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.
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 1 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 Germany 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 document
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 beforehand. 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 Führer 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:
“...I have gradually brought about a change in our attitude
towards Russia. In connection with the trade agreement, we got
into a political conversation. Proposal of a non-aggression
pact. Then came a general proposal from Russia. Four days ago I
took a special step which had as a result that Russia answered
yesterday she was ready for settlement. Personal contact with
Stalin has been established. Von Ribbentrop will conclude the
treaty the day after tomorrow. Now Poland is in the position in
which I wanted her to be.”
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 perhaps 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 be 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 of 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:
“1. The Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP was founded on 1 May
1931 at Hamburg upon suggestion of some Germans abroad. Gregor
Strasser, Reich Organization Chief at the time, appointed as its
leader the NSDAP Member of the Reichstag, Dr. Hans Nieland.
“I myself became a volunteer assistant of the
Auslands-Organisation in December 1931 and was taken into the
Party on 1 March 1932. On 8 May 1933 Dr. Nieland resigned as
leader of the Auslands-Organisation, having become in the
meantime a member of the Hamburg Government and also, as a
German who had always stayed at home, being less interested in
questions concerning Germans abroad. On account of my
experience—and my connections abroad—I was born in England and
raised in South Africa—I was charged with the leadership of the
Auslands-Organisation.
“2. The purpose of the Auslands-Organisation was, upon the
assumption of power, to hold together in an organized way the
approximately 3,300 Party members living outside the boundaries
of Germany at the time of the seizure of power. Further, through
it Germans abroad, who could have only a vague idea of the
political happenings at home, were to be taught the philosophy
and the political program of the new state.
“3. Only German nationals could become members of the Party. The
acceptance of foreigners or former Germans who had acquired
citizenship in another state was strictly prohibited.
“4. The guiding principle of the Auslands-Organisation of the
Party concerning its attitude to foreign countries was found on
the Ausland pass of every German national who was a member of
the Party, in the following passage: ‘Observe the laws of the
country whose guest you are. Let the citizens of the country in
which you stay take care of their internal politics; do not
interfere in these matters, not even by way of conversation.’
“This principle was basic for the work and the attitude of the
Auslands-Organisation with respect to foreign countries from the
day of its founding up to its end. I myself referred to this in
many public speeches, and in so doing coined, among others, the
phrase: ‘The National Socialist honors foreign folkdom because
he loves his own.’
“My speeches in Porchester Hall in London on 2 October 1937 and
in Budapest at the end of January 1938 give a comprehensive
picture of the attitude of the Auslands-Organisation of the
NSDAP toward foreign countries.
“Winston Churchill in the late summer of 1937 repeatedly
attacked the activity of the Auslands-Organisation in newspaper
articles, and in his well-known article, ‘Friendship with
Germany,’ in the London _Evening Standard_ of 17 September 1937,
designated it as an encumbrance on German-English relations. In
the same article he said that he was ready to converse with me
in the most cordial manner about this question. The German
Embassy in London informed the Foreign Office at that time that
a question by Churchill in the House of Commons regarding the
activity of the Auslands-Organisation would be extremely
undesirable. As a result a meeting between Churchill and myself
was advocated as urgent. This took place on the day of my speech
to the Reich Germans in London, in Winston Churchill’s London
home, and lasted more than an hour. I had ample opportunity in
this thoroughly cordial conversation to describe the activity of
the Auslands-Organisation and to dispel his misgivings. At the
end he accompanied me to my car and let himself be photographed
with me, in order, as he said, to show the world that we were
parting as friends. There was no inquiry in the House of
Commons. From that day Churchill never uttered a word of
objection again about the activity of the Auslands-Organisation.
My speech of the same date, which was published shortly
afterwards in English in pamphlet form by an English concern,
was very favorably received. _The Times_ published from it a
lengthy excerpt under the heading ‘Herr Bohle’s Plea for an
Understanding.’ After this conversation Churchill wrote me a
letter in which he voiced his satisfaction with the result of
our conversation.
“6. In the trial of the murderer of the Landesgruppenleiter of
the Auslands-Organisation in Switzerland, Wilhelm Gustloff,
which was held in a Swiss court at Chur in 1936, the legality of
the activity of the Auslands-Organisation was the subject of
investigation by the court. The Defendant, David Frankfurter,
was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. From what I remember, I
can say that the Swiss authorities, who were in no way friendly
to Nazis, had to testify that Gustloff and the Landesgruppen of
the Auslands-Organisation had never in any way given reason for
complaint with regard to their activity. The testimony of
Federal Councillor Baumann, who, to my knowledge, was then
Minister of the Interior and of the Police in Switzerland, was
at that time decisive.
“7. I should further like to point out in this connection that
also after the outbreak of the war the Landesgruppen of the
Auslands-Organisation in neutral countries continued to function
until the end of the war. That is especially true of
Switzerland, Sweden, and Portugal.
“From 1943 on, at the latest, the Reich would hardly have been
able to take any steps against suppression, if the
Auslands-Organisation had come into conflict with the internal
laws of these countries; and suppression would have been the
inevitable result.
“8. Aside from the indisputable legality of the
Auslands-Organisation, as its leader I have repeatedly expressed
the idea that the Auslandsdeutschen (Germans abroad) would
certainly be the last people who would let themselves be misused
as warmongers or as conspirators against the peace. From bitter
experience they knew that with the outbreak of the war they
would face at once internment, persecution, confiscation of
property, and destruction of their economic existence.
“9. As a result of the knowledge of the situation abroad, no one
knew better than the Auslandsdeutschen that any activity in the
sense of a Fifth Column would be just as foolish as detrimental
to the interests of the Reich. To my knowledge, moreover, the
expression ‘Fifth Column’ can be traced back to the Spanish
Civil War. It is in any case a foreign invention. When Franco
attacked Madrid with four columns of troops, it was asserted
that a Fifth Column consisting of nationalist elements was doing
its seditious work underground within the besieged city.
“10. There is no basis whatsoever for applying the term ‘Fifth
Column’ to the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP. If this
assertion were true, it would mean that members of the
Auslands-Organisation working together with local oppositional
elements in one or more foreign countries had been delegated, or
had by themselves tried, to undermine this state from within.
Any such assertion would be pure invention.
“11. Neither from the former Deputy of the Führer, Rudolf Hess,
nor from me, as the leader of the Auslands-Organisation, has
this organization or members of this organization in any way
received orders the execution of which might be considered as
Fifth Column activity. Even Hitler himself never gave me any
directive in that respect. In summary, I can say that the
Auslands-Organisation at no time, as long as I was its leader,
displayed any activity in the sense of a Fifth Column. Never did
the Deputy of the Führer give orders or directives to the
Auslands-Organisation which might have led to such activity. On
the contrary, Rudolf Hess most urgently desired that members of
the Auslands-Organisation should under no circumstances take
part in the internal affairs of the country in which they were
living as guests.
“12. Of course, it is known that just as citizens of the then
enemy countries, so also Germans were employed in the espionage
and intelligence services abroad. This activity had however
nothing at all to do with membership in the
Auslands-Organisation. In order not to imperil the existence of
the Auslands-Organisation groups, which worked legally and
entirely in the open, I constantly demanded that members of the
Auslands-Organisation would not be used for such purposes or
that I should previously be given the opportunity to relieve
them of their functions within the Auslands-Organisation.”
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 Hoheitsträger 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 testimony, 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.
DR. 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 Führer?
BOHLE: I was not Reichsleiter, but Gauleiter, and was never informed of
the foreign political intentions of the Führer.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know whether the Führer 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 Führer, but
certainly from the Deputy of the Führer. The Führer never discussed
foreign political matters with me during the 12 years I 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
Hoheitsträger 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
Hoheitsträger?
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
connection.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-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 case,
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?
BOHLE: No, we did not have any such transmission or wireless stations.
Reports either came through courier in special cases or were brought by
individuals to Germany.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: After the war started, did your organizations
continue in neutral countries?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Did they never have wireless sets reporting
back information?
BOHLE: I do not know anything about that. I do not believe they had
them, for I would have had to know about it.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now, I want to ask you about only one or two
documents. Would you look at 3258-PS—My Lord, that is the exhibit
already in, GB-262; I have copies of the extract for the Tribunal and
members of Defense Counsel. I expect you read English—the book itself
is coming.
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: There you have before you a copy of some
extracts from it. Would you look at the bottom of the first page, last
paragraph, commencing “In 1938...” Did you have a Landesgruppenleiter in
the Netherlands by the name of Butting?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Just pay attention to me for perhaps one moment
before you look at that document. Do you know that Butting shared a
house at The Hague with the military intelligence office? Do you know
that?
BOHLE: No, I do not.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now, I want to quote you quite shortly two
paragraphs of this document, which is a report, published as an official
United States publication, called “National Socialism, Basic Principles,
Their Application by the Nazi Party’s Foreign Organization, and The Use
of Germans Abroad for Nazi Aims.” I just want you to tell the Tribunal
what you think first of all about this report, which is printed in that
book:
“In 1938 the German Legation owned two houses in The Hague. Both
were of course the subject of diplomatic immunity and therefore
inviolable as concerned search and seizure by the Dutch police.
I shall call the house in which Dr. Butting had his office House
Number 2. What went on in House Number 2? It had been remodeled
and was divided like a two-family house—vertically, not
horizontally, but between the two halves there was a
communicating door. One side of the house was Dr. Butting’s. The
other half housed the Nazi military intelligence agent for
Holland....”
You say that you do not know anything about that?
BOHLE: Butting was Landesgruppenleiter of the Auslands-Organisation. I
am hearing about this house—or these two houses—for the first time,
that is quite new to me.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. I will just go on.
“S. B. (the military intelligence agent) may have had as many as
a dozen subordinates working in Holland, all subagents of the
Canaris bureau. These were professional spies who knew their
trade. But they could not possibly know Holland as intimately as
was required by the strategy of the German High Command, as it
was revealed following the invasion of May 1940. For this, not a
dozen but perhaps several hundred sources of information were
necessary. And it is at this point that Butting and the military
intelligence agent come together. Through his German Citizens’
Association, Butting had a pair of Nazi eyes, a pair of Nazi
ears, in every town and hamlet of the Netherlands. They were the
eyes and ears of his minor Party officials. Whenever the
military intelligence agent needed information concerning a
corner of Holland which his people had not yet explored, or was
anxious to check information relayed to him by one of his own
people, he would go to Butting.”
Do you know whether Butting assisted the military intelligence agent in
Holland in any way like that?
BOHLE: I was told later that he aided in Holland. To what extent he
helped him I do not know, for he had had no such mission from me.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I understand, he had no instructions but he was
doing it. Just turn now to the last paragraph on that page, too:
“‘I know every stone in Holland,’ S. B. once boasted. By ‘stone’
he meant canal, lock, bridge, viaduct, culvert, highway,
by-road, airport, emergency landing field, and the name and
location of Dutch Nazi sympathizers who would help the invading
army when the time came. Had Dr. Butting’s Party organization
not existed under the innocent cover of his Citizens’
Association, S.B.’s knowledge of Holland would have been as
nothing compared with what it was. Thus the Citizens’
Association served a double purpose; it was invaluable for
espionage at the same time as it fulfilled its primary function
as a Fifth Column agency.”
Do you know whether the members of your organization in Holland were
given instructions to learn about every canal, lock, bridge, viaduct,
railway, and so on?
BOHLE: No, I had not the least idea of this.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. I want you to be quite clear. I am
putting to you that your organization was in the first place an
espionage system reporting information of importance back to the Reich,
and, in the second place, it was an organization aimed to help, and
which did help, your invading German armies when they overran the
frontiers of their neighboring states. Do you understand those two
points?
BOHLE: Yes, indeed.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Did your organization publish an annual book,
your _Year Book of the Foreign Organization_?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And did that book contain information as to the
activities of your organization during the year?
BOHLE: Partially, yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I suppose that the Tribunal would be safe in
assuming that what was published in that book was accurate information?
BOHLE: One may assume that.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look at the _Year Book for 1942_? I
have copies of the extracts. Would you turn to Page 37 of that book? If
you look back one or two pages in the book, you will find that that is
an article entitled “The Work of the Norway Branch of the
Auslands-Organisation in the War.” Is that written by your
Landesgruppenleiter in Norway?
BOHLE: I assume so, I cannot recall this.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look at Page 37, and you will see that
there are some passages in the book that you have in front of you that
have been lightly marked in pencil along the side.
BOHLE: Yes, I have it.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you find the paragraph which starts,
“Therefore, soon after the outbreak of war in September 1939...” Have
you got that?
BOHLE: Yes, I have it.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Perhaps you will be so kind as to follow me.
“Therefore, soon after the outbreak of war in September 1939,
the enlargement and extension...”
BOHLE: Yes, I am following you.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: “...the enlargement and extension of
the German Legation in Oslo and of the consulates at Bergen,
Trondheim, Stavanger, Kristiansand, Hamgesund, Narvik and
Kirkenes proved to be of primary importance. This enlargement of
the Reich agencies resulted in the local organization of the
NSDAP in Norway having to increase its field of activity too, in
the same proportion, in order to support the work of the Reich
agencies, particularly by Party members and other Germans who
had a thorough knowledge of the country and language.”
Why, in September ’39, was it necessary for the Party to increase its
organization in Norway with people having higher knowledge of the
country and language? Answer me that before you read on. You need not
worry about the rest; we are going to deal with it. Why was it necessary
in 1939 to enlarge your organization?
BOHLE: In Norway, as far as I recall, there were only 80 members of the
Party in all, and it goes without saying that after the outbreak of the
war the official agencies, not only of Germany but also, as you know,
those of other states, were enlarged and were assisted by national
elements, who knew the country concerned. That did not hold true for
Germany alone but for all the nations participating in the war.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Yes. I still do not understand why your
perfectly harmless organization should have found it necessary to
increase its membership with people who had a profound knowledge of the
language and the country. Why should the Auslands-Organisation have
found it necessary?
BOHLE: Because the Reich agencies needed Germans who knew the country
and the people, especially to furnish information on the German targets
of attack in Norway—exactly what every other nation did, too.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well, your answer is, is it, that you required
them to tell you about targets in Norway? Is that your answer?
BOHLE: No, I did not say that. I said that they were to be at the
disposal of the agencies in Norway in case they were needed for public
enlightenment, that is for German propaganda purposes among the
Norwegians. I would like to emphasize once again that that was done not
only by Germany but, of course, by all the warring countries.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well, let us go on and see what happens
next:
“The choice and assignment of these supplementary collaborators
was carried out by the local leader of the organization in close
collaboration with the representatives of the Reich. Therefore,
from the first moment of the outbreak of war a great number of
Party members were taken away from their jobs and employed in
the service of the nation and the fatherland. Without any
hesitation and without considering their personal interests,
their families, their careers or their property, they joined the
ranks and devoted themselves body and soul to the new and often
dangerous tasks.”
Tell me, was finding out and reporting about the Norwegian people, was
that an “often dangerous task”?
BOHLE: Certainly not.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: What, then, were the often dangerous tasks
which your own Landesgruppenleiter is saying members of his organization
were undertaking from the very moment war broke out, in September ’39?
BOHLE: I cannot tell you anything about that, for I have no knowledge
whatsoever about this and I cannot conceive any of these dangerous
tasks. I have the impression from this article, which, incidentally I
did not know about until now, that the Landesgruppenleiter had the
plausible desire to give more importance to his organization than it had
in reality.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: But you say you did not know about this. This
appeared in the official yearbook of your organization. Did you never
read what appeared in that book?
BOHLE: Certainly not everything, for I am not familiar with this
article.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You have told us that the members of your
organization took no part in this. What about the people who were
responsible for publishing that book? Did they not ever draw your
attention to an article of that kind?
BOHLE: Obviously not.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Just look at the next little paragraph:
“The success of their work, which was done with all secrecy, was
revealed when, on 9 April 1940, German troops landed in Norway
and forestalled the planned flank attack of the Allies.”
What work was revealed on the 9th of April? What work which had been
done with all secrecy was revealed on the 9th of April, work carried out
by members of your organization?
BOHLE: I am sorry I cannot reply, for I have no knowledge whatsoever of
this. I do not know.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I see. Will you look down to the last paragraph
of that page? It is the second sentence—four, five lines down—at the
end of the fifth line. I beg your pardon. You have the book in front of
you. Will you look at Page 40 of the book? In the center of a paragraph
the last word of one of the lines starts with “According to the task
plan...” Have you got it? It is Page 40. To save time, let me read it:
“According to the task plan which had been prepared since the
outbreak of the war, the Landeskreisleitung gave orders on 7
April for Phase 1 of the state of employment...”
It does not sound, does it, like plans being made for different phases
of an operation? It does not sound, does it, as if the work of your
organization had been simply finding out about Norwegian people?
BOHLE: That might have been since this is entirely new to me,
exclusively an agreement within the country itself with military or
other authorities. I have had no knowledge of it up to this moment.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: So I understand you to say. But you were the
head of this organization, were you not?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You have come before this International
Tribunal and given them evidence, presumably saying you are in a
position to give them truthful and accurate evidence; is that so?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do you understand that?
BOHLE: Yes, I have understood that.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well, then, do I understand you to say now that
you do not know what was happening in your organization, and therefore
you are not in a position to give evidence as to whether or not it was a
Fifth Column business?
BOHLE: It is quite evident that in an organization of this size the
leader, who has his office at Berlin, cannot be closely acquainted with
everything which is going on abroad and, more so, what is done against
his instructions. I did not have the same disciplinary authority over my
Party members abroad as did, for instance, some Gauleiter within the
Reich. I need not elaborate on that, because it is self-evident. It is
also evident, and this I know, that some Germans abroad, who were called
on because of their patriotism in individual cases let themselves be
used for purposes without the knowledge of the Auslands-Organisation and
against its explicit instructions.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: In the interest of time we will not pursue that
particular sphere of activity in Norway, just in case it may have been
an exception which you did not know about.
Let me turn to something else. Will you look at Page 65 of that book?
Is that an article by your Landesgruppenleiter in Greece?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Is it in the form of a day-to-day diary of the
activities of the Auslands-Organisation in Greece when German troops
invaded that country?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look at Page 65?
“Sunday the 27th of April. Swastika on the Acropolis.”
That is the heading. I beg your pardon. I do not know whether it comes
directly under that heading. This is the Landesgruppenleiter talking:
“I set out immediately, quickly visiting the other
quarters,”—where the German colony had been interned—“the
Philadelphia and the Institute. I enjoined the inmates of the
house in Academy Street to give up returning home today, and to
hold themselves in readiness. After all, we did want to help the
German troops immediately with our knowledge of the language and
the district. Now the moment has come. We must start in
immediately.”
Do you know...
BOHLE: Yes, I even know all about this. It certainly must be evident
that the moment German troops occupied a foreign city and freed the
Germans living abroad who had been interned, the latter would put
themselves at the disposal of the German troops and help them in every
respect as guides, interpreters, or the like. That is certainly the most
logical thing in the world.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That is in fact what they did do, and the
assistance that your organization appears to have given them is that it
managed to organize them and get them ready to do it; is that not so?
That is what your Landesgruppenleiter seems to be doing?
BOHLE: I did not understand this question. Will you please repeat it?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do you understand that it is your
Landesgruppenleiter who is organizing the members of your organization,
organizing them so that they can give their assistance most beneficially
to the invading armies?
BOHLE: That is a completely wrong way to express it. The
Landesgruppenleiter in Greece, who filled that post from 1934, could not
possibly tell whether there was to be an invasion of Greece or not. That
had not the slightest thing to do with the nature of his organization.
The moment that German troops were in the country it stands to reason
that they would welcome their countrymen, act as their hosts, and help
them in every way. That was a patriotic duty taken for granted.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I see.
Just turn to Page 66, the next page. Will you find the paragraph which
commences “Meanwhile I organized the employment of all Party members to
do auxiliary service for the Armed Forces.”
Do you have that?
BOHLE: I understand it...
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You had better find the place.
BOHLE: Where shall I find that place?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: On Page 66. It is a new paragraph.
BOHLE: Yes, I have it now.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: “Meanwhile I organized the employment of all
Party members to do auxiliary service for the Armed Forces.”
It really looks now as though the Landesgruppenleiter is organizing
them, does it not?
BOHLE: In this instance, yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: “Soon our boys and girls could be seen
riding proud and radiant in their Hitler Youth uniforms, beside
the German soldiers on motorcycles and in Army cars....”
Did you yourself know of the organization and work that your
Landesgruppenleiter had put in in Greece to assist your armies in
semimilitary capacities, or was that another case like Norway which you
did not know anything about?
BOHLE: The Landesgruppenleiter in Greece did not create a semimilitary
organization, but set up of course in this instance an organization to
aid the troops entering the country in a sector which was entirely
civilian.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well; I just want to ask you about another
matter. Have you got a document there which is a telegram from somebody
called Stohrer, in Madrid?
BOHLE: Stohrer, yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Did Stohrer have something to do with the
German Embassy in Madrid?
BOHLE: Stohrer was the German Ambassador himself; Doctor Von Stohrer.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: This is dated 23 October 1939. Just let us see
what it says:
“The Landesgruppenleiter can obtain a very suitable house for
accommodating the Landesgruppe, as well as the German Labor
Front, the Ortsgruppe, the Hitler Youth, and the German House
Madrid, also room available in case of embassy having to spread
out, and especially a very suitable isolated room for the
possible installation of second secret radio transmitter, which
can no longer be housed at the school because of reopening.
“Landesgruppenleiter requests me to rent the house through the
embassy, in which way very considerable tax expense will be
avoided. Have no hesitation, in view of anticipated partial use
by embassy as mentioned above. If you do not agree I request
wire by return.
“Please submit also to Gauleiter Bohle.”
Were you telling the truth to this Tribunal when you told them some 30
minutes ago that you had no knowledge of wireless sets being used by
your organization?
BOHLE: Yes, because I have no knowledge of these transmitters, or their
use; I must assume that it concerns apparatus of the embassy.
DR. SEIDL: The copy of the telegram, as I have it before me, does not
indicate to whom this wire was addressed. The last sentence of the
telegram leads one to assume that it was not in any case addressed to
the witness. According to my opinion, I think the witness should next be
asked whether he knew about this wire and to whom it was addressed.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Perhaps you will tell Dr. Seidl to whom the
Ambassador in Madrid was likely to send a telegram on such matters as
this?
BOHLE: To the Foreign Office at Berlin.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And you, at that time, were State Secretary at
the Foreign Office of Berlin, were you not?
BOHLE: Quite right, in October 1939.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Beneath his signature is set out the
distribution to—it mentions various persons in departments in the
Foreign Office in Berlin. Is that so?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And are you saying now that all of those
departments which were asked to submit this matter to you, that they all
failed to do so?
BOHLE: No, I do not claim that. They surely would have done that.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do you remember yourself seeing this telegram
before?
BOHLE: I cannot recall it. I would have noticed it for I never heard
anything about two secret transmitters in Spain. It would also be quite
in order for me to admit it. But I cannot do so if I do not know it. The
distribution under Number 3 mentions "State Secretary,” but that does
not mean me, but the State Secretary of the Foreign Office, the
political one. My designation in the Foreign Office was: Chief A.O.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I can save you all that. I am not suggesting
that that “State Secretary” means you; otherwise it would not be asked
to be submitted to you. What I want to know is what you or your embassy
workers, or both of you working together, wanted with two secret
wireless transmitting sets in Spain in October 1939?
Are you still saying that your organization was quite unconcerned in
reporting back information of military importance?
BOHLE: Just how do you mean, “reporting back”?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Are you telling the Tribunal—I want you to be
quite clear—are you telling the Tribunal that your organization was not
being used for espionage purposes in Spain?
BOHLE: Yes indeed, I am asserting that. A distinction must be made
between certain members of the Auslands-Organisation who naturally
without my knowledge—I protested against this often enough—were used
abroad for such purposes. I had no objection to Germans abroad being
utilized in time of war for such tasks, as was the case very frequently
with all other countries. However, I did not want members or officials
of the Auslands-Organisation to become involved. A distinction must...
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I do not want to stop you at all. I do not want
to stop you. Go on if you have anything to say. But, in the interest of
time, try and make it as short as possible.
BOHLE: It seems to me there is some confusion between the
Auslands-Organisation as an organization and what certain Germans abroad
did during the war as their patriotic duty. This seems to me to be the
crucial point of the question.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Well, I will not argue about that. We see that
your organization took sufficient interest to reproduce accounts of what
they were doing in its official book. I just want to show you one thing
further.
[_Turning to the President._] Well, I have one further document to put
to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may as well go on.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is a document which I have just had found. I
have not had them copied. The Tribunal will forgive me if I read
extracts from them?
[_Turning to the witness._] It is an original document you hold in your
hand and it appears to be, does it not, a carbon copy of a letter
from...
THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Seidl got one?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Yes, he has one in German.
[_Turning to the witness._] Is that a letter from your
Landesgruppenleiter Konradi?
BOHLE: It seems to be a directive from Konradi, but not signed by him.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If you will look at the end of the letter you
will see that it is actually signed “Konradi,” after the usual “Heil
Hitler”...
BOHLE: The copy that I have is not signed.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you get that copy back? Perhaps these
documents...
[_The document was taken from the witness to Lt. Col. Griffith-Jones._]
It is in fact signed “Konradi.” Show it to him.
[_The document was returned to the witness._]
BOHLE: It is not signed by Konradi, but typed in.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am very much obliged to you. It is my fault
for not making myself clear. I told you that we have here a carbon copy.
A copy of a letter which was signed and sent by Konradi. That appears to
be so, does it not?
BOHLE: That I do not know, for of course I do not know about all the
letters written by Konradi.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You can take it, so far as you are concerned,
that that is a German document which has been captured, that it is this
bit of paper that you are holding in your hand which was found by Allied
troops and that bears a typewritten signature of Konradi, who was your
Landesgruppenleiter in Romania; is that correct? You remember that you
had a Landesgruppenleiter in Romania?
BOHLE: His name was Konradi.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And is this a letter of instructions to the
Zellenleiter in Constantsa?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is dated the 25th of October 1939. Will you
read the first paragraph?
“From 9 to 12 October conferences took place with the Supreme
Party functionaries, or their deputies, of the Southeastern and
Southern European groups at the head office of the
Auslands-Organisation.”
Does that mean Berlin?
BOHLE: Yes. Berlin.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That means your office, does it not?
BOHLE: Yes, in my office, but not in my personal office.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: No, but is it in the office over which you had
complete control?
BOHLE: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Agreed. I imagine, before we go on, that no
orders would be issued from your head office at a conference of that
kind which were contrary to your direction, would they?
BOHLE: Not on important things, naturally not.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am much obliged to you.
“I subsequently received direct instructions from the competent
department of the head office of the Auslands-Organisation.”
So it appears that the direction given at the conference was confirmed
in writing.
“During the war, every National Socialist abroad must directly
serve the fatherland, either through propaganda for the German
cause or by counteracting enemy measures.”
Now perhaps you will turn over, or rather, you will miss out—I am
reading from copy—the English, the next paragraph, and the next plus
one paragraph, and go on to the paragraph commencing:
“As everywhere else it is extremely important to know where the
enemy is and what he is doing...”
I want you to be quite clear about this and keep it in mind. These are
directions coming directly from your head office in Berlin.
“It has been ascertained that the I.S. (Intelligence Service)
has attempted, sometimes most successfully, to gain admittance
for seemingly trustworthy persons into the activities of the
Party group and its associate organizations. It is therefore
necessary that you thoroughly investigate not only all those
persons coming into contact with you who are not very well known
to you, and above all you must scrutinize any new persons and
visitors appearing in your immediate vicinity. If possible, let
them be taken in hand by a comrade whose absolute Nazi
convictions are not generally known to the man in the
street....”