dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that Defendant Goering is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: We were going to deal with Defendant Bormann's documents, were we not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, two witnesses only have arrived so far for the Defendant Sauckel. Three essential witnesses are still missing. Perhaps the Court can help to bring these witnesses quickly so that the case will not be delayed. They are the witnesses Stothfang, Dr. Jager, and Hildebrandt. I have repeatedly asked the Prosecution to get them but they are not here yet. I have not yet spoken to the witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Have they been located?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. One is in a camp in Kassel, which is only a few hours from here, and the other is in Neumunster. That is a little farther, perhaps 6 or 7 hours from here. Dr. Jager is free.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not in accordance with the information which the Tribunal has. The Tribunal has the information that they cannot be found.
DR. SERVATIUS: I received the information that their whereabouts has been ascertained.
THE PRESIDENT: From whom did you receive that information?
DR. SERVATIUS: Officially, from the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will make inquiries into it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, first, with regard to the witnesses applied for for the Defendant Bormann. They are, as I understand it, Fraulein Kruger, to whom we have no objection. The witness Muller is no longer applied for?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I have dispensed with that witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, Klopfer, and lastly, Friedrich. These are with regard to Bormann's law-making activities, and the Prosecution have no objections.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Lordship, in place of the witness Muller, whom I have withdrawn, I have an additional request for the witness Gerta Christian on the same subject for which I had requested the witness Muller.
THE PRESIDENT: The first witness, Miss Kruger, is going to speak to exactly the same facts, is she not, to the death of Bormann?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Your Lordship. The circumstances concerning Bormann's death are not very clear. It is very necessary to hear all the available witnesses on this subject because only in this way can one be convinced of the fact, which I am trying to establish that the Defendant Bormann is already dead.
THE PRESIDENT: It does not seem to be a very relevant fact It is very remotely relevant whether he is dead or whether he i' alive. The question is whether he is guilty or innocent.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Lordship, my point of view is that sentence cannot be passed against a dead man. That is not provided for in the Charter. According to the Charter, the Court can only sentence an absent person, but a dead person cannot be included under the term "absent." If the defendant is dead, the Charter does not provide the possibility of continuing proceedings against him.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you any objection to that other witness?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord, the Prosecution does not make any objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, My Lord, with regard to the documents, the first batch of documents is a series of treaties and diplomatic pronouncements and documents to counteract the statement of Sir Hartley Shawcross as to the position of international law before the Charter, the statement that the law of nations had constituted aggressive war an international crime before this Tribunal was established and this Charter became part of the public law of the world. The position of the Prosecution is that evidence on that point is really irrelevant because after all, the Tribunal is covered by the Charter, and it seems unnecessary to translate and publish, by way of document books, all these matters which the learned counsel has set out in his application. That is, shortly, the position of the Prosecution with regard to that first batch of documents. Especially, I do not want to discuss the problem' for the reason that I have given.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What are the numbers of them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They are 1 to 11-no, 7, in the application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Are they long documents?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Lordship, I have not seen them yet. I applied for these documents 3 months ago in order to look them over, but unfortunately I have not received them yet and therefore I cannot give the Court any information as to whether they are long or not and what parts of them I will need for my defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Number 2 looks like a long document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
DR. BERGOLD: But I will not use all these documents if I receive them. I shall probably take some of them, Your Lordship; I shall only...
THE PRESIDENT: When you say you applied for them 3 months ago, you do not mean you applied to the Tribunal, do you?
DR. BERGOLD: I applied to the General Secretary, but perhaps it was put aside when Your Lordship decided that my case should be postponed to the end. Perhaps it was forgotten.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there any order on your application?
DR. BERGOLD: No.
THE PRESIDENT: You applied, I think, for an adjournment, did you not, in order that the matter might be brought up later?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Your Lordship; I am in an especially difficult situation. I have questioned many witnesses and have tried very hard, but I can find nothing exonerating. All the witnesses are filled with great hatred toward the Defendant Bormann, and they want to incriminate him in order to exonerate themselves. That makes my case especially difficult. The man himself is probably dead and can give me no information. Any day now I might get new information. For example, a few days ago one of Bormann's co-workers, a Dr. Von Hummeln, was arrested in Salzburg. I will go to see him and perhaps I shall get fresh information-perhaps none. I must also assume...
THE PRESIDENT: We need not bother about that now. We are only inquiring about your application with reference to the documents. Sir David, have you anything further you want to say about the documents?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, that is my short point. I do not want to discuss the merits of my points because that is the issue, that I am saying is irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: What about Number 11?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not disposed to object to any of the other documents, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any others besides...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 11-I can see a possible argument on that, My Lord; therefore I am not going to object to it. The other documents we certainly have no objection to; the ordinances of the Fuehrer's Deputy and...
THE PRESIDENT: All under "B"?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. The Prosecution makes no objection to these.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, what do you say to Sir David's objection to these documents, 1 to 7?
DR. BERGOLD: Well, Your Lordship, I have already made my point of view clear in my application. In order to save the time of the Court, I will merely refer to this written application. I will not say any more at the moment on the subject, but if Your Lordship wants me to explain it here now I am ready to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did Your Lordship wish to deal with the other outstanding applications or would Your Lordship prefer to deal with that later on at the end of the case of Van Schirach?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think we have the papers here. We were only going to deal with Bormann this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, we have got a document here, D-880, said to be extracts from testimony of Admiral Raeder, taken at Nuremberg on 10 November 1945 by Major John Monigan. Have you offered that document in evidence or not?
MR. DODD: May I have just a minute to check it? I am not certain.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will give you the document.
MR. DODD: I believe not, Mr. President; I do not believe it has been offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to have been handed up yesterday or the day before.. .
MR. DODD: I think through a mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: . . . or last week. Yes. But you will find out about that and let us know.
MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you were still examining Gustav Hoepken, were you not?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I shall continue my examination of the witness Hoepken. [The witness Hoopken resumed the stand.]
DR. SAUTER: Herr Hoopken, we stopped yesterday when discussing the question whether the Defendant Von Schirach during his time in Vienna was opposed to the Church or was tolerant in this connection. The last answer you gave me yesterday referred to the relations of the Defendant Von Schirach to the Viennese Cardinal, Innitzer. Is it correct, Witness, that at the suggestion and with the knowledge of the Defendant Von Schirach during his time in Vienna you periodically had talks with a Catholic priest there, a Dean, Professor Ens, for the purpose of discussing Church questions with him and removing any differences which might arise?
HOEPKEN: Yes, that is true. Professor Ens was not, as you assume, Catholic, but Protestant. He was Dean of the faculty of theology of the University of Vienna. When he visited me he submitted many Church and religious questions to me. I discussed them with him. He then asked me to report on them to Herr Von Schirach so that, if it were in his power, he could make redress. This was done as far as possible.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know, Witness, that the Defendant Von Schirach, for example, ordered that at the Party Christmas celebrations new National Socialist Christmas songs were not to be sung, but the old Christian Christmas hymns?
HOEPKEN: Yes, I know that at the Christmas celebrations of the Party and of the Hitler Youth, and the Christmas celebration for wounded soldiers, the old Christian Christmas carols. such as "Es ist ein Ros' entsprungen," and "Silent Night, Holy Night..."
THE PRESIDENT: This is surely not a matter which is worthy to be given in evidence.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know that the Defendant Von Schirach, in the official magazine of the Hitler Youth, had a special number published which was in favor of humane treatment of the people of the Eastern Territories, and when was that?
HOEPKEN: I know that it was the quarterly number for April to June 1943.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know that in the same official magazine of the Hitler Youth, at the request of the Defendant Bormann, a special anti-Semitic number was to appear, but that Von Schirach refused it?
HOEPKEN: I know that it was requested at that time by the Propaganda Ministry and also by the Party Chancellery. Von Schirach refused each time.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know that Von Schirach once inspected a concentration camp?
HOEPKEN: Yes, I know that.
DR. SAUTER: Which one?
HOEPKEN: The concentration camp Mauthausen.
DR. SAUTER: In regard to this point, which has already been more or less cleared up by the testimony of other witnesses, I am interested only in one question. When was this visit to Mauthausen?
HOEPKEN: I cannot say exactly. I can say with certainty, however, that it was not after April 1943.
DR. SAUTER: Why can you say that?
HOEPKEN: In April 1943 I was discharged from hospital and began my service in Vienna. From that day on until April 1945 I knew every day where Von Schirach was. Moreover, immediately after my arrival in Vienna in April 1943, when I asked him, as I was rather run-down physically because of my wound and was also a sports teacher, whether I might do some sports between 7 and 8 in the morning...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we do not want to know about the witness' health, do we?
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you heard what the President just said. I have already told you I am interested in when this visit to Mauthausen was. You said, if I understood you correctly...
THE PRESIDENT: He said he could not say when it was and it was after April 1943. He said he could not say when it was.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe you misunderstood the witness. Witness, please pay attention as to whether this is correct. I understood the witness to say that it was before April 1943. The visit must have been before April 1943. It could not have been later.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, he also said, according to the conversation I heard and took down, that he could not say when the particular time was.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, but through the testimony of the witness I should like to settle the fact that it was not later than April 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: He said that already. He said it. He said, "I cannot say when it was, but it was not after April 1943." He said: "In April 1943 I was discharged from the hospital and began my service in Vienna. I knew every day where Schirach was." I have got that all written down.
DR. SAUTER: Very well. Witness, in this conversation about his visit to Mauthausen did the Defendant Von Schirach tell you anything to the effect that on this visit he got to hear of any atrocities, ill-treatment, and such things?
HOEPKEN: No, he said nothing about that.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I now turn to the question of the deportation of Jews from Vienna. As far as I know you were an earwitness of a conversation between the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and the Defendant Sebirach. Will you tell us what was said in this conversation on the question of the deportation of Jews?
HOEPKEN: I believe it was in November 1941; Himmler and Sebirach were motoring through East Prussia from Himmler's quarters to his special train. In the car Himmler asked Von Sebirach: "Tell me, Von Schirach, how many Jews are still in Vienna?" Von Schirach answered, "I cannot say exactly. I estimate 40,000 to 50,000." And Himmler said: "I must evacuate these Jews as quickly as possible from Vienna." And Schirach said: "The Jews do not give me any trouble, especially as they are now wearing the yellow star." Then Himmler said: "The Fuehrer is already angry that Vienna, in this matter as in many others, is made an exception, and I will have to instruct my SS agencies to carry this out as speedily as possible." That is what I remember of this conversation.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know anything about the anti-Semitic speech made by the Defendant Von Schirach in September 1942 at a Congress in Vienna, which the Prosecution submitted to the Court?
HOEPKEN: Yes, the contents of the speech are known to us.
DR. SAUTER: I want to know whether you know anything about it, especially whether Schirach said anything to you about why he made this anti-Semitic speech?
HOEPKEN: I know from the press officer Gunther Kaufmann, who was mentioned yesterday, that directly after this speech Von Schirach instructed Kaulmann that every point in the speech should be telephoned to the DEB (Deutsches Nachrichtenburo) in Berlin, with the remark that he had every reason to make a concession to Bormann on this point.
DR. SAUTER: Why a concession?
HOEPKEN: I assume that Schirach knew that his position in Vienna was precarious, and that he constantly heard, especially from the Party Chancellery, that he must take a stricter course in Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: You were Chief of the Central Bureau with Sebirach in Vienna. In this capacity, did all Schirach's incoming mail go through you?
HOEPKEN: Not all of his malt the great majority of it. Mail stamped "only direct" and "personal" did not go through my hands.
DR. SAUTER: But the other mail?
HOEPKEN: That went through my office.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, we have here a number of documents which have been submitted to the Court. They are the activity and situation reports which the Chief of the Security Police made, I believe, monthly or weekly and which have been submitted to the Court under Number 3943-PS. These reports came from Vienna, and since you know the situation in the Central Bureau in Vienna and are well-informed about its activity, I will now hand you several of these documents. Please look at the documents and then tell us whether from these documents, which are photostat copies, you can determine whether these reports of the SS came to you or to the Defendant Von Schirach, or whether they went to a different office. I call your special attention to the manner in which these documents are annotated. Please note on the individual documents who initialed the document and what was done with the document after that. And then please tell us who these of finials are who figure in the documents as officials of the Reich Defense Commission; for instance, a Dr. Fischer, et cetera. Those are the documents, Mr. President, about which the Court asked questions the other day,
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know they are, but I do not know what the question is exactly. It seems to me there are a great number of questions. Well, let us get on, Dr. Sauter. We shall have to consider these documents, you know, and the witness ought to be able to give his answer.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President. Of course, the witness has to look at the documents first. He must especially note which officials initialed the documents and what the officials did with them. That is what I must ask the witness, in order to ascertain what the documents . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought that he had seen these documents before.
DR. SAUTER: No; they were just handed over in cross-examination. I could not discuss them previously with the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: They were certainly handed over before this morning.
DR. SAUTER: Not to the witness-to me, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, get on, Dr. Sauter, get on.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, what do these documents tell you? Did they come to the knowledge of the Defendant Von Schirach, or how were they dealt with?
HOEPKEN: These documents did not go through the Central Bureau. I see here that they are initialed by a Dr. Felber. I know him. He was the expert assigned to the Regierungsprasident in Vienna for all matters concerning the Reich Defense Commissioner. From the treatment given these documents, I must assume that the Berlin SD agency sent them directly to the office of the Regierungsprasident, and from there they were entered into the files, as I see here. I do not see Von Schirach's initials here.
DR. SAUTER: The Regierungsprasident was a certain Dellbrugge?
HOEPKEN: Dr. Dellbrugge.
DR. SAUTER: And this Dr. Felber whom you mentioned was an official of the Regierungsprasident?
HOEPKEN: Yes, an official of the Regierungsprasident.
DR. SAUTER: And when such a document as you have there arrived, where did the post office or any other agency deliver it? Was it delivered to you or did the Regierungsprasident have his own office for incoming mail, or how was it?
HOEPKEN: I already said that they must have been sent directly to the office of the Regierungsprasident, who had his own office for incoming mail.
DR. SAUTER: How can you tell that the Defendant Von Schirach had no knowledge of these documents?
HOEPKEN: Because he did not initial these documents. If documents were submitted to him, they were initialed "z.K.g."-noted- "B.v.S.," and that does not appear on these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, I do not think the prosecution suggested that they were initialed by Von Schirach. It was quite clearly brought out in Von Schirach's evidence that he had not initialed them, and that fact was not challenged by Mr. Dodd.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe it is a decisive point whether Defendant Von Schirach had any knowledge of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you keep asking whether they were initialed by him or not? That fact, as I have pointed out, has already been proved and not challenged.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have here an additional collection of documents under Number 3876-PS. They are additional reports from the Chief of the Security Police. There is another address on these. It says here, among other things: "To the Reich Defense Commissioner for the Defense District XVII"-that was Vienna- "for the attention of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Fischer in Vienna." I am interested in knowing who Dr. Fischer was. Was he in the Central Bureau, or who was he?
HOEPKEN: I do not know a Dr. Fischer either in the Central Bureau or in the Reichsstatthalterei.
DR. SAUTER: Then how do you explain the fact that in these reports it always says, "To the Reich Defense Commissioner for the Defense District XVII, for the attention of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Fischer?"
HOEPKEN: I assume he was a colleague of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Felber, who specialized in these matters. Also I see they were secret letters, and were therefore addressed to him personally.
DR. SAUTER: As far as you know, did not the Regierungsprasident Dellbrugge report to the Defendant Von Schirach on these reports which reached him, or have one of his officials report about them?
HOEPKEN: The Regierungsprasident reported directly to Herr Von Schirach about matters concerning the Reich Governor and the Reich Defense Commissioner. I was not present at these conversations; consequently I cannot say to what extent he reported to Von Schirach on these matters.
DR. SAUTER: If the Regierungsprasident or one of his officials reported to the Defendant Von Schirach on these reports, would that be shown in the documents?
HOEPKEN: Probably yes. In that case the Regierungsprasident or the officials would have had to write on them "To be filed after being reported to the Reich Governor," or "for further action."
DR. SAUTER: On the documents which I submitted to you there is no such indication?
HOEPKEN: On these documents, no.
DR. SAUTER: And on the documents which I have here, there is no such note either. Do you conclude from this that the Defendant Von Schirach received no report on them?
HOEPKEN: I must conclude that Von Schirach vitas not informed on these matters.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Defendant Von Schirach was chief of the state administration in Vienna in his capacity as Reich Governor, as well as chief of the local administration to a certain extent as mayor, and finally chief of the Party as Gauleiter. Now, we hear that in each of these capacities he had a permanent representative. I should like to know who normally administered the affairs of the Reich Defense Commissioner and the Reich Governor; that is, the affairs of the state administration?
HOEPKEN: I have already said that it was the Regierungsprasident, Dr. Dellbrugge.
DR. SAUTER: And then what did the Defendant Von Schirach do in the field of state administration?
HOEPKEN: He was given regular reports by the Regierungsprasident. Von Schirach then made his decision, and these decisions were then carried out by the officials or departments.
DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, the Defendant Von Schirach concerned himself only with such matters as were reported to him by the Regierungsprasident or which were brought to his special attention in writing; is that true?
HOEPKEN: Yes, that is true.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, were you yourself a member of the SS?
HOEPKEN: No, I was never a member of the SS.
DR. SAUTER: Of the SA?
HOEPKEN: No.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know that these three permanent representatives, whom the Defendant Von Schirach had in Vienna, namely the Regierungsprasident, the Deputy Gauleiter, and the Mayor, were all three SS Fuehrer?
HOEPKEN: Yes, I know that.
DR. SAUTER: How was that? Did the Defendant Von Schirach select these men himself, or how do you explain the fact that all three of his representatives were SS Fuehrer?
HOEPKEN: The Deputy Gauleiter, Scharizer, was an honorary SS Fuehrer and, as far as I recall, he was Oberbefehlsleiter of the Party. When Von Schirach came to Vienna, Scharizer had already been active for several years in Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: As what?
HOEPKEN: As Deputy Gauleiter. I do not know when the Regierungsprasident, Dr. Dellbrugge, came to Vienna; but I assume either before or at about the same time as Von Schirach. Moreover, the Regierungsprasidenten were appointed by the Ministry of the Interior, so that I think he could hardly have had sufficient influence to refuse or select a particular Regierungsprasident. As for the mayor, the situation was similar.
DR. SAUTER: He was a certain Blaschke?