Socialist at the time.
Q. But you would agree that the vast majority of institutions were National Socialist?
A. They were about to become National Socialist, but that had not been finished.
Q. So you would agree that what Hitler states as a fact was the aim for which he was working?
A. Yes.
Q. And the method by which he was working for that aim was through the system of political leadership conducted by the Leadership Corps?
A. The objective could be reached only in part by that way.
Q. It was one essential method or possessing Germany in the sense of getting complete control of the minds and hearts and feelings of the population of Germany, was it not?
A. No, in my opinion, only the beginning.
Q. Only the beginning? But that was the work which had gone on from 1933 up to 1938, when these words were spoken by Hitler?
A. That was part of the success of the Party before the seizure of power and after the seizure of power.
Q. Let me just put a few words of Hitler's to show you how he expresses it "National Socialism --" It is the same speech.
"National Socialism has given the German people that leadership which, as a party, not only mobilizes the nation but organizes it."
Is Hitler correct in giving that description of the leadership?
A. Yes; I would say yes.
Q. Well, now I just want to take the matters which Dr. Servatius has referred to and ask you about the share of the Leadership Corps in them. Let us take the question of the Jews first. Hamburg, did the Political Leadership take an active part in the demonstration of November 1938?
A. As far as I found out about that action from other Gaus, I had to gain the impression that such actions had taken place but not at all, with the exception of individual cases, that the men responsible for these actions had been Political Leaders.
Q. Now, if you say, that will you look at Heydrich's order of 10 November. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: 79, My Lord. BY SIRDAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q. Witness, you will find it on page 96 of the German Document Book.
If it is not 96, it is 97. Have you found it?
You see, this was an order from Heydrich issued at 1:20 in the morning of the tenth, and I just want you to look at paragraph one:
"The chiefs of the State Police or their deputies must get in telephonic contact with the Political Loaders (Gauleitung oder Kreisleitung) who have jurisdiction over their districts and have to arrange a joint meeting with the appropriate inspector or commander of the Order Police to discuss the organization of the demonstrations. At these discussions the Political Leaders have to be informed that the German Police has received from the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police the following instructions in accordance with which the Political Leaders should adjust their own measures". of synagogues, the arrest of 20,000 Jews to be taken to concentration camps, and the destructions or appropriation of Jewish property. What were "their own measures" which the Political Leadership were to take with regard to that
A. First, May I point out that in the German text of that document, that i the passage which says that the Gauleiter had jurisdiction, is not included. I don't find it.
Q. The point I am asking you about -- we will deal with that in a moment, but what I want to know from you is, what were "their own measures" which the political leaders were to take with regard to this attack on the Jews?
A. To that I can say the following: I, myself, did not take part in the meeting of 9 November 1938. I was not informed from Munich about the intended action, but I found out on the evening of 9 November from the leader of the Hamburg State Police at that time that an action of that kind was immine
Q. That is, the leader of the Hamburg State Police was carrying out the instructions, of Heydrich after getting in touch with you. I thought you were able to speak for Gauleiters generally, apart from Gau Hamburg, and I want you to tell the Tribunal what were their own measures which the leadership of the party were to carry out? I mean you must have heard it discussed afterwards. It says what they were. That ware the leaders of the party to do?
A. The Prosecutor has asked me in the last question, or the question before the last, about my personal experiences. That is why I thought I had to describe them. I myself was informed by the leader of the State Police that action was intended. I gave the orders for the Gau Hamburg, and that it what I was asked about here, that immediately by officials of the state and criminal police the business streets and residential districts of Jews in Hamburg should be secured; that these measures out by Kriminal Kommissar Winks of the Criminal Police, to whom I sent a Gau inspector for his assistance. Besides, after receiving the information by the State Police I immediately called all the Kreisleiters and made them responsible to prevent that action in their regions.
Q. Did you, in your Gau, burn the synagogues?
A. No.
Q. I want to be exact. Were the synagogues burned in Hamburg? That is what I should have asked you?
A. During the first night, that was from the 9th to the 10th on the basis of my measures no excesses took place. There were minor perpetrations of an insignificant measure in the night from the 10th to the 11th, and one synagogue in Hamburg as destroyed against my measure, I assume from elements from the outside, by fire.
Q. All over Germany generally, if my memory is right, there were at least 75 synagogues burned. In general, apart from your own Gau, is it not right that following this order of Heydrich the leadership court cooperated with the police to see that synagogues were burned, Jews were arrested, and Jewish property affected and that no-jewish property was left secure?
A. No order, no directive, is known to me according to which the court of political leaders, even outside of the Gau Hamburg, according to orders, was obliged to take part in that action. I only found out that after the meeting -- that in connection with the meeting of the 9th of November, Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels sent a directive which practically led to perpetrations in individual Gaus, or many Gaus. I also know -- it also came to my knowledge that the chief of the Four Year Plan at that time, a few days after the action at a meeting in Berlin stated that this measure was not in the intentions of the Fuehrer and his own intentions and condemnet it most severely. And on the occasion of that meeting he also mentioned Hamburg as an exception.
Q. You remember that you said a few moments ago to me that this was an occurence which only took place in individual instances. Here is the order of Heydrich, telling the police generally to get in touch with the leadership court so that they could cooperate with the police to carry out his orders, which were, broadly, attack the Jews and see that you don't do any harm to non-Jews while you are doing it. It is quite wrong what you said a few moments ago, that this was an individual matter. The leadership court were brought into this through the order of Heydrich, who was then Himmler's lieutenant -- chief of the secret police, isn't that so?
A. No, that is not correct. The court of political leaders was not supposed to accept any orders from Heydrich.
The competency for orders to political leaders was solely in the hands of the Gauleiter, who received his directives from the Fuehrer or from the deputy of the fuehrer, or also from the party chancellery.
Q. Well, do you remember what took place after that occurrence? Do you remember a meeting of the party court?
A. No.
Q. Let me remind you about the party court. You will find that in Document 3063 at Pages 81 to 88 of the same document book. Witness it is page 105.
A. Yes, I have found the page.
Q. You have found the page. Page 81. A meeting of the supreme party court of the party, and it begins with a report about the events and judicial proceedings in connection with the anti-semitic demonstrations of 9 November 1938. If you look just after it says "Enclosure 2" it reads: "It was probably understood by all the party leaders present, from the oral instructions of the Reich propaganda director, that the Party should not appear outwardly as the originator of the demonstrations, but in reality should organize and execute them. Instructions in this sense were telephoned immediately (thus a considerable time before transmission of the first teletype) to the bureaux of their districts (Gaue) by a large part of the Party members present." And if you will look on to the next paragraph but one, "At the end of November 1938, the Chief Party Court through reports from several district Gau courts heard that these demonstrations of the 9 November 1938 had gone as far as plundering and killing of Jews to considerable extent and that they had already been the object of investigation by the police and the state prosecutor."
And then after that it says "The deputy of the Fuehrer agreed with the interpretation of the chief party court, that known transgression in any case should be investigated under the jurisdiction of the pzrty: 1. because of the obvious connection between the events to be judged and the instructions which Reich propaganda director, Party member Dr. Goebbels, gave in the town hall at the social evening. Without investigation and evaluation of this connection a just judgment did not appear possible.
This investigation, however, could not be left to innumerable state courts." rests of the party should also receive party clarification first and that the Fuehrer should he asked to cancel the proceedings in the state court. Now if you look on -- I don't want to take too much time -- you will see that there were then sixteen cases which came up before the supreme party court, and the first three cases are matters -- oh, yes, there is just one point I should have drawn attention to. Just before you come to the first case, Gauleaders and group leaders of the branches served as jurors at the trials and decisions. The decisions which, for reasons to be discussed later, contain in part only the statements of the facts, are attached. are concerned with theft and rape. They are allowed to go on to the state courts. The next 13 which come from all over Germany, very different places like Heilsberg, Dessau, Lesum, Bremen, Neidendurg, Eberstadt, Luenen, Aschaffenbur, Dresden, Munich, and all over Germany. There are 13 cases for murdering Jews. Two of the perpetrators get the very mild sentence of a warning and not being able to hold public office because of disciplinary vio lation, and the remaining 11, the proveedings are suspended against them.
Now, I just want you to look at 102. If you will look at 6; that is, the shooting of a Jewish couple called Goldberg; No. 7, the shooting of the Jew Rosenbaum, and the Jewess Zwienicki; No. 10, shooting the Jewess Susanne Stern; and there is No. 5. No. 5 is the shooting of the 16-year old Jew, Herbert Stein.
yourself, is that so?
A Yes; I have explained very clearly that I gave orders to the contrary in my Gau.
Q Yes. I have asked you, as I said at the beginning - I want you to tell the Tribunal about it generally -- how it is that the Court of your party, which is supposed to deal with the discipline and decency of its members, passed over 13 cases of murder with two suspensions from public office in three years, and the remaining 11 cases with all action suspended. Don't you think that that was a disgraceful way to deal with murder?
A May I first answer, Mr. Prosecutor, that among the 13 cases which have been quoted here, there is one single political leader. The clear -
Q Well, you are not right, you know. Cases 9 and 10 involve Ortsgruppenleiter; case 11 involves a Blockleiter. It is true that cases 2 to 8, 12, and 15 involve people with various ranks in the SA, and cases 11, 14 and 16 involve cases with people in the ranks of the SS. But usually I think you will find that cases 9, 10, and 11 involve the political police leadership. But that is not my point, witness. My point is this. Party, and the Court of the Party is condoning and conniving at murder. That is my point, and I want you to give your explanation as to why you connive and condone at murder. first time since I was brought here as a witness to the Palace of Justice in Nurnberg. On the basis of my attitude toward the Jewish question and my measures, I do not approve under any circumstances of the handling of the cases such as is mentioned here. I would never have approved of it if I had found out about it.
Q But, witness, if that is your personal view, then let us leave your personal view for the moment.
The Tribunal are considering the Leadership Court of the Party. Here is the highest count of the Party. If the highest court of the Party gives decisions of that kind of which you intensely disapprove, doesn't it show that the highest court of the Party was rotten to its foundations? self against the Fuehrer who was the creator of that action which has caused all these perpetrations, and had to see that the creator of that action was called to account. And that was apparently missed by the Party Court.
Q I am not going to take it in complete detail; but I just want you to look at one paragraph of the explanation which the Party Court gives. The full explanation is there, on Page 87.
Will you turn to that? I am not sure where that will be. It will be a few pages on; 112, I think, witness. I just want you to try and help us on this point. Have you got a paragraph that begins, "Also in such cases as when Jews were killed without an order (enclosures 13, 14, and 15) or contrary to orders (enclosures 8 and 9) ..."? Now, mark the numbers -
Q Would you try at Page 113? The sergeant will help you.
Q Do you see, "Also in such cases" -- it begins -- "as when Jews were killed without an order (enclosures 13, 14, 15) or contrary to orders (enclosures 8 and 9), ignoble motives could not be determined. At heart the men were convinced that they had done a service to their Fuehrer and to the Party. Therefore, exclusion from the Party did not take place. The final aim of the proceedings executed and also the yardstick for critical examination must be according to the policy of the Supreme Court, on the one hand to protect those Party comrades who, motivated by their decent National Socialist attitude and initiative, had overshot their mark, and, on the other hand, to draw a dividing line between the Party and these elements who for personal reasons basely misused the Party's national liberation battle against Jewry . . ." -- do you say that it is decent National Socialist attitude and initiative to murder Jewesses and children of 16?
A My opinion of these things is quite clear. I objected to that action; I have always objected to it, and I do not approve of the point of view of the Party Court in this question at all. I am convinced that the great majority of the Party members is of the same opinion. must mean that on the Party Court there were a number of men who were completely devoid of any moral sense whatever; is that so?
A I cannot accept this far-reaching characterization. I personally never had anything to do with the Supreme Party Court, and as far as decisive measures and judgments were concerned, I never had any intimate connection with them. your old colleagues too highly, and therefore I will leave it at that, if you agree so far that you disapproved strongly of the action that was taken by that party Court. I think you said that. Of I understand you correctly, I shall not go into it further. Is that right? I disapprove of. example, and -- My Lord, if Your Lordship would be good enough to turn to Page 45 of the same book -- no, My Lord, it is Page 46, I am sorry; and My Lord, the document begins on Page 45, but actually what I would like your Lordship to look at is on Page 47-- It is either on Page 50 or 51, witness, in the German copies. Gaupropagandaleiters of the Gau Coblenz-Trier. You will see that it is issued to all Kreis directorates, and the subject is "Jew baiting". The first paragraph says that they will receive a list of Jewish firms and businesses, and the second paragraph says:
"Jew baiting "The district directorate will set up a committee which has the task of directing and supervising the communities in the whole district.
The strength of this committee will be determined by the district director.
You are to inform the Gau-propaganda directorate at once of the committees named. The Gau-propaganda directorate will then set itself in coordination with these committes through you." including refraining from trading with them, and action against anyone who does trade. Gau-Coblenz-Trier. I want you to tell us just how that fits into the Party machinery. That goes from Gau-propaganda to Kreis, then, I suppose, when the Party leaders in the various Kreis would set up their committees, they would employ the Ortstruppenleiter, or the Zellenleiters and the Blockleiters to form these committees. Is that how it would work? I do not know that it was common usage to send such directives by radio in 1933. I submit that if this message was received, it was a measure in the Gau Coblenz-Trier, for which, to my knowledge, a basic directive did not exist. Trier is the only Gau in which there was Jew baiting in 1933, are you?
A. No.
Q. But what I asked you was, assuming the instructions from Gau carried out the instructions from the Kreis, would these be formed out of the Zellenleiters and Blockleiters use of the various forms of the Kreis?
A. If this document which I have before me is genuine, then I have to assume that from the document.
Q. Yes, assume that it is a verified captured document. Am I right in assuming that the Kreisleiters of Coblenz-Triar carried out these documents and did they form the Jew baiting committees out of the Zellenleiters and Blockleiters?
A. Under no circumstances was that method common usage throughout the Reich.
Q. If that's your answer I won't occupy the time. I just wanted to show what happened in 1933 and 1938. We will now take something that happened during the war. My Lord, if you will be good enough to turn to page 27 and 28. Page 27 -- and to 29 and 30, witness.
A. Yes.
Q. You see that it is a document issued on the 5th of November 1942 regarding jurisdiction over Poles and Eastern Nationals, and you can see that the jurisdiction is to be placed over . . . if I may just read the first paragraph to you to explain it.
"The Reichsfuehrer SS has come to an arrangement with the Reich Minister of Justice Thierack whereby the Justice waives the execution of the usual penal procedure against Poles and Eastern Nationals. Those persons of alien rave are in future to be handed over to the police. Jews and gypsies are to be treated in the same way. This agreement has been approved by the Fuehrer." the Poles and for not giving them a trial is, you see that in paragraph 2, because "Poles and Eastern Nationals are alien and racially inferior people living in the German Reich Territory." considerations for trying Germans do not apply to considerations for trying Eastern Nationals.