dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
STROLIN: I was appointed to this post because I was Lord Mayor of Stuttgart and because later the city of Stuttgart was called the "City of Germans Abroad" since, because of its history and tradition it had always had very close connection with Germans abroad.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well, now, we will go on. Will you miss out the next short paragraph and look at the paragraph which starts off, "Deputy Gauleiter Schmidt, representing Dr. Goebbels, stated the local Party leadership..."
STROLIN: What page is that on?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is on the same page.
STROLIN: Page 461?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I beg your pardon, it is on Page 462. And it is the third paragraph in the center of the page.
STROLIN: Yes, I found the place.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Hess, you know, was in charge of the Party leadership, wasn't he -- the Gauleiter? We will go on: Will you look now at Page 463 -- we will leave that -- Will you look now ...
STROLIN: May I say something in connection with this?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If you please, yes.
STROLIN: The Deputy Gauleiter, Schmidt, was here purely in his capacity as a deputy of the Gauleiter, but he was not the Deputy of Rudolf Hess.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: No. But the point I am putting -- I will make it quite clear -- is that the Gauleitung which came under Hess was going to co-operate with your institution through thick and thin. You appreciate that?
STROLIN: That is obvious.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Would you look at Page 463, and on the second paragraph: Was that in fact what the purpose of the Deutsches Auslands-Institut was?
STROLIN: Dr. Csaki said in this quotation that the Germans abroad were bridges to the German Lebensraum. This German Lebensraum, also applied, for instance, to the Germans in Hungary and Romania and to that extent it is true when he says the Germans are "bridges" to this Lebensraum, that is, the space in which Germans live. This has also always been the attitude of the Deutsches Auslands-Institut; to build bridges to the Lebensraum in which these Germans live.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. Now, have you ever read a book by Dr. Emil Ehrlich, or seen it, entitled: Die Auslands-Organisation der NSDAP ? You need not look at that. Have you ever read that book? A title of that kind? ST'ROLIN: I do not think so.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do you know that Dr. Emil Ehrlich was the personal adviser to Bohle?
STROLIN: I believe he was Bohle's adjutant at one time.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look at Page 305 of the book that you have in front of you -- My Lord, this passage appears on Page 5 of the document the Tribunal has -- and that is a reproduction of Dr. Emil Ehrlich's book. Would you look at the second paragraph on Page 305, half way down that paragraph, starting: Would I be right in saying that throughout the whole history, from 1933 onwards, the Deutsches Auslands-Institut was working in the heartiest co-operation with the Auslands-Organisation?
STROLIN: This is not correct, inasmuch as there was no practical or scientific co-operation between the Deutsches Auslands-Institut and the Auslands-Organisation. The hearty co-operation, as I have already mentioned, referred to the fact that the Ausland Germans had their meetings in Stuttgart. That was the hearty co-operation between them. There was no co-operation in practical matters since it was not necessary.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look at Page 127 of this book? I want you to tell me, looking at the last paragraph, whether that is an accurate report, "All persons who in the future... " this is, I beg your pardon, a confidential report on the special schooling work conducted by the DAI for the foreign organizations. You did in fact, did you not, assist the foreign organizations in training their Landesgruppenleiter and other leaders abroad?
STROLIN: May I ask who signed this article or report?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: No, I cannot tell you who signed that report. I asked you a question. Did the Deutsches Auslands-Institut assist in training leaders for the Auslands-Organisation abroad?
STROLIN: I am not informed on that point.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now, just turn over to Page 128 second paragraph, which I read to you quite shortly: You still say that that report is ...
STROLIN: May I ask the date of this report?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I told you it is a report...
STROLIN: I had no knowledge of this report.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well, I just want to ask you one or two very short questions on the evidence that you have given about the Defendant, Von Neurath. You have told us that he was a man of peace, with an excellent, kind character. Do you know that on the 5th of November 1937 he attended a meeting at which Hitler addressed the leaders of his Armed Forces? Did you ever hear of that meeting, on the 5th of November 1937?
STROLIN: No, I did not hear of this meeting, at least not until I was imprisoned.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well then, perhaps I could tell you quite shortly what took place. Hitler said at the meeting, among other things, that the only way out of the German difficulties was to secure greater living space, and he said that that problem could be solved only by force. And, having said that, he then went on to say that he had decided to attack Austria and Czechoslovakia. You never heard of that meeting?
STROLIN: No, I have not heard anything of that meeting, and concluded only later that ...
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: But...
STROLIN: May I finish my sentence?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I only wanted to know...
STROLIN: I said just that Von Neurath indicated to me that he had serious differences of opinion with Hitler. That was toward the end of 1937. It was only later that I realized that he must have meant the conference with Hitler and the attitude which he took on 5 November; however, it was only when I was in prison that I heard through the newspapers that such a conference actually took place.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I shall come to all that in a moment. I just want you to get a picture of what happened at this meeting, and I quote four lines from the minutes of that meeting: And Hitler then went on to say that the embodiment of Czechoslovakia and Austria would constitute a conquest of food for 5 or 6 million people, and that he visualized the compulsory immigration of 2 million people from Czechoslovakia. Now, that is what took place at that conference. Do you know that some 4 months later -- on 12 March 1938 -- Von Neurath was giving an assurance to M. Masaryk, and among other things he assured him, on behalf of Herr Hitler, that Germany still con-sidered herself bound by the German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention of 1925? Do you know that he said that?
STROLIN: I do not recall it.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Can you understand, now that I have told you that that is a fact, can you understand anybody who had been at that conference and had heard what Hitler had said on 5 November giving an assurance to Czechoslovakia 4 months later in terms of that kind? Can you understand any honest man doing that?
STROLIN: I cannot judge the situation prevailing at that time. I do not know from whom Von Neurath might have received an order.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am not asking you to judge at that time. I am asking you now what your opinion is of a man who can do that sort of thing. I want you to tell the Tribunal.
STROLIN: I cannot answer that because I do not have a com-prehensive picture of that situation.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I must under any circumstances object to this type of suggestive question. It is not permissible to put such a question to the witness without giving him the complete picture of how this assurance was given. The fact is, and it is correct, that in the speech of 5 November 1937, Hitler for the first time developed plans which were no longer in accord with the peace policy of Herr Von Neurath, and Von Neurath took the opportunity -- I believe in December or early in January -- to discuss this thoroughly with Hitler and point out to him the impossibility of the policy which he apparently wanted to embark upon and to persuade him not to carry it out. When from Hitler's reply he was forced to the conclusion that Hitler would nevertheless insist on this policy which would lead to aggres-sion in the future he submitted his resignation. On 4 February 1938 Herr Von Neurath was permitted to resign. He no longer participated in active politics. On 11 or 12 March, when the invasion of Austria took place, an invasion of which Herr Von Neurath had no inkling until that day, Hitler called him ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ludinghausen, will you kindly wait? The question was put about the 5th of March 1938, whether a man who had heard the conference of the 5th of November 1937 could have given the assurance of the 5th of March.
DR.VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Yes, I can also clarify that statement, if I may. The question put by Minister Mastny was whether any military action against Czechoslovakia was intended immediately or soon after the invasion of Austria, and Herr Von Neurath believed that he could, honestly and as a gentleman, answer this question in the negative. We have to take into consideration the circumstances under which this statement was made. First, Hitler, in his speech of 5 November 1937, spoke of the years to come. When he marched into Austria on 12 March, that is at a time which from 5 March ...
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. We do not want to have all this argument. The question was what was this witness' opinion of a man who had done that. That was all the question that was asked, and that question is put to credit...
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I beg your pardon; no one can answer that question unless he knows in what connection it was put. Mr. Mastny asked whether the march into Austria would entail any aggressive action against Czechoslovakia and Von Neurath answered that question. No more and no less. He did not want to give an answer regarding the future. The Minister wanted to know whether in connection with the march of the German troops into Austria any military actions against Czechoslovakia were intended. According to the information which my client had, he could in the given situation answer this question in the negative with a clear conscience. This question is admissible only if the witness is informed about what I have just said. The point is not that he declared once and for all Germany will never march into Czechoslovakia, but that he merely answered the Czech Minister Mastny's question: Is there any danger that in connection with the march into Austria, military measures will also be taken against Czechoslovakia? This question he could answer the way he did. Therefore, the question in the form in which it was put by the British Prosecution is in my opinion not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the question properly admissible.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: 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 the 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 Court that you think 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?
STROLIN: It is still my opinion that Herr Von Neurath is a man of distinguished and decent character. I cannot judge under what circumstances he acted at the time and what considerations prompted him to act this way.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You say that he was in favor of peace and did all he could to avoid a 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 assurance 4 months after you know perfectly well that the German intention is to overrun their country? Is that what you call doing everything to avoid war?
STROLIN: I would like to state once more that I do not sufficiently understand the essential points and ramifications of this question to form a proper opinion on it. But obviously things cannot be as simple as they have been pictured here.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Let me turn to another aspect of this matter. We have been told at great length that he disapproved of Hitler's policy, and that he resigned. Do you know that having resigned, he was appointed Reich Protector of Bohemia-Moravia in March 1939? Do you know that?
STROLIN: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That was after the remainder of Czechoslovakia had been overrun, occupied.
STROLIN: I said previously that Von Neurath told me that he accepted this post very reluctantly; that he had twice refused to accept it but later he believed that he had to make a sacrifice in order to achieve his ends; and, as the State President Hacha told me later, Von Neurath's personal influence was of great benefit because, as Hacha told me, Von Neurath's activity undoubtedly had a balancing and conciliatory effect. As I said before, he was recalled because he was too mild.
LT. COL. GRIEFFITH-JONES: Now, you have already said it, and we have heard it, and we have remembered it, so it is quite unnecessary for you 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 his assistance in the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia that had followed so shortly before?
STROLIN: No, I never thought of that. However, if I may mention it, I have read quite a different version in the book by Henderson, that is, that Von Neurath had been put into that post so that his international prestige could be discredited. I wanted to bring in this version in order to point out that there were other possibilities that might come into question.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do you remember that you described him as a disciplined, humane, and conscientious man?
STROLIN: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look at that poster. [The poster was submitted to the witness.] 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 Czechoslovak report on the German occupation. I win give Your Lordship the number: Document Number USSR-60. [Turning to the witness.] Do you see that this is signed by the Defendant Von Neurath, the humane and conscientious man?
STROLIN: Yes, I see that the Czech universities were closed for a period of 3 years, and that nine culprits were shot. This announcement, however, does not say, as far as I can see, exactly why this was done. Consequently I cannot pass judgment on the announcement, because I do not know what Von Neurath proclaimed in it. The announcement does not tell me anything, if I do not know the reason why the announcement was issued. That universities were closed and nine culprits shot must have been for convincing reasons.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I add the following? I would like to say this in order to save time. This question of Czechoslovakia and of this poster, with which I am also familiar, will, of course, be dealt with, in connection with Von Neurath's case, and at that stage of the proceedings. I will then have the opportunity to bring the proof that this poster did not originate with the Defendant Von Neurath. This witness was not in Prague and can relate only things which he did not know of his own experience, but which Herr Von Neurath told him. Therefore, I believe that this question is not appropriate and is taking up time unnecessarily, for I would have to raise objections and describe the actual situation. We should not put questions to the witness which, though put in good faith, are positively incorrect, that is, questions which are based on inaccurately reported facts which actually occurred in a different manner. I shall prove that at the time when this poster was drafted and put up, Herr Von Neurath was not in Prague and was not informed of what was going on during his absence. Therefore I believe that we should not deal with this question today, since, as I have said, the witness cannot know anything about it from his own observation.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be open to you to show that this poster was put up when Von Neurath was not at Prague, and that 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 was put up by Von Neurath, is it right to describe him as a humane man? That is all the cross-examination means.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: But, the witness knows nothing of this poster. He cannot answer the question correctly if he does not know the ramifications, if he does not know that this poster actually did not originate with Herr Von Neurath.
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. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: In that case the most this witness could say would be "I do not know," or "if it is true, one cannot call it humane." Any one of us can say that. The witness does not need to say it.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can say, "If this is correct it is inconsistent with what I knew of Von Neurath."
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: He cannot and he will not say that either, for the simple reason that he does not know the circumstances under which this poster was published. Frankly I cannot see the purpose of this question, for if the question is put in that way, every decent individual will say that it is inhumane; but this would not alter the fact that the witness would be judging facts which do not exist and which are not true.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Griffith-Jones, don't you think this is really taking up unnecessary time, if this witness doesn't know anything about it? I quite see that it is the proper purpose of cross-examination to discredit the witness.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am much obliged to the Tribunal. The point of that cross-examination was, 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 do not think I need occupy the time of the Tribunal with that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. AMEN: Witness, when were you last in New York City?
STROLIN: I was in New York in 1936.
COL. AMEN: At that time you made a speech at Madison Square Garden; is that correct?
STROLIN: Yes.
COL. AMEN: That was a rally in the Garden?
STROLIN: It was for "German Day," on 6 October 1936.
COL. AMEN: A "German Day" rally, correct?
STROLIN: It was the annual meeting of the Germans which took place on 6 October.
COL. AMEN: And a great percentage of the German-American Bund, is that correct?
STROLIN: Yes.
COL. AMEN: In fact, that whole rally was held under the auspices of the German-American Bund, was it not?
STROLIN: The fact is, a festival committee had been commissioned by all German clubs -- I believe there are all in all two thousand of them in New York -- and these 2,000 German clubs had united in one festival committee which organized the "German Day." I did not know the composition of this committee in detail.
COL. AMEN: And it was at the solicitation of the German-American Bund that you made your speech, was it not?
STROLIN: No, it was at the solicitation of the festival committee of the German clubs of New York.
COL. AMEN: Yes, and on that committee were numerous members of the German-American Bund; is that true? "Yes" or "no."
STROLIN: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And as a matter of fact, there were many of the members of your organization at that time who were active members of the German-American Bund; is that correct?
STROLIN: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And you personally had had several conferences with them, both here in Germany and in New York City, correct?
STROLIN: No, that is not correct.
COL. AMEN: Well, what is correct?
STROLIN: It is correct that I was invited, but there were no further conferences.
COL. AMEN: But you do not dispute that many of the members of your organization were at that time members of the German-American Bund?
STROLIN: I am not informed on that point. THE PRESIDENT [To the witness] : I have just taken down that you have said that was so.
COL. AMEN: Precisely.
STROLIN: Please repeat the question.
COL. AMEN: Did you not just tell me a few moments ago, in response to a previous question, that many members of your organization were members of the German-American Bund at the time of your speech at the rally in Madison Square Garden?
STROLIN: When you speak of an "organization," do you mean members of the German Auslands-Institut?
COL. AMEN: "Your organization" is the way I put it.
STROLIN: I had no organization; I had an institute.
COL. AMEN: Exactly. And under whose auspices were you making this speech in Madison Square Garden?
STROLIN: I was asked to make this speech because I had shortly before been appointed Lord Mayor of the City of Germans Abroad. I was Lord Mayor of that city, and therefore I was asked to deliver the address. Stuttgart was made the City of Germans Abroad, since the Swabians furnished most of the emigrants, and for that reason Stuttgart was to be the home city of foreign Germans.
COL. AMEN: Well, is it not a fact that many members of the Auslands-Organisation were at that time also members of the German-American Bund? "Yes" or "no."
STROLIN: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Is it not also a fact that at that time many members of the Institute were also members of the German-American Bund? Yes or no.
STROLIN: Yes, some of these Germans had come from America; they were students who had studied in America and returned to Germany.
COL. AMEN: And is it not also a fact that many of these members of the German-American Bund, who were likewise members of the Auslands-Organisation and of the Institute, were indicted and tried and convicted for various espionage offenses in the Federal courts of the United States? Yes or no.
STROLIN: No, I know nothing about that.
COL. AMEN: You never heard that?
STROLIN: No, I never heard about it. I know of the case of Kappe, but that has no connection with the Deutsche Auslands-Institut.
COL. AMEN: That is one case, as a matter of fact; now, you know some others too, don't you?
STROLIN: I wonder if you could give me particulars.
COL. AMEN: I could, but I am asking you the questions rather than trying to tell you the answers.
STROLIN: I cannot remember any other case. Please question me.
COL. AMEN: No, I will go to another subject now, because it is getting late. Are you acquainted with a Mr. Alfred Weninger-W-e-n-i-n-g-e-r?
STROLIN: I did not understand the name. Alfred...
COL. AMEN: Alfred Weninger, W-e-n-i-n-g-e-r, or however you pronounce it.
STROLIN: Weninger -- yes I am familiar with that name.
COL. AMEN: Who is he?
STROLIN: Alfred Weninger is, to my knowledge, at present in France. I believe he is a jurist.
COL. AMEN: Well, don't you know? Don't you know whether he is a jurist or not?
STROLIN: Yes, he is employed as a jurist.
COL. AMEN: What is his nationality?
STROLIN: He is a Frenchman.
COL. AMEN: Is he a friend of yours?
STROLIN: Yes.