THE MARSHAL: If it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Streicher is absent from this session. BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: the Court adjourned. Would you look at the paragraph which commences "as everywhere else it is extremely important to know where the enemy is and what he is doing." My Lord, I am not absolutely certain that I didn't start reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, you had read that and the next one and the one at the top of page 3 in the English text. At least I think you have. You read the one beginning "an important section."
Q Perhaps I can start the paragraph commencing "an important section." Have you got that?
Q "An important section of both your and your comrades work must be industrial concerns and business enterprises, not only because you can transmit your propaganda very well in this way;particularly in such concerns you can easily pick up information concerning strange visitors. It is known that the enemy espionage organizations especially are active in industrial circles, both as regards collecting information and carrying out acts of sabotage. Comrades with close connections with the shipping and forwarding companies are particularly suitable for this work. It goes without saying that you must be meticulous and cautious when selecting your assistants."
organisations is relevant. I particularly want you to note these next lines:
"It has been proved that these often use harmless activities as camouflage and are in reality to be regarded as branches of the foreign intelligence service."
Witness, doesn't that exactly describe the way in which the Ausland Organization were carrying on their business? Read it again: "It has been proved that these often use harmless activities as camouflage and are in reality to be regarded as branches of the foreign intelligence service."
Doesn't that fit in with the directions that this Landesgruppenleiter of yours has been writing to his members in this document? organizations that are mentioned are in the service of foreign espionage and not Germany. I find here, first of all, what the British Prosecutor first brought up.
Landesgruppenleiter giving instructions to carry out counter-espionage -the work that is carried on by the intelligence service? Isn't that what the writer is writing about so far? the purpose of telling foreign Germans to make reports wherever they meet signs of the intelligence service functioning; and I don't think that in time of war anything can be objected to in this.
Q Very well. We won't go on arguing about it. I understand that you know nothing about the instructions which are contained in that letter. This is the first you have ever seen or heard of it, is that right?
A No. I have never seen this letter before, and I don't even know if it is an original . This one that I have is not the original. your organization worked, you have no knowledge of the activities that they were carrying out in Belgium? You have no knowledge of the activities that they were carrying out in Norway? None about what they were doing in Spain; and not very much about what they were doing in Rumania either, is that correct?
A No, that is not correct. of course I knew of the activity of these groups; but it as not entirely clear to me what activity is being brought out by the British Prosecution as one of the purposes of the Ausland Organization.
Q If you had knowledge of any of their activities. I understand from your evidence that you had none of the activities about which your own Ausland Organization Yearbook publishes a story. Both in Norway and Greece, the activities were recounted in those two stories. You knew nothing about them at all, is that right?
A The activity in Norway I did not know about. I have already testified to that effect. I knew vary well the activity in Greece. Moreover, it was a perfectly normal activity.
Q Very well. I want to leave that, and I just want to ask you two questions about another matter. Am I right in saying that the information -and I am not going to argue with you how as to what typo of information it was -- but the information that your organization sent back, was that passed on to the Defendant Hess?
A In part, yes; and in part no. That depended on the nature of the information. If it was information of an outer political nature, of course it went to some other office.
Q You were in fact acting as a pool of information, were you not? Let me explain myself: You were forwarding information that you received to the SS?
A In part, yes; also to the foreign office, yes.
Q And to the Abwehr, were you not?
Q You say very slightly. Did you not have a liaison officer attached to your organization from the Abwehr?
A No. I/had a collaborator who had an honorary connection with the Abwehr.
Q Perhaps we are talking about the same gentleman. Did you not have a Captain Schnauss attached to your head officer in Berlin?
A Mr. Schnauss was never a captain but was political leader and honorary officer of the SS. I believe he was sergeant. He did not come from the Abwehr, but was chief of personnel of the Ausland Organization and his function there was purely honorary. the Abwehr?
A No, he was no officer at all. He did not belong to the army.
Q I don't want to quibble with you about his rank. Was he, in effect, whatever he was, acting in a capacity of liaison between you and the Abwehr?
A Yes; that is correct.
Q Very well. Now, in addition to the information that Hess obtained through your system of reporting, that is, the Ausland Organization, did he also obtain information from those organizations which were dealing with the Volksdeutsche, that is to say, non-German citizens, racial Germans abroad who were not members of your organization, because you only allowed German citizens to become members of your organization. But the Volksdeutsche, I think you call them, did Hess receive information from other sources about their activities?
A I can't say, because I haven't spoken to Hess about this matter, and the matter of Volksdeutsche was entirely outside my sphere.
Q Dr. Karl Haushofer was for some time in 1938 and 1939 president of the V.D.A., was he not? Volksdeutsche in foreign countries. I that correct?
A Yes, I believe so. I don't know very much about this sphere. they not?
Q Haushofer had been Hess' pupil at Munich University; did you know that? the activities of these other organizations?
Q Well, now, I don't want to catch you out. Is that your answer? Are you being honest to this Tribunal? course of events have a precise knowledge of the Volksdeutsche and the Ausland Organization and also pay very great close attention to Volksdeutsche questions. Also I have no knowledge of these matters.
concerning Germanism abroad, was he not? in his capacity as Deputy Fuehrer. I don't believe there was any connection between those.
Q Very well. Are you telling the Tribunal that just because he was born in a foreign country he had charge of all matters concerning Germanism abroad? Reichsleiter of the Party who took care of these matters; but I assume that Hess took them over for that reason, mainly because he knew foreign countries,
Q I want to be quite clear. Whatever the reasonwas, he in fact did have charge of them. That is your evidence? in this building on the 9th of November. Do you remember that you were interrogated on the 9th-
A (Interposing) September? day. interrogation and ask you whether, in fact, it is correct. You were being asked about the information which came back through the Ausland Organization.
"Q He would have to rely on you for his information on matters of that kind?
"A Not only that; I think Hess had any amount of connections in Hamburg through which he got information which he told me nothing about.
"Q What were his connections in Hamburg?
"A In the shipping companies." Rather like your Landesgruppenleiter' instructions in Rumania. "In the shipping companies. I think he knew quite a lot of people there.
I always had some sort of idea he did.
"Q Is that Helfering?
"A Helfering for one, and then he had all sorts of information from abroad, I believe through Professor Haushofer, his old teacher, with whom he was very chummy. But he always made a point of not informing us on everything that was Volksdeutsch, because he said, 'It is not your business at all; you don't need to know that.'" Is that correct?
position that Hess was in with regard to information from abroad, from agents abroad? Does that correctly state the facts as they were?
A So far as I can see, that must be so. I myself can only judge to the extent that the reports came through theAusland Organization. Otherwise I cannot make final judgments because I was not a part of that.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I have no further questions. Perhaps I might get the exhibits in order, the ones that I have referred to. Norway and Greece came, becomes GB-284.
The two translations that you have are numbered 153 and 156, both of which become GB-284.
The secret wireless sets, telegrams which was M-158, becomes GB-285; and the letter from Landesgruppenleiter Konradi, which was PS-3796, becomes GB-286.
THE WITNESS: May I ask the Tribunals permission to say something more to one point developing from the British cross examination?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: May I begin?
THE PRESIDENT: You may give a short explanation. You are not here to make a speech.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't want to make a speech. I simply want to make some further remarks about the question of the secret wirless sets that was brought up this morning. that they only have a purpose in a foreign country if there is a receiving station in Berlin. I know very well that in my office in Berlin or in any other office of the Ausland Organization there was no such receiving apparatus; and I can assume that there was no such receiving set in Berlin at all. BY COLONEL AMEN: Brundage? and ask you whether you recall being asked those questions and having made those answers.
"Q Now, when you started, your immediate superior was whom?
"A Rudolf Hess, up until 1941 when he left for England.
"Q Who succeeded him?
"A Bormann. Martin Bormann was automatically the successor of Hess, but he didn't really fit in for us, because Hess was a man from abroad. He was born in Egypt, whereas Martin Bormann never understood anything about foreign affairs, never troubled about them at all, but of course he was my superior.
"Q But he was nominally your chief?
"A He was my chief technically,but he hadn't given any orders or directives or anything like that, because he didn't understand anything about it.
"Q So that everything that was done in your office, you would say you were responsible for"?
"A Absolutely.
"Q And you are willing to accept the responsibility for that?
Q A Of course I am." answers?
Q And were those answers true when you made them?
Q And are they still true today? was conducting; is that true?
Q Who was von Straempel ?
A Von Straempel was, I believe, Ambassador's counsel in the foreign office, but I don't know him. States from 1933 until Pearl Harbor?
A I can't say precisely. I knew him not very well and had no connection with him. American Bund by the Ausland Organization prior to 1938, and I want to read you just one pr two questions and answers which he made and ask you whether they conform to your understanding of the facts. Do you understand?
Q "Q Was the German-American Bund supported by the Ausland Organization "A I am positive that it had relations with the foreign section of the Party.
For example, I am sure they advised the Bund how to draw up their political organization, how, where and when to hold mass meetings, and how to handle their propaganda, and like matters. I do not know of my own knowledge whether they received financial support."
Does that conform with your understanding of the facts?
A No; that is a completely false representation. The Ausland Organization did not in any way support the Bund financially and had no connections with it. That I have said clearly in many interrogations here in Nurnberg, and have deposed an affidavit to that effect.
Q I know you have. So that if von Straempel has sworn that that is a fact, your testimony is that he was not telling the truth.
Is that correct?
A That is correct. I am of the opinion that von Straempel, if he was first secretary, didn't and couldn't know anything of that matter and gave testimony about something of which he knew nothing. At any rate, whatever he said was not true. prohibiting members of the German Embassy and Consulates to continue relations or connections with the Bund? to resign from the Bund but as far as I know, that occurred years before 1935 or 1936, and it originates with the deputy of the Fuehrer on my request.
DR. SEIDL: This question has nothing to do with the theme on which the witness is being interrogated and no question was directed towards him in his direct examination that has any connection with this question; namely, the activity of the German--American Bund, nor do I believe that this form of interrogation is designed to test the credibility of the witness. The reasons for which he was called as a witness have nothing to do with this series of questions.
COLONEL AMEN: It seems to me to have a very direct bearing on whether or not this organization was engaged in espionage work abroad and within the United States.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, In the opinion of the Tribunal, the questions are perfectly proper. BY COLONEL AMEN: of the Nazi Party nevertheless continued to support the Bund? the interrogation of Straempel and ask you whether these statements conform with your knowledge of the facts:
"Q Did the foreign section of the Party continue was issued?
"A I am sure that Mr. Drege, Consul in New York Party, did continue to have relations with Bund officials."
Does that conform with your recollection of the facts?
A No. In my opinion, that does not correspond to the facts-whether the Consul Drege had connections against my command, I cannot judge, but there was the specific order that he should have nothing to do with the Bund, because from the very beginning I objected strenuously to the activities of the Bund and was supported in my objections by the deputy of the Fuehrer.
Q You were acquainted with Drege, were you not? organization was concerned? various members that we had in the United States.
Q He was what was known as a confidential agent, was he not?
Q And as a matter of fact, you called him a "confidential agent" in your interrogation, did you not?
A No. I called him a "Vertrauensmann". The translation was "confidence man".
Q Well, I will accept that correction. He was a confidence man for your organization in the United States. Correct? organization in the United States? Correct? were located?
A One was General Consul Wiedemann in San Francisco. Then Dr. Gissling in Los Angeles. Then Consul von Spiegel, I believe, in New Orleans or maybe Boston.
I believe that is all.
which were forwarded to you through Drege. Is that not a fact?
A No, they made no reports to me. I cannot recall that I ever received any reports from Wiedemann or Spiegel. That wasn't their job either.
Q Drege made the reports to you, did he not? me personally. collected by those other confidential agents? Isn't that correct?
A I don't know. I don't know about these reports and I can't say whether there was anything to report. We had no Party organization in the United States. We had one but it was dissolved by Rudolf Hess in 1933.
Q So you say: but you nevertheless had an individual in Germany, whose duty it was to read and pass upon these reports from Drege as they came in. Is that not a fact? as I know and we had very little to do in the United States with the party and nevertheless such connections that we had, had to be investigated so their political rights can be protected. Such an organization was forbidden and did not actually exist. tivities of your organization nevertheless continued. Now, is it not a fact that there was an individual in your organization in Germany who received these reports from the United States regularly.
Q I beg your pardon:
A My collaborator, Mr. Grote.
Q Correct. Why didn't you tell me that before when I asked you about the individual who read these reports from the United States as they came in?
Q Well, I will withdraw that question. After Grote received these reports from the United States regularly, to whom did he report the substance of those reports?
nothing of interest and he, himself, was not in a position to do anything about them. Mr. Grote had an honorary position with us because of his advanced age and took over the branch of the office because it was of no importance at all in the Ausland organization. those reports?
Q You don't know whether or not they were important and you don't know whether or not they contained information relative to espionage matters. Is that correct? have submitted them to me. Is that correct? tion of von Straempel:
"These relationships seem to have violated the order you mentioned before.
Did he report these viola tions to the foreign office?
"A Yes, several times. In reports I drafted for mental.
I stated that the continued support of the Bund "Q What action was taken in Berlin to halt the activities of which you complained?
"A I know of no such action." Does that conform to your knowledge of the facts?
A I know nothing about these reports by Herr Straempel. This is the first time that I heard of any protests from the ambassador in Washington regarding non-permissible relations with the Bund.
Q You know who Thomsen was, do you not?
Q And you. knew that from time to time various officials of the Bund came over here and had conferences with representatives of your organization and of the Fuehrer, do you not? visit me and they had no conferences of any sort with me.
Q I didn't say with you. I said with representatives of your office; perhaps your friend, Mr. Grote?
A That is possible but I can't say precisely because he made no reports to me on this matter and he was not in a position to have discussed any official mattes, because Grote knew very well that we repudiated altogether the activities of the Volksbund in America. which was done in your organization. Correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Do either of the other Chief Prosecutors wish to cross examine? Then, Dr. Seidl, you can re-examine if you wish.
BY DR. SEIDL: saying there was no secret radio station in Germany in a position to receive secret communications. I ask you now: Did you have a sending station in Germany?
Q Did the Ausland Organization have such a transmitter?
A I consider that out of the question. If there had been, I would have known of it. I never saw one.
Q Is it correct that no radio communications took place in code? superior. Deputy of the Fuehrer concern himself with the details of the work of the Ausland Organization? details up to me because I had his complete confidence. The general orders were of the tenor that he repeated to me again and again that I should guard against everything that would be to the detriment of foreign relations through the Ausland organization.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. SEIDL: My Lord Justices, before I go on to my next witness, the witness Stroelin, I should like to make the following application to the Tribunal: in the same way as it was with the witness Bohle? Gauss was allowed as witness for another defendant. The defense counsel for this other defendant renounced calling this witness. The matter is the same as in the question of Bohle, that it would be better, in my opinion, to hear the witness Gauss now, and during his interrogation to present him with his sworn statement as was done here before.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the affidavit been translated yet and submitted in the various languages to the chief prosecutors?
DR. SEIDL: I don't know whether the translation is complete. At any rate, this noon I turned the affidavit over to the translating department.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me, Sir David or Colonel Pokrovsky?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I haven't seen this affidavit, and, my Lord, with regard to the last one, we got it hurriedly translated into English, but it was only by the kindness of my Soviet colleagues who allowed the matter to go on without a Russian translation and left it to my delegation to deal with that the matter went on. Otherwise, my Soviet colleagues would have asked the Tribunal to have it put back. last minute without having given us a chance of seeing them.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps Colonel Pokrovsky could tell me whether he has seen this affidavit or had it translated yet.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Members of the Tribunal, I fully share the viewpoint of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. It seems to me absolutely unacceptable to have this document presented to the Tribunal now. this affidavit. The Soviet delegation is in the same position. Besides, I would like to remind you that the question of this witness has already been discussed and it was fully decided, and it seems to me there is no foundation for further discussion of this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal considers that the course which must be taken is that that affidavit must be translated and submitted to the Tribunal for their consideration, for this witness was allowed to the defendant Ribbentrop, I think, and then he withdrew his application for the witness. You haven't applied for the witness Gauss, and I would point out to you and to the other counsel for the defendants that it is very inconvenient that documents of this sort, after all the question of witnesses and documents has been thoroughly gone into by the Tribunal, should be presented at the last moment and without any translation whatever. But we won't go into it now, and it must be translated and submitted to the Tribunal in the three languages.
DR. SEIDL: Perhaps I could make one short remark to the last point you made. It has always been my point of view so far that on application for submission of evidence would not be necessary in the case of a witness who has already been allowed by the Court for another defendant. That is certainly the case as far as Gauss is concerned. I consequently felt no need to make a formal application because I had the opportunity anyway to interrogate the witness in cross examination. deputy said last Saturday, he will forego calling the witness Gauss, and now I, in my turn, call Ambassador Dr. Gauss as witness regarding the data he set down in his sworn affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know what you mean by saying you call him. You can apply to call him if you like, but you don't call him until you apply.
DR. SEIDL: That's what I mean.
THE PRESIDENT: When we have seen this document, we will determine the question.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness who was approved by the Court for the defendant Hess is the witness Karl Stroelin. In order to save time I have prepared an affidavit for this witness, and I ask the Tribunal to tell me whether I can treat this witness in the same way as we handled Bohle, or whether the Prosecution is agreeable to having only the affidavit presented.
THE PRESIDENT: Have they seen the affidavit?
DR. SEIDL: I gave the affidavit to the Prosecution this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have an English translation of the affidavit. There are one or two questions the Prosecution wants to put to the witness, so I suggest that the most convenient course would be if Dr. Seidl did as he did with the last witness, to read the affidavit, and then after the affidavit is road, the few questions that the Prosecution desires to be put can be put to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I must report to the Tribunal and to you, Mr. President, that as far as this document is concerned, the defense counsel once again violated your order. That is, the Soviet Prosecution received this affidavit just a very short time ago, about one or two hours ago, and it wasn't received by us in Russian but in English. Therefore, I only had the opportunity of familiarizing myself very slightly withit, and I ask to have the presentation of this document postponed until the time when the order of the Tribunal is complied with, in other words, not until we have received our document in Russian.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Colonel Pokrovsky, in the interest of the time of the Tribunal, wouldn't it be better to get on with it now? Sir David has apparently seen the affidavit and read it in English, and if he is satisfied upon that, wouldn't it be better to go on with that rather than to postpone it?
You see, Dr. Seidl has actually been allowed this witness, so that it is only a question of time, doing it by way of an affidavit when he can call him, and he can then ask him questions.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I repeat once again that I have familiarized myself with it very slightly. If I understand correctly, there is no particular interest of the Soviet delegation in this affidavit. It is really of interest to the British delegation more than it is to us, and if Sir David considers -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing): Colonel Pokrovsky, you see the witness was allowed to Dr. Seidl. Therefore, Dr. Seidl could have put him on the witness box and could have asked him questions, and the only reason for doing it by way of an affidavit is to get the matter more clear and more quick. So if we were to order that this affidavit was not to be used, we should then have Dr. Seidl asking the witness questions, and probably, I am afraid, taking up rather longer then it would to read the affidavit, and you wouldn't object to that.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Perhaps the Tribunal could find it possible to ask to have Dr. Seidl ask the witness questions which are already answered in the affidavit. It seems to me that would give the opportunity to reconcile this contradiction we have now presented in this argument. I understand then correctly, are mostly of a historical character connected with the organization of the Institute in Stuttgart in 1917.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I have not read the affidavit yet so I am afraid I am not in a position to present the questions which you wish me to present.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: All right, I will withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Call your witness then now.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, I will call the witness.
KARL STROELIN, called as a witness, testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What is your name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: truth and withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down if you wish.
DIRECT EXAMINATION: BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, you were last Lord Mayor of Stuttgart, is that correct? Auslandsinstitut? you.
"1. The German Auslandsinstitut was founded in Stuttgart in the year 1917. The fact that Stuttgart was chosen as the seat of this Institute is connected with the fact that a particularly high percentage of emigrants have always come from Swabia.