dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SEIDL: I forego the reading of the following part of the minutes literally A conversation followed on various points. Among other things the subject of the conversation then was the air strength of Germany a: that time and the preparations with regard to the building a U-boats. I do not believe that these questions are relevant in the present connection, and so I shall turn at once to that part of the minutes where mention is made of the proposals which Hess made to Lord Simon. This is on Page 152 of the document book. From the minutes we can see that Hess had previously written down the proposals which he wanted to submit. He gave these notes to Dr. Mackenzie and Mr. Kirkpatrick, who then read and translateed them, and now I quote on Page 152, at the bottom of the page literally: "Basis for an understanding." And here I have to ask the Tri-bunal to turn from Page 152 of the document book to Page 159 of the document book because the first point in the proposal obviously has been presented in the wrong fashion. On Page 159, about the middle of the page, there is a statement by Dr. Mackenzie which, expresses the first point correctly, and I quote: I ask now that you turn back, namely to Page 153 of the document book. Here we find on the last line the second point of the proposals which Hess made. Dr. Mackenzie is reading: I turn to Page 154 of the document book and begin to quote at the top of the page -- it is possible that the figure "2" is inadvertently repeated here in the document book. It should be: Then there is a personal remark by Hess as follows: I shall not read any further excerpts from these minutes. I forego the reading of the other passages marked in red. The conference was terminated by a statement made by Lord Simon to the effect that he would bring the proposals made by Hess to the knowledge of the British Government. That was Exhibit Number H-15.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honors, the Defendant Rudolf Hess is accused in the Indictment of helping the Nazi conspirators to seize power and of furthering the military, economic, and psychological preparations for the war as mentioned under Count One of the Indictment; of participating in the political planning and preparation of aggressive wars and of war in violation of international treaties, agreements and promises, as mentioned in Counts One and Two, and of participating in the preparation and planning of foreign political plans of  the Nazi conspirators as listed under Count One. That accusation is the nucleus of the Indictment against Rudolf Hess. It is therefore my duty to discuss also briefly in evidence the circumstances which in 1939 led to the outbreak of war. In that respect I have the following to say: On 23 August 1939, at Moscow a non-aggression pact was concluded between Germany and the Soviet Union, which has already been submitted by the Prosecution as Exhibit GB-145 (Document TC-25). On the same day, that is to say but I week before the outbreak of the war and 3 days before the planned attack on Poland, these two nations made another secret agreement. This secret agreement essentially contained the definition of the spheres of, interest of both nations within the European territory lying between Ger-many and the Soviet Union.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you are not forgetting, are you, the Tribunal's ruling that this is not the opportunity for making a speech, but simply the occasion for introducing documents and calling witnesses. You will have the opportunity of making your speech at a later stage.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, indeed. I do not intend to make a speech, but I intend to say a few introductory words on a document which I shall submit to the Tribunal. Germany, in the secret documents, declared herself disinterested in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, we have not yet seen the document. If you are going to put in the document, put in the document.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, indeed. I can submit the document at once. It is an affidavit of the former ambassador, Dr. Friedrich Gaus. In the year 1939 he was the Chief of the Legal Department of the Foreign Office. He was present at the negotiations as the assistant of the then German plenipotentiary in Moscow, and it was he who drafted the non-aggression pact which has already been submitted as an exhibit, as well as the secret agreement, the contents of which I want to submit now to the Tribunal as facts which are important as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you hand in the document?
DR. SEIDL: Surely. However, I intend to read parts of this docu-ment later.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal does not quite understand what this document is, because it is not included in your document book and it does not appear that you made any application for it or made any reference to it, and it is in German; it is not translated.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, when I prepared the document book for the Defendant Hess, I did not as yet have this affidavit in my possession. It dates from 15 March 1946. At that time, when the relevancy of the applications for Defendant Hess were discussed, I had as yet no definite knowledge of the context which would have enabled me to make a proper application. The excerpts which I intend to read from this document are short, and it will be possible to have them translated immediately by the interpreters present here in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you a copy for the Prosecution?
DR. SEIDL: Surely, a German copy.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid that would not be any use to me. I do not know whether it is to all the members of the Prosecution. Have the Prosecuting Counsel any objection to passages being read from this document?
GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Mr. President, I did not know about the existence of this document, and I therefore strenuously object to having it read into the record. I would wish that the procedure established by the Tribunal be observed by the Defense. The Prosecution, in the past, when presenting its evidence invariably presented copies of these documents to the Defense Counsel. Counsel for Hess is now presenting a completely unknown document, and the Prosecution, with every reason, would like to familiarize itself with this document before-hand. I do not know what secrets or what secret agreements Counsel for the Defense is talking about and on what facts he is basing his statements. I would therefore, to say the least, define them as unfounded. I request that this document should not be read into the record.
DR. SEIDL: The Prosecutor for the Soviet Union states that he has no knowledge of the existence of this secret document which shall be established by this affidavit. Under these circumstances I am compelled to move that Foreign Commissar Molotov of the Soviet Union be called as a witness, so that it can be established, firstly whether this agreement was actually concluded, secondly, what the contents of this agreement are, and thirdly...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the first thing for you to do is to have a translation of this document made, and until you have a translation of this document made the Tribunal is not prepared to hear you upon it. We do not know what the document contains.
DR. SEIDL: As to what the document contains, I already wanted to explain that before. In the document there is...
THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal is not prepared to hear from you what the document contains. We want to see the document itself and see it in English and also in Russian. I do not mean, of course, you have to do it yourself, Dr. Seidl. If you would furnish this copy to the Prosecution they will have it translated into the various languages and then, after that has been done, we can reconsider the matter.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. I turn then to another document, the reading of which can certainly raise no objections, because it is a document which has already been submitted by the Prosecution. It is the address made by the Fuehrer to the Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on 22 August 1939. It was submitted by the Prosecution of the Soviet Union as 798-PS and as Exhibit Number US-29. I quote from Page 6 of the German photostat: "Thereupon Hitler declared..."
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got it in your document book or not, I mean just for convenience?
DR. SEIDL: The document was already submitted by the Prosecution in full.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean it is not here. I have not got the document before me. It is not in your document book?
DR. SEIDL: No, it is not in the document book because the Court has already ruled that each defendant's counsel has the right to refer to any document which has already been submitted by the Prosecution. I quote: End of the quotation. Mr. President, Gentlemen: I had now the intention to call the witness Bohle who has already been approved by the Tribunal. The Defendant Hess, however, has asked me to forego the personal appearance of that witness and read an affidavit concerning the facts of evidence in reference to which the witness was to be heard. I have prepared such an affidavit, and undoubtedly it would accelerate the proceedings if the Tribunal would permit the reading of this affidavit. If however, the Tribunal should have the opinion that...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not had the opportunity of seeing the affidavit. As previously advised, if the witness covers the ground for which he was asked, I should want him for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the witness?
DR. SEIDL: He is here. With the permission of the Tribunal I would like to call the witness Bohle now.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean to call him or to read his affidavit?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, indeed; since Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe apparently protests against the reading of the affidavit, I would like to call the witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not seen the affidavit, of course, My Lord, so at the moment, as I say, if the affidavit covers the ground that the witness should speak upon, then I shall want to cross-examine him.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the Prosecution are agreeable that the affidavit should be put in, the witness must be called, but if the Prosecution are agreeable to the affidavit being read and then the witness presented for cross-examination, the Tribunal is quite willing that it should be done.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not mind that in the least, my Lord. Of course, I am in slight difficulty not knowing what is in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the best course would be for the Tribunal to have a 10-minute adjournment now, and you could per-haps just see what is in the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is a pleasure, My Lord. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, did not wish to hurry counsel, but we thought we had better get on with other witnesses, and this document can be translated and considered and possibly dealt with after the main adjournment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, I have not had the chance of reading the translation. A preliminary view of the affidavit convinced my staff that it was not of very great importance, and I was going to consider whether the quickest way might be to let the affidavit be read, if the Tribunal would then permit me to read three documents which I was going to put in cross-examination to the witness. That might be more convenient than to take the course which Your Lordship suggests, of waiting until we have seen the full affidavit and then consider what would be the best way to deal with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have perhaps seen part of the document, and you can perhaps judge better which would be the more convenient course. Whichever you think more convenient.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I am quite content if Dr. Seidl reads it, but it would have to be on the terms that the documents which I was going to put in cross-examination to the witness are read.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks he had better be called.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: If I understood the High Tribunal correctly, they do not wish to have the affidavit read but to have the witness interrogated before the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as soon as the affidavit has been translated, and the Prosecution have had an opportunity of considering it, they can let us know whether they think it will be better to treat the affidavit as the examination of the witness, and he must then be produced here for the purpose of cross-examination unless you prefer to examine him orally yourself.
DR. SEIDL: I believe that under these circumstances it would be best to call the witness immediately to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. [The witness Bohle took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell me your name?
ERNST WILHELM BOHLE (Witness): Ernst Wilhelm Bohle.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God -- the Almighty and Omniscient -- that I will speak the pure truth -- and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath in German.]
DR. SEIDL: Witness, you were ultimately the leader of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP? Is that correct?
BOHLE: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: You were also State Secretary of the Foreign Office?
BOHLE: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, Mr. Dodd of the American Prosecution just made the suggestion that, in order to save time, it might b possible to follow the same procedure as in the case of witness Blaha, that is, first of all, to read the affidavit in the presence o the witness and then afterwards hear him in cross-examination
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. DR. SEIDL [Turning to the witness.] : You made an affidavit which I shall now read to you. Concerning the matter: And that is the end of the statement of the witness Bohle. For the moment I have no questions to ask the witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask the witness any questions?
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Von Schirach ): I would like to put several questions to this witness, Your Honor. Witness, I represent the Defendant Von Schirach, the former leader of the German Youth. Therefore the following would interest me: Did the Hitler Youth (HJ) also exist in foreign countries or only in Germany?
BOHLE: The Hitler Youth existed among German nationals, in foreign countries also.
DR. SAUTER: Please tell me whether this HJ, the Hitler Youth abroad, was subject to the political directives of the competent Landesleiter of the Auslands-Organisation, or is that not right?
BOHLE: Yes, the Hitler Youth abroad was politically under the control of the Hoheitstrager of the Party.
DR. SAUTER: Once in the course of the proceedings the assertion was made that members of the Hitler Youth were trained for service as agents and for espionage work abroad and also were used for these purposes. Specific facts, that is, specific instances, were certainly not mentioned, but only a general assertion was made, and it was also asserted that Hitler Youth abroad were even used as paratroopers, that is, that they had been trained at home as paratroopers in order to be used abroad in this capacity. That is the assertion which I submit to you, and I now ask to have your opinion on this, whether, on the basis of your knowledge as the competent leader of the Auslands-Organisation, something like that did occur or whether anything like that was at all possible?
BOHLE: I would like to say the following in reply: I consider it entirely out of the question that members of the Hitler Youth abroad were misused in this way. I can assert that so much the more since I know I would have heard anything to the contrary from the leaders of the Party in the various foreign countries. I know also nothing at all about the training of the Hitler Youth as paratroopers or anything similar. I consider these assertions as absolutely pure invention.
DR. SAUTER: Then I may assume, as the result of your testi-mony, that things of that sort on the basis of the entire organization would certainly have come to your knowledge, if something like that had occurred or perhaps even only had been planned; is that correct?
BOHLE: Yes, indeed.
DR. SAUTER: And then, Witness, I have a last question: Here in the courtroom a further assertion was also made about the HJ, that is, about the Hitler Youth. It has been asserted that at Lvov it once happened that the Hitler Youth or members of the Hitler Youth had used little children as targets. Also in this report no details of course were given, but only the assertion was made. The following would interest me: As you know the Hitler Youth had, I believe, a membership toward the end of about 7 to 8 million.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, does that have anything to do with the Auslands-Organisation?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, it does insofar as my client, the Defendant Von Schirach, is charged with the fact that the Hitler Youth abroad committed such atrocities.
THE PRESIDENT: It was not suggested that they did this abroad, was it -- that Hitler Youth ever used children as targets abroad?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, indeed, it was said that at Lvov, in the Government General, not in Germany, but in Lvov, which means abroad.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean after the war began?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought this witness was speaking about the same organization before the war.
DR. SAUTER: I do not know whether he was also talking about the Auslands-Organisation during the war. But in any case, Mr. President, the witness knows these facts, for he was the head of the Auslands-Organisation. Therefore this witness seems to me especially qualified to give us information on these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that we are very far from the point, but you can go on.
R. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President, for otherwise I would have to call expressly this witness for my client again. Witness, do you at all recall the last question I put to you, whether you had any knowledge that the Hitler Youth, or members of the Hitler Youth abroad, which was under your jurisdiction, is supposed to have committed atrocities of that nature?
BOHLE: I regret to tell you, Mr. Attorney, that the Government General did not belong to the Auslands-Organisation, that I was never there and therefore am not in a position to state anything on that point. Obviously the erroneous opinion seems to exist that the Government General, from the point of view of the organization of the Party, was connected with the Auslands-Organisation; however that was not the case. I had no organizational powers there.
DR. SAUTER: Otherwise, I have no further questions.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party): Witness, to what extent, in your capacity as Reichsleiter of the Auslands-Organisation, were you informed about the foreign political intentions of the Fuehrer?
BOHLE: I was not Reichsleiter, but Gauleiter, and was never informed of the foreign political intentions of the Fuehrer.
DR.SERVATIUS: Do you know whether the Fuehrer basically advocated to your organization an understanding with, England?
BOHLE: I do not quite understand your question.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Hitler, before the war, in your presence and before the other Gauleiter, frequently emphasize the fact that he wanted at all costs an understanding with England, and that you also were to work for its achievement?
BOHLE: I received no orders in this respect from the Fuehrer, but certainly from the Deputy of the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer never discussed foreign political matters with me during the 12 years was in office.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of the Defense Counsel want to ask any other questions?
LIEUTENANT COLONEL J. M. G. GRIFFITH-JONES (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): Your Auslands-Organisation was organized in the same way as the Party in Germany was organized; is that not so?
BOHLE: Not in all points, because there were various organizations within the body of the Party in the Reich which were not intended for foreign countries, for example, the Office for Municipal Policy.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Perhaps I can shorten my question: Did you have Hoheitstrager abroad in the same way as you had them in Germany?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: The organization in each country was under the Landesgruppenleiter; is that correct?
BOHLE: In almost all countries.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And under many there were lower-ranking Hoheitstrager?
BOHLE: Yes, the Ortsgruppenleiter.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Was the result of that, that you had your German population in foreign countries well organized and known to the leaders in those countries?
BOHLE: To a great extent that might be correct, but it was not so thoroughly organized, nor could it actually be so, because the leader of the Party did not know all the Reich Germans in the country concerned.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Did it never occur to you that in the event of your army's invading a country where you had a well-organized organization, that organization would be of extreme military value?
BOHLE: No, that was not the sense and the purpose of the Auslands-Organisation and no offices ever approached me in this con-nection.
LT. COL. GRIF FITH-JONES: Are you telling this Tribunal now that when the various countries of Europe were in fact invaded by the German Army your local organizations did nothing to assist them in a military or semimilitary capacity?
BOHLE: Yes, indeed.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. Now, let me ask you about something else for a moment: You had, had you not, an efficient system of reporting from your Landesgruppenleiter to your head office in Berlin?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I think you have said yourself, did you not, in your interrogations, that you took an especial pride in the speed with which your reports came back?
BOHLE: I did not say that, I believe, with respect to speed but rather with respect to the accuracy of their political survey.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: In fact, your reports did come back with great speed, did they not?
BOHLE: I cannot say that in general. It depended on the possibility of dispatching these reports quickly to Berlin, and how far that was the case in individual instances, I naturally cannot say today. In any ease, I had no special speed or acceleration measures at my disposal.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: In fact, you told your interrogator -- and I can refer you to it if necessary -- that on occasion you got back information before Himmler or the Foreign Office had got similar information.
BOHLE: That must be a misunderstanding. It concerns the political reports from the Landesgruppenleiter which I transmitted from Berlin to the different offices.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well, we will leave the speed out I have it from you that you had an efficient system of reporting, had you not?
BOHLE: In order to answer that question I would have to know in respect to what reports I am supposed to have had an efficient system of reporting.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That was going to be my next question. I was going to ask you: What in fact did your Landesgruppenleiter report to you?
BOHLE: The Landesgruppenleiter reported of their own accord to me, whenever they had anything of importance which they wanted to report to the competent offices in the Reich.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Did they ever report anything which might have been of military or semimilitary value?
BOHLE: That may have been the case in some instances, although at present I cannot recall any specific cases.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: They were never given any instructions, were they, to report that kind of information?
BOHLE: No, generally not.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: How did you get your reports back? Did you have wireless sets with your organization in foreign countries?