We are not concerned with hearing, "No, never will Germany march into Czechoslovakia"; we are concerned with only the question of
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the question properly admissible.
Well, we will not pursue the matter. I ask you just this one further question, so that I make myself quite clear. You said in your evidence, as I wrote it down, that that defendant von Neurath, was well thought of, dignified and of noble character. Having heard what I have told you, are you still prepared to tell the Tribunal that he is well thought of, dignified, and of noble character. Is that your opinion now? I just want to get the value of your evidence, do you see. After what you have been told, is that your opinion?
A. It is my opinion before as well as after that von Neurath is a decent and dignified character. I can not judge under what circumstances he acted at the time and what views were determining for his statements. avoid war. Do you call a deceit of that kind doing everything possible to avoid war? Is that what your idea of a peaceful policy is -- giving assurances four months after you know perfectly well that Germany's intention is to overrun this country? Is that what you call doing everything to avoid war? by me at all in all its ramifications so that I can not really have an opinion or judge at at this time, but things obviously can not be as simple as they have just been pictured herenow.
Q Let me turn to another aspect in his case. We have been told, as you have just beard at great length, that he disapproved of Hitler's policyand resigned.
Do you know that, having resigned, he was appointed Reichs Protector of Bohemia-Moravia in March 1939. Do you know that? occupied? appointment reluctantly. He had refused to take it twice, but then he believed that he had to make a sacrifice, and as the State President Hacha has told me, the use of von Neurath's person was expedient, for von Neurath's activity, as Hacha told me, undoubtedly worked as a balancing factor and, as I already said, he was called away from this because he was too mild. remembered it, so it is quite unnecessary to say it again. Do try to answer my question shortly. Let me ask you this question. Have you ever thought that the reason for that appointment might have been as a reward for assistance in the occupation of Austria and Czech Slovakia that had followed so shortly before?
A Now, I never thought of that. If I may add, I would like to add that I read in the book by Henderson a different version--that von Neurath had been put into that place so that his international prestige could be discredited, and I would like to add that other possibilities might come into play here. and conscientious man?
LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, I regret that I have not got a copy of this for the Tribunal. It is a very short matter. It has been introduced in the Czechoslovakia report on the German occupation. I will give your Lordship the number: USSR 60. humane and conscientious man?
of three years, and that nine people were shot. This announcement does not say, as far as I can see, just why this took place and I cannot judge about this announcement. Just what announcements von Neurath did make I cannot judge. This announcement doesn't tell me, if I don't know, the reasons or motives why the announcement was issued. That high schools were closed and that nine people were shot-- that must have had its basic reason, I am sure.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I add the following? I would like to say this in order to save time. to, which I know the, in connection with von Neurath's case, in the proceeding I will have an opportunity to bring the proof that this announcement did not originate with von Neurath. This witness was not at Prague and can only repeat things which he did not know of his own experience but about which von Neurath told him. I believe that this question is not appropo and is taking up necessary time, for I would have to object to clarify the situation and show it as it was. based on wrong facts, things which were actually different. I will prove that von Neurath at the time when this announcement was drafted and put up was not at Prague and was not advised of what was going on during his absence. Therefore I believe that this question should not be treated today, should not be dealt with, since the witness cannot know anything about it from his own experience and knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course if this poster was put up when von Neurath was not at Prague, and he gave no authority for it, that would clear him with reference to this poster; but what is being put to this witness is, Assuming that this poster were put up by von Neurath, is it right to describe him as a humane? That is all the cross-examination means.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: But, Mr. President, the witness does not know about this poster, and he cannot answer the question correctly if he doesn't know all the ramifications.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness was examined at great length by you to show he was a humane man and had a very good character. Under such circumstances it is up to the Prosecution to put to the witness circumstances which would indicate that he was not of that humane character. That is all that is being done.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: But this witness can just say "I don't know," or if it is correct, we can all of us do that. The witness does not need to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can say, "If this is correct it is inconsistent with what I knew of von Neurath".
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Yes, but then he cannot say that either, for the simple reason that he doesn't know the circumstances under which this poster was put up. I cannot see the consequences of this question, for if the question, is put that way, every decent individual would say that it was inhumane; but it has no connection with facts that the witness will judge things which did not exist and things which are not correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think this is really taking up unnecessary time if this witness doesn't know anything about it? I quite see, of course, that it is the purpose of cross-examination to discredit the witness.
LT.COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am much obliged to the Tribunal.
Perhaps I might be allowed, to say this: This defendant has produced a witness to give evidence on his oath before this Tribunal. If that evidence is unchallenged, then it goes down on the record, and there is nothing to stop this Tribunal from regarding this witness as a man who is in a position to give reliable evidence of that kind. This cross-examination is rather to show that this witness, whether he is saying it truthfully or untruthfully, is certainly inaccurate. The evidence he has given as to the good character of this defendant does not bear investigation -- that is quite clear -- and the Tribunal is not saying we are not entitled to cross-examine as to character However, I don't think I need occupy the time of the Tribunal with that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY COLONEL AMEN:
Q Witness, when were you last in New York city?
A In New-York? In the year 1936. correct?
Q That was really in the Garden?
Q A German Day rally, correct? October. of the German-American Bund, is that correct? American Bund, was it not? of then in New York--and these had grouped themselves into a Festivity Committee which agreed to put on the German Dry. Just what the constituents were I don't know. made your speech, was it not? Bund, is that true? Yes or no. organization at that time who were active members of the German-American Bund, is that correct? in Germany and in New York City, correct?
Q Well, what is correct? take place so.
Q But you don't dispute that many of the members of your organization were at that time members of the German-American Bund?
THE PRESIDENT (to the witness): I have just taken down that you have said that was so.
COLONEL AMEN: Precisely.
THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question. BY COLONEL AMEN: previous question, that many members of your organization were members of the German-American Bund who were present at your speech at the rally in Madison Square Garden?
A Do you mean members of the German Ausland Institute?
Q Your organization? is the way I put it.
A I had no organization; I had an institute.
Q Exactly. And under whose auspices were you making this speech in Madison Square Garden? made Lord Mayer of the City of Foreign Germans. I was Lord Mayer of that city, and in my capacity as such I was asked to give the speech. Stuttgart was made the City of Foreign Germans for the Swabians because most of the emigrants had come from there, and for that reason Stuttgart was the native city of foreign Germans. were at that time also members of the German-American Bund? Yes or no. Institute were also members of the German-American Bund: Yes or no.
A Yes, some of these people had come back. They were students who had studied abroad and had returned to Germany from America. American Bund, who were likewise members of the Ausland Organization and the Institute, were indicted and tried and convicted a various espionage offense in the federal courts of the United States? Yes or no.
Q You never heard that?
A No, I never heard about that. If you mean case Kappe, that case I do know, but that is not in connection with this matter.
Q That is one case, as a matter of fact. Now, you know some others too, don't you? tell you the answers.
A I cannot remember any other cases. Please ask me..
Are you acquainted with a Mr. Alfred Weninger--W-e-n-i-n-g-e-r?
A I didn't get this name. Alfred-
Q Who is he?
AAlfred Weninger is, to my knowledge, at present in France. I believe he is a jurist.
Q Well, don't you know? Don't you know whether he is a jurist or not?
Q What is his nationality?
Q Is he a friend of yours?
Q Did you intervene on his behalf on at least one occasion?
Q That was in March 1943?
A No, there must be a misunderstanding. I mean the Alfred Weninger who is a Frenchman and whom I helped during the war so that he was not sentenced to death, and later he was freed from prison, but that took place in the year 1942 or 1943. That is the Weninger I know. There may be two Alfred Weningers, but this ...
Q No, that is correct. He was arrested for espionage with the enemy?
A Yes, then it must be the same man. I helped him.
Q And you intervened with the People's Court?
Q And also, at the Ministry of the Interior and Justice in Berlin?
A In the Ministry of the Interior. I wrote a memo about conditions in Alsace, and I also helped others. suspension of their sentences, is that correct?
A Yes. I Would like to mention expressly that I asked Neurath to intervene and that it is because of him a letter was written to Hitler and thus mitigating circumstances were carried through. obligation to you at the present time? Correct?
Q Well, you saved his life in effect, did you not?
A I did that for others also, but I don't know whether there would be any gratitude for that.
conversation with you, correct?
Q Do you recall having a conversation with him in June, 1940? particulars concerned. I ask you whether you recall having said that to him either in the exact words which I put to you, or in substance. Do you understand?
Q Here are the words. "I warn you against National Socialism which does not recoil before anything and which makes justice a servile agent. They are criminal and I have but one wish -- to get out of it." Did you say that to Weninger in words or in substance? Answer yes or no.
A I did not quite understand just what you said. Will you please repeat it?
Q You understand English, don't you, witness?
A Some. I understand just a little. our interrogators, were you not?
A Just one occasion. I Spoke a little English. I do not believe . . .
Q And you understand perfectly well what I just read to you, don't you? is not clear to me.
Q I'll read it to you again. But I believe that you are merely taking this time to try to think of your answer. I ask you again, you either said to Weninger in words or in substance, in June of 1940, the following: anything and which makes justice a servile agent. They are criminal and I have but one wish -- to get out of it."
Do you understand?
so states -- Weninger, whom you have just told us has every obligation to you?
A I cannot recall that statement. I may have made statements of a critical nature, but I do not recall it . . .
Q Do you deny having made that statement? Answer yes or no.
Q Did you make it in substance? In substance, did you make that statement Strassburg . . . Were you in Strassburg with Weninger in 1936?
Q But you don't deny it?
Q It is quite possible?
A It is possible but I cannot recall it. I cannot suddenly recall when I was there. in substance, the following: "When I am abroad I am ashamed to be a German." Answer yes or no.
AAt that time, it was entirely out of the question. In the year of 1936 I was very proud of the fact that I was a German.
Q And then, do you deny having made that statement to Weninger?
Q When did you make it?
Q When did you make that statement to Weninger? In short, when did you decide on making statements like that?
Q But you do not deny it?
A There was a period of time when one was not proud of Germany. I might have said it then.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the other prosecutors wish to cross examine?
DR. SEIDL: I have no questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
Does that conclude your case, Dr. Seidl, or have you got any other evidence to offer?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, I have a questionnaire which has come back to me about the witness Alfred Hess. He was to be questioned through a questionnaire. number three, but before going into the proceedings of today, I would like, on behalf of the Defendant Hess, I would like to say that in reference to the other document which was an official report of the British Government, Lord Simon said "It has been made known to me that you have come here on a special mission and that you wish to speak to a representative of the Government. You know I am Dr. Guthrie and I am Working in the interest of our Government in order to reason with you and discuss with you what you wish to tell the Government." That was what I wished to state in the completion of my reading of the Simon matter this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you be able to finish tonight if we went on for a few minutes tonight, or not?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the answers which are given on this questionnaire are rather comprehensive. The witness was cross examined and I assume that the prosecution will wish to have the answers to the cross-examination read and I believe it is not possible to do that to day.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours an 26 March 1946.)
MARSHAL OF THE COURT: If it please the Tribunal, Defendant Streicher will be absent from this session of court.
(A recess was taken)
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I now turn to the reading of the minutes of the interrogation of the witness Alfred Hess. Before the answering of the first question, the witness made a few preliminary remarks, which are as follows:
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Where shall we find it?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I received this interrogatory only last Saturday, and it has not been possible for me to incorporate it into the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that we haven't got copies of it?
DR. SEIDL: I don't know whether the General Secretary, from whom I received this interrogatory, has supplied copies for the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you had better go on then.
DR. SEIDL: Before answering the first question, the witness made afew preliminary remarks which are as follows:
"I would like to say that I had to terminate my activity in the Ausland Organization of the NSDAP, because of the flight to England of my brother Rudolph Hess, Deputy Fuehrer. Therefore, my statements can be taken into consideration only until May 1941 and cover that period of time only.
"Question 1: What were the tasks and the aims of the Ausland organization of the NSDAP?
"Answer: The purpose of the Ausland organization was the cultural, social, and economic care of Reich Germans in foreign countries, whether they were Party members or not. The Ausland organization, in this sense, was to be a connecting link between foreign Germans and the home country.
It wanted to foster love for their Fatherland,their former home, and to promote understanding of the Fatherland as well as understanding of the Germans at home, to have the rest of the world know the problems that the Germans at home had to meet. The German abroad, through his dignified demeanor in foreign countries, was to make himself popular there in order that he might be the best possible representative of his Fatherland.
"Question 2: Who could become a member of the Ausland organization?
"Answer: This question is not quite intelligible. A membership in the Ausland organization was non-existent. There was no such thing. Neither was there a membership in the Foreign Office of the Reich or in the Gau of the NSDAP in the Reich itself.
"Question 3. Is it correct that each membership card of the NSDAP had the following principles printed on it:
"Follow the laws of the country whose guest you are. Let the activities of the host country be carried on by the people who live there, and do not interfere, not even in conversation.'?
"Answer: It is correct to say that the above basic principle was printed on the cover of the membership card. If I am not greatly mistaken, underneath this there was the warning that one would be expelled from the NSDAP if this principle were not obeyed.
"Question 4: Did the Ausland organization of the NSDAP develop any activities which might lead one to believe there was Fifth Column activity?
"Answer: Fifth Column is not a clear concept, uniformly used. In general, one would probably mean a secret activity of the nature of sabotage, and according to its basic principle, the Ausland organization could not have any such thing as its activity. I remember that the word 'Fifth Column' appeared in the foreign press, and it was considered that was done as a basis for antiFascist propaganda, and it created quite a furore. "Seriously, no state could conceive the thought that a world famous organization, which was open in all its dealings, could be used a s a secret service in the sense of a Fifth Column. I consider it a matter of course that this or that German abroad had secret missions or services to perform, such as other nationals performed for their home countries, but the Ausland organization was never the giver of such instructions nor the intermediary for them.
"Question 5. What kind, of instructions and principles did the Deputy of the Fuehrer give to the Ausland organization covering its activity?
"Answer: The directives andbasic principles laid down by the Deputy of the Fuehrer for the activity of the Ausland organization are those mentioned in my answers to questions 1 and 3. There was special emphasis, again and again, in strict directives and instructions,that they were not to do anything which might damage the host countries or anything which might be considered an interference in their internal affairs.
"His basic principle in this direction was that National Socialism was a purely German movement, that it was not an expert article which one would want to force on other countries.
"Question 6: Did the Deputy of the Fuehrer give the Ausland organization any directives or orders which might activate them to Fifth Column activity?
"Answer: The Deputy of the Fuehrer not only never gave any such orders or instructions, but, as already established in the answer to Question 5, laid down basic principles which would prohibit any activities of that sort.
"Question 7: Is this correct, that on the contrary, the Deputy of the Fuehrer was always concerned that under any and all conditions interference with the internal affairs of the host country should not take place?
"Answer: I can repeat only that it was the chief task of the Deputy of the Fuehrer to develop the activity of the Ausland organization abroad in such a way so that under any and all circumstances any interference with the internal affairs of the host country would not take place and the few insignificant offenses or infractions which took place because there were several million Germans abroad and a few offenses were inevitable and steps were taken to prosecute.
"Question 8: what were the tasks and the aims of the Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum in Ausland (Association for Germanism Abroad)?
"Answer: The Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum in Ausland was interested in taking care of the Volksdeutche culturally. Volksdeutsche are racial Germans who voluntarily renounced their German citizenship either voluntarily or through legal means and had taken over citizenship in another state, such as, for instance, citizenship in America, Hungary or other countries.
"Question 9: Did the Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum im Ausland, that is before the 10th of May of 1941, develop any activity which might have given it the appearance of a 'fifth column' agency?
"Answer: I must state in this connection that the activity of the Ausland organization did not have any connection with the Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum im Ausland, so I have no way of judging. But I consider it entirely out of the question that my brother charged the Volksbund with fifth column activities in any way or manner whatsoever. It would havebeen possible neither in his capacity as Deputy of the Fuehrer nor with his personal views as to the activity of the Volksbund im Ausland.
"What kind of directives and instructions did the Deputy of the Fuehrer give as to the activity of this Bund?
"Answer: Directives and so forth which my brother gave to this Bund are unknown to me for, as I have already stated, my activity in the Ausland organization was in no way connected with V.D.A. (Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum im Ausland).
"(Signed) Alfred Hess; attested to on the 9th of March 1946." this interrogatory. I assume that the Prosecution has submitted the result of the cross-examination or will wish to do so but if this cross-examination has not been translated, it might perhaps be practic le if it could be read and translated right now.
MR. DODD: If it please the Tribunal, we have received the crossinterrogatories but I suggest respectfully, rather than take the time to read them, we offer them and if the Court will permit us, have them translated into the four languages. It will take about ten minutes or so to read them and we are not interested in doing it unless the Tribunal feels that we should.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Mr. Dodd.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, and gentlemen, I do not know whether the affidavit of Ambassador Gauss submitted by me yesterday has been translated and whether you have received these translations. Yesterday afternoon I gave a copy to the Information Office and since that time have not heard from them.
THE PRESIDENT: Would the Prosecution inform the Tribunal what the position is?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the Prosecution have not had a copy of this affidavit yet so we do not know what is in it. I suggest that perhaps Dr. Seidl could postpone the reading of that until we have had a chance of considering it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am afraid that must be postponed.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. substance, utterances and quotations taken from books and speeches of foreign statesmen, diplomats and economic exports, tracing the beginnings and origin of Versaille, the contents of the Treaty of Versaille and the territorial changes brought about by the Treaty of Versaille, such as the question of the Polish Corridor and above all the disasterous economic consequences which this treaty brought to Germany and to the rest of the world.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have read the documents in this book and I should like just to say one or two words about them.
politicians, economists and journalists. They are opinions that are expressed polemically and some of them journalistically, and with most of them one is familiar and has known them when they were expressed twenty-five to fifteen years ago. subject is too remote, I have a suggestion which I hope the Tribunal will consider reasonable, that the Prosecution should, as I suggested yesterday, let this book go in at the moment de bene esse and that when Dr. Seidl comes to making his final speech he can adopt the arguments that are put forward by the various gentlemen whom he quotes, if he thinks they are right. He can use the points as illustrations, always provided the thesis that he is developing is one which the Tribunal thinks is relevant to the issues before it. That will preserve for Dr. Seidl the right to use these documents, as I say, to the relevancy of the issues but I suggest that it would be quite wrong to read them as evidence at the moment. They are merely polemical and journalistic opinions and directed to an issue which the Prosecution have submitted and do submit is too remote.
However, I am most anxious that Dr. Seidl should have every advantage for his final speech. Therefore, I suggest it would be convenient if they were put in without being read at the moment and it was left subject to the limitation of relevancy which can be considered when all the evidence is before the Tribunal for him to make use of, as I suggested, in his final speech. reasonable method of dealing with such material.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, may I -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear you in a moment. Do you think the suggestion made by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe would be one which would be acceptable to you?
DR SEIDL: Mr. President, at first glance the suggestion of Sir David seems to be very reasonable, but I do not believe I should say that if the matter is treated in that way great difficulties will arise for the defense. Those arguments for the probative value, which in their nature will be used and heard in the course of this proceeding, will be used in the final speech of the defense, and this would mean that the defense counsel in his final speech again and again will be interrupted; that he will have to debate over the probative value of his quotation; that perhaps whole parts of his speech will fall by the wayside in that manner, and that in that way the danger will arise that the cohesion of his speech will be broken completely.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is a danger which every advocate has to meet, that certain portions of his speech may not be deemed revelant, but I thought that that might be a helpful way out. But if that is not accepted then the Prosecution must respectfully but very strongly submit that the issues of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles are not relevant to this Tribunal. I have already argued that and I do not want to develop it at great length. I do want to make it clear that these questions which are raised by the quotations here were, of course, the subject of political controversy in practically every country in Europe and different opinions were expresseddas to the rightness and the practicality of the provisions, especially the economic provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. I am not disputing that that was a matter of controversy, but I am saying that it is not a controversy that should come before this Tribunal. I myself have read practically all the quotations from the English statesmen here as a politician over the past years, and I am sure many people in this court must have taken one view or the other, but that is not a relevant issue to this Tribunal and, of course, especially is it wrong in my view to put forward as evidential matters opinions expressed by one side in the controversy, Every one of these speeches, as far as the writtings were in English, was either preceded by matters which they were to reply or was followed by a reply, and I should think the same applies to those of Senator Bora and the United States.
for argument, and it will have to be decided at some time what is the convenient time as a matter for the Tribunal as to whether this is a relevant issue. That was why I put forward this suggestion, that it was better to decide it when the whole of the true evidence of fact had been put before the Tribunal. But, apart from my suggestion, I do want to make quite clear that that is a matter of relevance. The Prosecution unitedly submit that the Tightness or practicality of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles is not a relevant matter. I want to distinguish between the two arguments. Another argument has been adumbrated by Dr. Stahmer as to the actual terms of the preamble to the military clauses. That is quite a different point which we can discuss when, as I understand, certain propositions of law are to be put forward by one of the defense counsel on behalf of the defense. But, as I say, the rightness and practicallity of the Treaty and especially the economic clauses is a subject of enormous controversy on which there are literally thousands of different opinions from one shade to the other, and I submit it is not an issue before this court and, secondly, I submit this is not evidence, It is not evidential matter, even if that was an issue.
DR. SEIDL: May I perhaps reply briefly?
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Sir David, would your proposition involve that Dr. Seidl could not quote from any of these documents?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Certainly, yes, if on my promise that is an irrelevant matter, he could not.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they are not admissible.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: They are not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My original suggestion was, of coursem leaving the discussion of whether they are admissible to all the evidence that had been filed, but if it has not been accepted, I submit bluntly, if I may use the word with all respect, that they are not admissible.