You say you were not familiar with any of those matters?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I don'tthink I did express myself like that. What I said was that everything that was communicated by foreign diplomats I do, of course, know. In other words, if detailed reports were received during my term of office, then of course I knew it. I never denied it. BY THE PRESIDENT: stood you to say was that nothing was ever mentioned in the notes about the treatment in concentration camps. generally as to whether I knew about conditions in concentration camps and whether I had been informed about the treatment in them, that everything that had been reported to me by diplomats or what I had learned from the foreign press, I knew. In other words, if these documents did contain details which I received during my time, then I must have known it too; but may I ask you, first of all, what the date of these documents is? May I ask the date of the document? BY COLONEL AMEN: but we don't want to take too much of the Tribunal's time. What I want to find out is whether or not you and Ribbentrop did know all about the murders, tortures, starvations and killings that were taking place in the concentration camps and which were the subject of constant and continuous protests from the Vatican, which Ribbentrop has testified were not even read or acknowledged? Do you understand that, Witness?
A Yes, I understood it. But of the ill-treatment in concentration camps to the degree and in the bestial way I have heard about here I knew nothing whatsoever; and I must protest against the suggestion that I had heard things like that via the Vatican at that time. Furthermore, I am convinced that even Ribbentrop knew nothing about the details as we have heard them here and as they have been shown in the films -- that he had no idea of them at all.
Q Isn't it a fact, Witness, that if you had followed up any of these complaints from the Vatican which Ribbentrop has testified were ignored, you would have found out everything which was going on in the concentration camps to the last detail?
Yes or no.
A That is not correct. I said yesterday that you can probably find the key for that situation in the speech made by Himmler on October 3, 1943, when he said that the Jewish action and concentration camp matters were to be kept just as secret as the matter of June 30, 1934. The majority of the German people weren't informed about that until a short time ago; they couldn't have known anything about these events. If I went to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller or other such officials, I was always told that everything in those concentration camps was functioning beautifully and that ill-treatment could not be mentioned at all, couldn't be talked about. tration camp, and the Danish Red Cross was taken to the concentration camp Theresienstadt. After that visit to the camp took place -- this was a Jewish camp-- I was visited by the Danish ambassador, who told me that beyond expectation everything had been favorable in that camp. I told him I was astonished and he told me yes, there was a theatre in the camp and they had a police force of their own, they had their own money. The while matter is well-run. I had hardly any reason therefore to doubt that that was true. But I myself couldn't get myself informed of the true conditions from any German department. They were probably afraid to inform a member of the Foreign Office of any such matters. But I want to emphasize again that I really had no idea of the atrocities, cruelties, and mistreatments in the concentration camps. Office of these atrocities? Had the Foreign Office ever done anything to discourage them? attempted to report the matter to the Red Cross through one channel or another, and in particular in all matters relating to prisoners of war we did this. If anything appeared to be wrong to us, then we on our own initiative drew the attention of the Swiss delegation to it and disked them to go to the place where there was something going on. This case would go to the Swiss man and I would tell him that this and that case has occurred in a concentration camp.
Then the Swiss Red Cross would probably have interfered, which would probably have incurred unpleasant measures for those concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: ColonelAmen, I think we ought to have an adjournment for ten minutes.
COLONEL AMEN: I have only a few more questions.
(A recess was taken).
BY COLONEL AMEN:
complaints from the Vatican, which he neither read nor acknowledged, did Ribbentrop take any steps or do anything to find out whether those complaints were justified and true, or did he not? Vatican that ever came to your attention, with particular reference, of course, to the desk-full to which Ribbentrop himself has testified. Do you know of any steps that were ever taken by Ribbentrop in connection with complaints received from the Vatican about the artocities taking place in concentration camps? Please try to answer "yes" or "no". Hitler, and then he waited for Hitler's order.
Q All right. And when Hitler told him to pay no attention whatsoever to these complaints, he, as usual, did exactly that the Furhrer told him to do, namely, nothing. Is that correct, so far as you know?
A Yes; he obeyed Hitler's orders.
Q And did nothing?
Q Well, didn't you tell the Tribunal that is what the direction from the Fuehrer was, to pay no attention to these complaints? Yes or no, please. complaints after the Fuehrer instructed him to disregard them. Is that right? disregard these complaints from the Vatican, Ribbentrop, as usual, did what he was directed, namely, nothing. again received the same order. I know that he once turned to Himmler and requested that the actions against the Jews should not be carried out, and he made a proposal that Jewish women and children should be put at the disposal of England and America.
Q And you also know what reply he received to that suggestion, don't you?
A I am not familiar with the answer.
ever done, are you not?
A No--What did you say was not carried out? I did not understand the question. That suggestion was never carried out, was it? directly to the foreign countries. I also do not know what answer he received from the foreign countries. correct? not on good terms anyway, do you not?
Q That was a matter of common knowledge to everybody, wasn't it?
A Yes; the enmity became larger as time went on.
Q So far as you know, did Ribbentrop take bromides every day?
A I don't know.
Q You never saw him taking any?
A It could be, I don't know. was taking them?
A Yes, I remember now, there was something about that, but I didn't pay much attention to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have anything to do with whether he took bromides?
COLONEL AMEN: Yes, your Lordship, we will, because in his interrogations he claims that his memory as to many of these events has been obscured or removed by the over-use of such medicine.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. BY COLONEL AMEN: as "Ash Can"?
A Muelleimer?
A I don't exactly remember.
A I don't remember ever having been incarcerated in Muelleimer.
Q After you were taken prisoner, where were you incarcerated?
Q For how long a period of time? incarcerated there? of the inmates?
Q And you did, from time to time, have such conversations? Right?
A Yes. I was not together with them all the time, because I was in a different camp. inmates there, did you make the statement which I am about to read to you, either in exact words or in substance? Do you understand the question? "Ribbentrop is lacking in any notion of decency and truth. The conception does not exist for him." Please answer "yes" or "no". Did you say that, witness? Did you say that? supposed to have said. exact words or in substance. Do you understand that?
A I didn't precisely understand the German translation of your question.
Q Do you know understand it?
A I repeat, I didn't understand the German translation of it. whether you used these exact words or some other similar words? I will now read it to you again. Do you understand?
A Yes; I should be thankful.
Q "Ribbentrop is lacking in any notion of decency and truth. The conception does not exist for him."
A I cannot recall that I ever made any such statement. I should like to know to whom I made it. can't remember whether you did or not?
Q Is it possible that you did? yes.
COLONEL AMEN: Very good.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the other prosecutors wish to ask any questions?
BY GENERAL ZORYA:
Q. I shall limit myself only to a few questions for the sake of saving time. Inasmuch as I could understand the translation of your testimony yesterday, you testified to the fact that the German foreign policy was conducted not only by the foreign ministry but other people in other institutions affected it as well, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us who of the defendants whom you see now in the dock attempted to influence and influenced the German foreign policy?
A. Foreign policy was, of course, after the beginning of the war -
Q. I ask you not to make any declarations here in regard to foreign policy of Germany but just to indicate precisely, in answer to my question, who of the defendants of the present trial attempted to influence and influenced the German foreign policy?
A. The basic lines of foreign policy were determined solely by Hitler. The fact that we had occupied many countries and occupied the most various sorts of positions in these various countries -
Q. We know all that. I ask you to indicate who of the defendatns, naming them, attempted to influence and influenced or affected the German foreign policy. Do you understand my question?
A. Foreign policy in Germany, as I stated yesterday, was conducted solely by Hitler; but these people who were appointed to the special offices, of course had some influence in one direction or another -- for example, anyone who had a special job concerning the police carried that out; likewise the same for work problems. The same is true of the other sectors.
Q. Once again you didn't answer my question. I ask you to tell us -independent of the size and shape of the influence -- who of the present defendants attempted to influence and influenced in one way or another -- who were those besides the members of the foreign office?
A. I assume that you asked this question in relation to Russia; and since the foreign office, after the entrance of German troops into Russia, was no
A. I ask you to understand my question precisely and answer it precisely; Who of the defendants, in what way, was attempting to influence this foreign policy, even though he himself had no personal relations with the foreign office?
A. The eastern ministry, as regards Russia, because that was competent in these matters -
Q. No, not in relation to Russia.
A. In Norway Terboven carried on the policy. He, of course, influenced Hitler in his attitude toward Norway and Norwegian problems; also, the individual chiefs of the various governments in the various countries, so far as they could reach Hitler with their reports. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. We don't want you to make speeches; we want you to answer the question. You weren't asked who influenced the foreign policy, but who of the defendants influenced foreign policy. You may say none, or you may say some. It is a question that you must be able to answer.
A. I should like to assume that Rosenberg had something to say about Russia, Frank something to say about Poland, Seyss-Inquart regarding Holland. Other matters touched only special sectors. The SS certainly had something to say; no doubt the Wehrmacht, also the various other offices. They all wanted to have a certain influence. However, the basic policy was still conducted by Hitler. BY GENERAL ZORYA:
Q. Wouldn't you name Goering in this connection?
A. Goering carried on the Four-Year Plan and in this capacity must also have had a certain influence.
Q. What did this influence consist of?
A. There again I must say that I and the foreign office had nothing to do with Russia and that this was most strictly forbidden; and even in the question of propaganda and press we were permitted in no way to exercise or carry out any activity. For this reason I am particularly poorly oriented regarding Russian matters.
Q. And now, so far as other questions besides Russia, did he have any influence over those questions?
A. I didn't understand the German translation.
Q. Besides Russian questions, did Goering have any influence in the realm of foreign policy so far as other questions are concerned?
A. I should like to say that until the year 1938 he had an influence over foreign political matters on Hitler.
Q. You testified that in June 1944 the foreign ministry was also participating in preparation for an anti-Jewish congress which was supposed to be called in Prague. I ask you to reply shortly, yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who were supposed to be the honorary members of this congress?
A. Probably there were many.
Q. And who else from among the defendants?
A. I really can't remember. As far as I remember, however, Rosenberg and a large number of other leading persons; but I can't recall their names any longer. But there is written material on this subject, so that that could be ascertained without much trouble.
Q. Did Ribbentrop attempt in one way or another to protest having his name included in the roster of the honorary members of this congress?
A. So far as I can recall it was very unwillingly that he took this post, but I do not believe that it was his Intention really to take any active part in this matter.
Q. Inasmuch as I understood you, recently you testified to the fact that between Ribbentrop and Himmler there was a certain animosity?
A. Bad relations, yes.
Q. Can you tell us whether between Ribbentrop and Himmler there was any contact in their work and whether they maintained this contact and cooperation in any phase of their work?
A. In point of fact, there was no real working contact such as could be expected of a modern state. Of course, there were on occasion matters that touched both of these men, and to that extent they did have contact.
Q. In what manner did this contact exist?
A. It consisted really only in this: that Ribbentrop or Himmler every other month or so got in touch with each other. Besides that we have a liaison man in the foreign office to the Reichsfuehrer SS -- in other workds, Himmler.
Q. Then how can it be explained in connection with this had relation that you just mentioned now that existed between Himmler and Ribbentrop?
A. I assume you are referring to the second question I answered. In any normal state the arrangement was made that at least the ministers saw each other once a year and exchanged opinions with each other. This, however, did not take place. But since, as we have already heard at some length, the fields of jurisdiction overlapped to a great extent and the activity of one man touched very closely on the activity of another, thus it was necessary whether one wanted it or not that there would be a connection.
Q. Did I understand you correctly that Himmler and Ribbentrop didn't meet each other?
A. They met perhaps once every three months; it could have been four months. Theymet usually only when both Ribbentrop and Himmler were accidentally simultaneously visiting Hitler.
Q And there were no special meetings? There was no business contact among them personally, was there?
Q I would like to present to you Document USSR 120, which was; already presented as evidence to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT; What was the number you gave?
GENERAL ZORYA: USSR 120. BY GENERAL ZORYA: regard to the organization of Intelligence. Are you familiar with this agreement? what you wanted to describe here. the one that actually existed. This refers to Hitler's order of the 12th of February 1944. On the basis of this order, Himmler took charge of all the activities in foreign countries without the participation of the Foreign Office, and after he had become the successor of Canaris, he reached through this order a superior position as regards the foreign countries. And if in one way or another we had not tried to have some contact with this organization then the Foreign Office would, even in foreign countries, have had no influence at all. We had to fight vigorously for this document, for on the basis of this document Himmler was, first of all, under obligation to communicate to us the information that he brought to Germany. Otherwise he brought these reports in without telling us about them. That was the reason why we reahce this working agreement. But so far as I recall, it was of no practical consequence, because the order of Hitler's on the 12th of February 1944 took place, and the agreement was not drawn up until later. That must be the general situation as regards this paper. It lasted quite a while.
Q You say that this agreement after all was never valid?
A No, I don't say that. An agreement becomes effective when it is signed, but for practical purposes it was not in effect, or hardly so.
go over to other questions. Kaltenbrunner?
A Whether I came into contact with Kaltenbrunner? Yes.
Q In regard to what questions? and from people who because of the "Nacht und Nevel" law had been transported from foreign countries and who could give me no information, I turned privately to Kaltenbrunner and pointed out to Kaltenbrunner that this order was inhuman. Kaltenbrunner then, frequently and obligingly, gave me information and I, contrary to the orders, transmitted this information further, because I held that to be humane. Those were the main points of contact between me and Kaltenbrunner. the question of Danish policemen who were incarcerated by the Gestapo in the concentration camp without any definite charges? I ask you to answer yes or no. an American interrogator--that in spite of the fact that these Danish policemen were returned to Denmark , still they were subjected to very bad treatment.
Q What was this ill treatment? that 1600 Danish policemen-
Q (Interposing) I asked you to be precise and brief. What was the manner of this ill treatment of the Danish policemen who were incarcerated without having any charges presented to them?
A These policemen were transported from Denmark. As soon as I found out about that, I went to Kaltenbrunner and asked him to treat these people as civilian internees under any circumstances and not as prisoners of war.
Q You still do not answer my question. What was the manner of this ill treatment of these Danish-policemen? carries the responsibility for this. For this I must tell you what I was about to tell you.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you answer the question? It was repeated. You must understand what the question is: What was the bad treatment? Either you know or you don't know. If you know, you can say.
THE WITNESS: So far as I remember, ten percent of these prisoners died. BY GENERAL ZORYA:
Q That is all you can tell us about this question? Denmark to me, namely, that the people could not keep their uniforms and had to wear concentration camp clothes, that these clothes were too thin, and that the policemen died of tuberculosis frequently; also, the food was not sufficient. I did not find out any more at that time. Oh, yes, also they received whippings. defendant Sauckel's activities? that so many people were being brought to Germany coercively from foreign countries.
Q Don't you recall one of the conferences in which Sauckel participated and where you were present? You also testified about this conference during one of the interrogations before this trial. Do you recruiting manpower in Russia and other countries that are beyond description?
A I didn't understand the question. 1945.
Q And here is the verbatim record, and I quote:
"However, the measures which were used while recruiting manpower in Russia and other countries are beyond description."
Do you remember this testimony?
Q You confirm this? All right, will you list briefly what were those measures that were beyond description? What were the measures that were used by Sauckel while recruiting manpower in Russia and other countries?
A I know of only one case that was reported to me at that time. It was a question of the fact that in a certain sector people were invited to a theater performance. The theater was closed and surrounded, and the people in it were brought for forced labor to Germany.
GENERAL ZORYA: I have no further questions.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: May I have the permission to ask one more question, rather to get more precise information from the witness on a question that was already asked him?
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal has already indicated that it wishes the cross examination to be cut down as far as possible, and it really cannot hear more than one counsel on behalf of each of the four countries. It doesn't wish to hear one on behalf of each of the four countries. I am afraid we can't hear any further cross examination from you.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: This is not a now question, sir. The witness didn't answer the question which was repeated to him several times.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a new counsel though.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: The Soviet prosecutor asked the witness the question, who of the defendants influenced the foreign policy of Germany. The witness replied "The Armed Forces."
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, Colonel Pokrovsky, but I have given you the Tribunal's ruling. We cannot hoar more than one counsel. I hope, as I say, that the prosecutors willmake their examination as short as possible.
M. FAURE: This witness having been already interrogated at considerable length, I wish only to ask a very short question. BY M. FAURE:
declarations, that the Embassy of Germany in Paris was under the authority of Ribbentrop and depended only on him; is that correct? about the German Embassy in Paris, that it was under the authority of Ribbentrop and that it depended only on him? would have to be known by the accused Ribbentrop? M. EDGAR FAURE: interrogatory of the witness, and I have no further questions to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 2:00 o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours.)
DR. KAUFFMAN (counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President, I ask you to permit me to ask one question which I could not ask before. The Russian prosecutor asked whether the witness had talked with Kaltenbrunner regarding the question of Danish policemen. I should like to make it perfectly clear how Kaltenbrunner behaved. I simply want to ask this one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann. BY DR. KAUFFMANN: when you discussed with Kaltenbrunner the question of the Danish police who were badly treated; what did Kaltenbrunner do; how did he behave?
A The question is perhaps not correctly put. These Danish policemen were inhumanly treated, but they had just been turned over to the concentration camp. So the moment I found out about it I went to Kaltenbrunner and told him that someone must have put these people in a concentration camp, and that they must either be treated as prisoners of war or as civilian internees. Kaltenbrunner listened to me and he was also of that opinion, and he in my presence gave the order that these people should be transferred from the concentration camp to a prisoner-of-war camp. I therefore assumed that the matter was thereby settled but found out after two weeks that they were nevertheless still in the concentration camp. I turned again to Kaltenbrunner and Kaltenbrunner said he couldn't understand why this was so. I couldn't either, since it was in my presence that he had issued the orders. Subsequent negotiations were carried on regarding this matter. We had the impression that influences were at work so that Kaltenbrunner's orders were not carried out.
Q Was he against this inhuman treatment?
to a prisoner-of-war camp.
DR. KAUFFMANN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, do you wish to reexamine this witness?
DR. HORN: I have no further questions to put to the witness. BY THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): or was he opposed to that?
Q Could you say yes or no and then explain later?
Q Was Ribbentrop in favor of the reoccupation of the Rhineland? that question.
Q Was Ribbentrop opposed to rearmament?
A I didn't know him at that time so I can't answer that question. I assume the first time, in 1936.
Q Was he in favor of the Anschluss?
Q Was he in favor of the Tripartite Pact?
MR. BIDDLE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness may retire.
DR. HORN: I presented yesterday a document and concluded that presentation with the presenting of Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 10. In this document on page thirty-five of the document book I proved that von Ribbentrop had conducted his foreign policy according to Hitler's foreign-policy line. I should like with the following documents to prove what foreign political situation Ribbentrop found when he took office in February of 1938. I ask the Court to consider the following documents, the numbers of which I can communicate to the Tribunal without its being necessary for me to read anything from them, but so that I may laterrefer to them in my presentation.
DR. HORN: The first of these documents is document Ribbentrop Exhibit 14.
It is a question here again of an extract from the Documents of German Policy, volume 1, and carries the heading "Proclamation of the Reich Government to the German People" on 1 February 1933. This document describes briefly Germany's position at that time and proclaims the intentions of the government that came to power on the 30th of January 1933. is document Ribbentrop, Exhibit 15. This document is again in the first volume of the Documents of German policy. It carries the title "Adolf Hitler's Address on the Occasion of the Inauguration of 21 March 1933, in Potsdam." In this document, too, basic expositions are made regarding the internal and external policy of the new government.
I submit as the next, document, Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 16, and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. Again, it is a document from the above-mentioned volume 1 of the documents of german policy. It is headed "Adolf Hitler's Speech on His Program at the Meeting of the Reichstag in the Kroll Opera House on 23 March 1933." Ribbentrop Exhibit No.17. It is again an excerpt from the documents of German policy.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I would not like to interrupt Dr. Horn, but not one single document among those which he now mentions, beginning with No. 14, and as far as I understand, until No. 44, inclusive, it was not put at the disposal of the Soviet prosecution and I cannot see any possibility of aiding the Tribunal in the study of this document until we have received them. I suppose that the Tribunal will judge it necessary to put off the studying of these documents until the Soviet Prosecution have received them.
DR. HORN: May I give a short explanation. I have asked to what extent the translations have progressed. Three weeks ago I gave my documents in and they were read in the regular way, the last of them about ten days ago. I was informed that the translation division unfortunately had too few Russian and French translators to translate the documents in these two languages as far as they have done so in theothers. It is, of course, a matter of course in a sphere in which I have no influence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the Tribunal appreciates that you have done what fulfills the obligations which rested upon you and they, therefore, think that the documents should go in, subject of course to any objection being taken to them when the translations are available.
DR. HORN: I have already this morning informed Dr. Pokrovsky that this was the case and that I did not know what documents had been translated for the Russians; that was as far as I could go personally because the matter there upon lay outside my sphere.
MR. DODD: If your Honor please, I wonder if it would be possible for Dr. Horn to very briefly indicate the purpose for which he offers these documents as they come up. We will have objection to some, I know, but some of that objection may be clarified if we hear beforehand just what the purpose of the offer is.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, Dr. Horn is putting in a large number of documents at the present moment and asking the Court to takejudicial notice of them and if the prosecution finds that there is something specific that they want to object to, wouldn't it be best that they should do it hereafter?
MR. DODD: I thought it might be of assistance and save us from rising very often if he gave us some idea or some purpose of which the offer is made.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would take longer, probably.
DR. HORN: May I make a short statement on this subject? Since 1933 my client has occupied official positions that were closely associated with foreign policy. The direction of foreign policy that had as its aim the waging of an aggressive war, has been charged against him. I now submit documents that are to demonstrate how this policy actually developed and to demonstrate that the Defendant Ribbentrop made continuous and earnest efforts to avoid a war of aggression; for example, Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 17, which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of, it is in the document book on page 40 and contains a speech of Hitler's before the German Reichstag on the National Socialist Peace Policy of 17 May 1933.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on Dr. Horn.
DR. HORN: This document of the 17th of May, 1933, I put this document in as proof of Germany's general will to disarm and as proof that the Reich Government made efforts to bring about general peace in Europe.