dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SERVATIUS: Conflict with the Church was contrary to the Party Program, and' Hitler himself never preached it; he would probably have preferred to win over the Churches. He tried to do so through the Concordat, and had some success through the proclamation of the Fulda Conference of Bishops and the proclamation of the Austrian Bishops after the Anschluss. Propaganda against the Church was kept at a minimum, and was directed against members of the clergy who interfered in politics. There was no real, organized fight against the Church. The separation of Church and State was demanded to overcome the division of the people through various denominations. Thus, Hitler told the witness Count Wolff-Metternich, immediately after the seizure of power in 1933, that a campaign against the Christian Church would be inexcusable (Affidavit PL-62c), and the witness Fabricius, a Professor of Divinity, confirms this attitude (Affidavit PL-62a). For the Political Leaders this conviction manifested itself in the fact that even before 1933 many theological students, professors of divinity and churchmen had joined the Party. After 1933 a strong movement started for rejoining the Church among those who had left the Church under the influence of Marxism. Retroactive marriage and christening ceremonies took place in large numbers, as is shown by affidavits PL-62a and 62b-Professor Fabricius and theologian Buth. The witness Schohn confirms in Affidavit PL-62 that out of 500 Political Leaders whose testimony he examined 42 percent simultaneously held Church offices. The witnesses Wegscheider and Kaufmann, who were examined before the Tribunal, also testified that numerous Political Leaders held a Church office. The Bishops Dr. Gr6ber and Dr. Borning were appointed to the State Council (Staatsrat), as shown by the affidavit of Count Wolff-Metternich, PL-62c.
DR. SERVATIUS: The actual picture is shown by the collective affidavit of the witness Schohn who, after examining about 21,000 affidavits, noted that in the former Ortsgruppen (local Party districts) Church life remained undisturbed and that the Party occasionally participated in Church life officially, in some cases in uniform. Accordingly, in the individual local districts there were good relations with the clergy, and this found public expression at celebrations. On the other hand, there was a campaign led by a small anti-Church group whose activities and statements are in contradiction to the genera ' I Party line. The leader of the group was Bormann. Of 23 documents which were submitted by the Prosecution against the Political Leaders on the Church question, no less than nine documents are statements of opinion by Bormann. Seven documents concern the SS, as well as the SD and the Gestapo. Four documents deal with three local occurrences, and one document consists of the personal opinion of Gauleiter Florian. There follows a quotation from the Myth, and a document with directives for the Reich Labor Service. None of these documents shows that the Political Leaders participated as a unit in the elimination of the Church. I shall comment on the individual documents: The most incriminating document is the secret decree of Bormann to the Gauleiter on "National Socialism and Christianity" (Document D-75). On this subject there is an affidavit by the witness Hederich, of the Party Chancellery (PL-620). According to this, Bormann issued this decree on his own authority and Hitler instructed him to recall and destroy this circular. The witness Gauleiter Kaufmann confirmed before the Tribunal here that this decree actually was recalled. The same thing is shown by the testimony of the witness Hoffmann before the Commission on 3 July 1946. In Affidavit PL-62b the witness Buth, a theologian, states that the Defendant Rosenberg likewise rejected the decree and raised objections.
DR. SERVATIUS: Document 098-PS is a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, and it deals with a so-called National Socialist Catechism. It is a personal opinion of Bormann. There is no answer of Rosenberg at hand. In this letter a meeting of the Reichsleiter is suggested. The affidavit of the witness Hederich states that such a meeting never took place. There' follow a number of documents which show Bormann's constant personal efforts in the direction of the separation of Church and State. Document 070-PS regarding school devotions lies in this direction; as also Document 840-PS, admission of theologians into the Party; and 107-PS, instructions for the participation of the Reich Labor Service in Church ceremonies. The following documents, 100-PS and 101-PS, are letters from Bormann to Rosenberg expressing the wish for their own literature for soldiers; Rosenberg is here attacked because of the attitude Which he took in favor of a book in a religious vein by Reich Bishop Muller. This proves Bormann's purely personal activity. In the same field is Document 064-PS, again a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg. It requests his opinion on an enclosed letter from Gauleiter Florian of 23 September 1940, who had objected to a religious writing by General Rabenau. It is a personal opinion which is not typical of the general attitude of the Political Leaders. I A further action of Bormann is shown by Document 116-PS, a letter to Rosenberg of 24 January 1939 about the restrictions imposed on the theological faculties. Here Rosenberg is not instructed to carry this out, as the Prosecution erroneously assumes; another letter is merely sent to him for his information, in which a restriction of the faculties was welcomed. The continuation of his efforts to win Rosenberg over to his views is shown by a letter of Bormann of 17 May 1939 to Rosenberg.
DR. SERVATIUS: Here Bormann forwards a plan by the Reich Education Minister on the restriction of the theological faculties, likewise only with a request for his opinion, and not, as the Prosecution assumes, for the immediate execution of the measure under consideration. Then the Political Leaders are charged here with Gestapo activities, on the basis of the files of a conference of Gestapo Church specialists (Document Number 1815-PS). This cannot be taken as evidence of proof of the anti-Church attitude of the Political Leaders themselves. Nor did the Political Leaders have any direct connection with the confiscation of Church property. Document R-101-correspondence of the RSHA-shows confiscations by the Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter and by the Eastern German Agricultural Company (Ostdeutsche Landwirtschaftsgesellschaft GnibH.) in the Warthegau. Both acted in their capacity as state offices, so that this is not a general measure making use of the Party machinery, with the knowledge of all Political Leaders. Document 072-PS, a letter of Bormann to Rosenberg of 19 April 1941, expressly emphasizes that it is not the business of Political Leaders to confiscate Church property. There follow the public campaigns against the Church, which the Prosecution has brought forward. Document 848-PS and 849-PS deal with excesses against Bishop Sproll in Rottenburg. It is evident that this action was carried out by forces foreign to the local Party. Document 1507-PS deals with incidents on the occasion of a sermon by Cardinal Faulhaber at Freising. The records show that the Political Leaders were given explicit instructions not to interfere with the religious services held there, even if the Cardinal should deliver a sermon against National Socialism. As a matter, of fact, there -was no interference with the service by Political Leaders.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is noteworthy that, according to the records, Cardinal Faulhaber declared himself willing to officiate a few months later in the same church, and this was "through the mediation of Mayor Lederer of Freising, who was at the same time Kreisleiter and local leader of the SA." It thus appears that the measures seem more extensive than they were in reality and that the Political Leaders could not have had any real idea of what happened. Nor could the Myth give them any information on the Church question. This book was hard to understand and never received the official Party stamp of approval (Document PL-62e). The witness, Count Wolff-Metternich, has stated that Hitler expressly characterized the book as a private work of Rosenberg, which did not please him. That is Affidavit PL-62c. The persecution of the Jews was the most obvious event. It can be explained quite apart from any war of aggression. The events are well known: economic repression of the Jews, defamation by the Star of David, and elimination from social life, the issuance of the Nurnberg Laws, evacuation toward the East, and finally, extermination. Here it can only be a question of investigating the extent of the active participation of the Political Leaders and their knowledge of the nature and extent of the measures. The legal measures were taken without consulting the Political Leaders. Insofar as they were directed toward restricting the influence of the Jews, they were welcomed by them and were in keeping with the Party Program. Nor was there any objection to the Nurnberg Laws, but the Star of David was considered shameful. Opposition, however, commenced with the confiscation of property and the evacuations. This history of 9 November 1938 is known to the Tribunal through the examination of witnesses. It was a surprise maneuver prepared by Goebbels when the Gauleiters were absent from their Gaus. The Party machinery was avoided, because opposition could be expected here.
DR. SERVATIUS: As far as the Political Leaders had any opportunity to interfere, many Gauleiters refused to obey or issued counter-orders as soon as they learned of the operation. The witness Gauleiter Kaufmann has confirmed this for Hamburg; the witness Wahl has testified the same before the Commission about the Swabian Gau; and the attitude of the Gauleiter for Coblenz-Treves is corroborated in Affidavit PL-54f. On the level of the Kreis and Ortsgruppenleiter,' no planned use of the Political Leaders has been established either. Here the testimony of all witnesses confirms that the event was received with surprise, opposition, and disunity. (Affidavit Dr. Volkmann, PL-54a) Hitler repudiated it, Goering repudiated it, and even Heydrich declared before the Gauleiter and Gau judges on 20 November 1938 that the severest measures would be taken against all who participated in it (Affidavit PL-54d and e). The report of the Supreme Party Judge, Buch (Document 3035-PS, USA-322), submitted by the Prosecution, according to which the punishment was permitted to become a mere farce, remained unknown. The slight penalties imposed by the court were explained by saying that one could not condemn the little man as long as Goebbels, the instigator, went free. (Affidavit Buch, PL-54c) The rejection of any solution by violence in connection with these events led to a belief in the sincerity of the resettlement plans, which in reality were the preliminary steps for extermination. When the decision for extermination was made is unknown. An affidavit signed by the witness Albert, PL-54h, says that even in 1942 Himmler pretended in a memorandum that he was striving for a legal and humane solution of the Jewish problem at a cost of 25,000 to 30,000 million marks. The obvious reason for all these measures was not the desire to wage war, but exclusively the solution of the racial question. The real happenings in the East came through only as distant rumors and because of their monstrous nature were not believed, but were regarded as enemy propaganda.
DR. SERVATIUS: In this connection, the "explanation" issued by the Party Chancellery on 9 October 1942 is significant. This is Document PL-49. Here the Political Leaders were given an official denial of the atrocities. Document D-908, containing the periodical Die Lage of 23 August 1944, contains a reference to the Jewish problem in Hungary, but does not mention any actual events. Because of its small circulation and the fact that this article appeared only toward the end of the war, it was not of a sort to affect the fundamental judgment of the public. The attitude, of the majority of the Political Leaders on the Jewish question, irrespective of their rank and district, is clearly shown by Affidavit PL-54, which contains a summary of 26,000 sworn declarations. The next question to be examined is the Indictment of the Political Leaders for war crimes. Primarily, this is a Jewish question again, inasmuch as foreign Jews were affected. The majority of the Political Leaders cannot be assumed to have known of events which took place outside the territory of the Reich. It was announced in the press that the governments of other countries, such as Hungary, France, and Italy, adopted measures similar to those of the Germans. What really happened remained, unknown in Germany. Document PL-49, confidential information of 9 October 1942, issued by the Party Chancellery concerning "Rumors about the Situation of the Jews in the East," served to cover up and deny the facts. Three documents were submitted to the witness Hirt before the Tribunal concerning the Germanization of SIAV territory. Document USSR-143 concerns the removal of Slovenian street names and use of the German language for officials. Closer. examination, however, shows that this was a measure of the Styrian Home League (Heimatbund) which issued circulars to its local districts. The Styrian Heimatbund was not a Party organization (Affidavit by Roedern, Number PL-67). These events concerned a little town called Pettau, which was inhabited by Germans before the 1918 peace treaty.
DR. SERVATIUS: Document USSR-449 also deals with the recovery of territory in Carinthia and Carniola, which formerly was inhabited by German settlers, and Document USSR-191 shows that these were measures taken by the SD in the border regions of Styria. All documents lack the basis for any general knowledge of these orders, the carrying out of which remained unknown to the Political Leaders. Much space is occupied by charges against the Political Leaders concerning the administration in the East. Whether these charges are generally justified cannot yet be judged on the basis of the proceedings to date. However, the question can be examined as to what knowledge the Political Leaders could have of these events and to what extent they are responsible for them. Document 1058-PS contains Rosenberg's speech before the beginning of the Eastern campaign, and his defense counsel has commented u on it in detail. This speech was secret and known only , p to a small circle. Document L-221 of 16 July 1941 concerns the Crimea. These are secret marginal notes by Bormann concerning a discussion in the Fuehrer's headquarters. A memorandum concerning a conversation between Rosenberg and Hitler on the Crimea likewise remained unknown to the public (Document 1517-PS). Frank's Diary (Document 2233-PS) is the basis of the charges against the Political Leaders on the food situation in the Government General. General knowledge of the fact that 40 percent of the population suffered from malnutrition during the year 1941 cannot be assumed without further question. As far as food difficulties had become known in the border region, they can be -attributed to other causes, especially after a lost war. Document R-36 shows Bormann's horrible views on the treatment of the population in the Eastern Territories. It is a comment by Dr. Markull of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, dated 19 August 1942, and addressed to Rosenberg. The frank and vigorous language, as well as his indignant refusal, specifically prove that Bormann's views were not accepted and that other measures were taken.
DR. SERVATIUS: The very fact of this open appeal to Rosenberg proves that there was no doubt that the latter would agree with the refusal. Other incidents became known to a fairly large number of people. Document 1130-PS contains the off-quoted speech by Reichskommissar Koch of I April 1943 in Kiev on the "Master Race." That Koch himself knew that his opinions were not shared is revealed by documents according to which he said that his chiefs of sections fell into two groups, one working openly against him, the other secretly. Document R-112 contains decrees by Himmler in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of Germanism, dating from February and June 1942. They refer to the re-Germanization of former German nationals in the Eastern Territories, which in itself was not prohibited. One of those decrees is addressed, among others, to the Gauleiter for their information. It contains no references whatsoever to any criminal measures. The Prosecution concludes from Document Number 327-PS that the Gauleiter took part in the liquidation of "enormous fortunes" in the East. A closer examination shows that this was a matter of the liquidation of German firms which had been set up as state enterprises at the cost of considerable subsidies. In a letter of 17 October 1944 the Gauleiter are merely requested not to interfere with the liquidation which was meanwhile taking place on German territory. All this goes to show that the Political Leaders as a ' body could not have had any specific knowledge of criminal occurrences.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal will adjourn tomorrow, Friday, at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. [The Tribunal adjourned until 23 August 1946 at 1000 hours.]
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendants Hess and Von Papen are absent.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may it please -the Tribunal, yesterday I had spoken about the individual war crimes and now I shall turn to the activities of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg, and this begins on Page 39 of the written script. The activity of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg was no official Party matter. As the counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg has already explained, this has to do with an order by Hitler giving personal instructions to Rosenberg, not to a Party agency. This is shown in Document 136-PS, which is a letter of Hitler's of 29 January 1940, and in the Fuehrer Decree of 1 March 1942, Document 149-PS. It is confirmed by testimony given before the Commission by the witness Dr. Muller and by Count von Roedern. An affidavit by the witness Kunzler (Number 58-A) is to the same effect, stating that the offices of the Reich Treasurer knew that this order was intended for Rosenberg personally. As a matter of fact, the Einsatzstab Rosenberg was not a Party organization. The members were scientists and specialists who had nothing to do with the Party and who in some cases were foreigners. All had been recruited on the basis of the compulsory emergency service law. The leader of the Einsatzstab in Paris was not a Political Leader. This special section was distinguishable outside the Party by a uniform of its own. From the financing of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg through the Reich Treasurer of the Party, the Prosecution concluded that Political Leaders were involved. But Document 145-PS shows that it was only an advance of funds and that the Rosenberg Ministry, as a State office, had to bear the costs. This was corroborated by the witness Kunzler, a leading official in the Party finance administration, in Affidavit 58-A. The witness Dr. Miffier, consultant for matters of private property, testified to the same effect before the Commission.
DR. SERVATIUS: To prove direct participation of the Political Leaders, the Prosecution referred to Document 071-PS, according to which the final settlement of the confiscations which had been carried out by the Einsatzstab Rosenberg should be made by the Gauleiter. The preface of the document, however, shows that it applies only to the confiscations within German territory of property belonging to "ideological opponents." It is connected with Document 072-PS which merely contains a proposition in connection with the Church question. This proposition does not suggest that the Gauleiter should confiscate things, but that they should look after them until they were taken into custody by a more competent authority, in order to prevent destruction. These documents cannot refer to lootings abroad, since no Gau offices existed there to which any such instructions could be given. Finally, may I point out that no orders had been given as to the ultimate destination of these cultural objects. The witnesses Muller and Kunzler stated before the Commission that these objects were to be dealt with in the peace negotiations. There remains the program concerning furniture mentioned by the Prosecution, whereby the furniture of 70,000 households in France was removed. This was a program of the Eastern Ministry carried out by its own personnel (Document L-188). With reference to prisoners of war, other counsel have already made the juridical situation clear, and have shown that the Political Leaders were not concerned with them. But the Prosecution have confronted the Political Leaders with Document Number 656-PS, USA-339, which is a directive of the OKW from the year 1944. It gives the guards the right of self-defense in view of the incitement by enemy propaganda to prisoners of war to, use force. In cases of extreme emergency use of arms is deemed permissible. The Political Leaders are in no way connected with this directive and its execution. I have defined in detail my attitude with reference to foreign workers in my capacity as counsel for Sauckel.
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness Hupfauer has testified before the Commission and before the Tribunal regarding actual conditions. I further refer to Affidavits 55a to 55d, and to Affidavit 55 which summarizes 15,000 statements under oath. They give a reliable picture of the general living and working conditions of these foreign laborers. Everything belles a systematic program of negligence and ill-treatment or general approval of the conditions which have been alleged to exist. It is necessary to make a special statement with reference to Document EC-68. This is a directive of the State Farmers' Association of Baden of 6 March 1941 regarding treatment of Polish agricultural workers. It is an individual measure and. it originates from a time prior to the unified regulations for the employment of labor. It does not originate with a Party office, the State Farmers' Association being an independent professional organization outside the Party's formations. The directive itself was rescinded by the subsequent regulations applying to all foreign workers. It has been firmly established on the basis of the evidence, however, that this directive in practice was not carried through with the approval of the Political Leaders. Here reference is made to the testimony of a number of Political Leaders from the Gau Baden, which has been collected in Affidavit 68. 1 further refer you to the testimony of the witness Mohr (State Farmers' Association, Bavaria) who was heard before the Commission on 3 July 1946, to the testimony of Gauleiter Wahl for the Gau of Schwaben on 15 July 1946, and to the testimony of Ortsgruppenleiter Wegscheider for the Allgau before the Commission on July 16 and before the Tribunal on July 31. With reference to the interruption of pregnancy in foreign female workers, it is shown from the, "Confidential Information of the Party Chancellery" of 9 December 1943 that such interference was only carried through at the express wish of the person concerned. The list annexed to the document also shows that interference was the exception (Affidavit Haller 56a).