in the time from 1936 until 1943, made no expenditures for
racial-political education; in 1944 there was an entry of 20 marks under
the heading of racial-political education for the acquisition of a
picture book about hereditary and venereal diseases. However, in that
same district, in one single town, during the same time, 200,000 marks
were given to have youth visit the theaters.
The question concerning premilitary or military education cannot be
answered by me without describing small-caliber shooting practice.
Small-caliber firing was a sport among the German youth. It was
practiced on the lines laid down in the international rules for sport
shooting. Small-caliber shooting, according to Article 177 of the Treaty
of Versailles, was not prohibited. It states expressly in that article
of the treaty that rifle clubs, sporting, and hiking organizations are
forbidden to train their members in the handling and use of war weapons.
The small-caliber rifle, however, is not a war weapon. For our sport
shooting we used a rifle similar to the American 22-caliber. It was used
with the 22-caliber Flobert cartridge for short or long distance.
I should like to say here that our entire marksmanship training and
other so-called premilitary training have been collected in a manual
entitled “HJ Service.” That book was printed and sold not only in
Germany but was also available abroad.
The British Board of Education in 1938 passed judgment on that book, in
the educational pamphlet, Number 109. With the permission of the
Tribunal, I should like to quote briefly what was said about it in this
educational pamphlet. I quote in English:
“It cannot fairly be said to be in essence a more militaristic
work than any thoroughgoing, exhaustive, and comprehensive
manual of Boy Scout training would be. Some forty pages are, to
be sure, devoted to the theory and practice of shooting
small-bore rifle and air gun, but there is nothing in them to
which exception can reasonably be taken, and the worst that one
can say of them is that they may be confidently recommended to
the notice of any Boy Scout wishing to qualify for his
marksmanship badge.”
As to the mental attitude of the Hitler Youth, I can only say that it
was definitely not militaristic.
DR. SAUTER: We will perhaps come back to that later with another
question. You say the Hitler Youth had been trained with Flobert rifles,
or small-caliber rifles, as they are also called. Was the Hitler Youth
also trained with infantry rifles, or even machine guns or machine
pistols?
VON SCHIRACH: Certainly not.
DR. SAUTER: Not at all?
VON SCHIRACH: Not a single German boy, until the war, had been trained
with a war weapon, a military weapon, be it an infantry rifle, machine
gun, or infantry gun; nor with hand grenades in any form.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in the document book Schirach are several
documents which will show that the attitude of the Defendant Von
Schirach concerning the question of military or premilitary education of
the Hitler Youth was exactly the same as he has stated it today,
particularly, that he expressed himself against any military drill,
barracks language, and all such things.
These are mainly documents in the document book Schirach: 55, then 122,
123, 127, 127a, 128, and 131. I ask you to take judicial notice of these
documents. They contain, on the whole, the same statements which Herr
Schirach has made briefly already.
Herr Von Schirach, in connection with the so-called military training of
the youth, I should like to know what influence the SA had on the
training of youth?
VON SCHIRACH: None at all. The SA tried to have an influence on the
education and training of youth.
DR. SAUTER: In what way?
VON SCHIRACH: It was in January of 1939. At that time I was in Dresden,
where I arranged a performance which presented modern gymnastics for
girls. I still remember it distinctly. While I was there, a newspaper
was shown to me which carried a decree by Hitler, according to which the
two oldest age groups of the Hitler Youth were to receive premilitary
training from the SA. I protested against that at once and after my
return to Berlin I succeeded not in having the decree withdrawn for that
could not be done for reasons of prestige since Hitler’s name was on
it—but invalidated as far as the youth were concerned.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, that incident is contained in a document in
the document book Schirach, Number Schirach-132. That is a statement
from _Das Archiv_, a semiofficial news periodical. I should like to
refer to that as evidence; and in regard to the question of training in
shooting I should like to ask the defendant one more question.
What part of the entire training did the shooting practice have in the
HJ? Was it a very essential part or the essential part?
VON SCHIRACH: Unfortunately, I do not have the documentary material here
which would enable me to answer that exactly. But at any rate, it was
not an essential part of the training in the HJ.
DR. SAUTER: Did that marksmanship training go any further, according to
your experiences and observations, than the marksmanship training of
youth in other nations?
VON SCHIRACH: The marksmanship training of youth in other nations went
much further, much beyond that which we had in Germany.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know that from your own observation?
VON SCHIRACH: I know that from many of my assistants who constantly made
a detailed study of the training in other countries, and I know about it
from my own observation.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think that is relevant, the fact that other
nations trained in marksmanship? I am not sure it is true either, but
anyhow, it is not relevant.
DR. SAUTER: Then I come to another question, Witness. The Prosecution
have asserted and I quote:
“...that thousands of boys were trained militarily by the HJ in
the work of the Navy, of the naval aviation and of the armored
troops, and that over seven thousand teachers trained over a
million Hitler Youth in rifle marksmanship.”
That is the citation of the Prosecution referring to some meeting of the
year 1938. I should like to have you state your position with regard to
the question here, the question of the special units of the Hitler
Youth.
VON SCHIRACH: The Prosecution refers, if I am not mistaken, to a speech
which Hitler made. How Hitler arrived at the figures concerning
training, I cannot say. Concerning training in the special units I can
only say, and prove with documents, the following:
In the year 1938 the motorized Hitler Youth—that is that special unit
of our youth organization which the Prosecution think received
preliminary training in the tank branch—in 1938 the motorized Hitler
Youth had 328 vehicles of their own.
DR. SAUTER: In all Germany?
VON SCHIRACH: In all Germany. There were 3,270 private cars of their
family members which, of course, were at their disposal for their work;
and 2,000 cars of the NSKK (National Socialist Motor Corps). In the year
1938 21,000 youth got their driving licenses. I believe, but I cannot be
sure about it, that that is twice the number of youngsters that received
a driving license in 1937—that is, the driving license for a passenger
car. These figures alone show that the motorized Hitler Youth did not
receive preliminary training for our armored forces. The motorized
Hitler Youth had motorcycles; they made cross-country trips. That is
correct. What they learned in this way was, of course, useful for the
Army too, when these boys later were drafted into the motorized units;
but it was not true that the boy who had been in the motorized Hitler
Youth went to the Army. There was no compulsion in that respect at all.
The motorized Hitler Youth was not created upon the request of the
Wehrmacht, but it was already created in the fighting years—long before
the seizure of power, simply from the natural desire of the boys who
owned a motorcycle and wanted to drive it. So we formed our motorized
HJ; we used these boys as messengers between tent camps and we used them
as drivers for our minor leaders, and later, in order to give them a
regular training, especially knowledge of motors, of engines, we made an
arrangement with the NSKK, which had motor schools and could train the
boys.
Other units were created in the same way. The Flieger HJ, for example,
never had any airplanes. We had only gliders. The entire Hitler Youth
had but one airplane and that was my own, a small Klemm machine. Aside
from that, the Hitler Youth had only model airplanes and gliders. The
Hitler Youth not only taught their own members the use of gliders in the
Rhön Hills and elsewhere, but also thousands of youth from England and
other countries. We had glider camps where young Englishmen were our
guests and we even had camps in England.
DR. SAUTER: The Navy HJ, did they perhaps have warships?
VON SCHIRACH: The Navy HJ, of course, had not a single warship, but from
time to time our former Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Raeder, kindly
gave us an old cutter and with that we put to sea.
The boys, for instance, who lived in a city like Berlin, near the
Wannsee, and did some rowing, became members of the Navy HJ. When
entering the Wehrmacht they did not, just because they had been in the
Navy HJ, go into the Navy, but just as many went afterwards into the
Army or the Air Force, and it was the same with other special units.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you say therefore that in your opinion the Hitler
Youth was not educated in a military way for the war?
VON SCHIRACH: I should like to be quite precise about that. The training
in these special units was carried out in such a manner that it really
had a premilitary value. That is to say that whatever the boy learned in
the Navy Hitler Jugend, regardless of whether he wanted to use it only
as a sportsman later, or whether he actually went into the Navy, the
basic principles were valuable as premilitary education. If one
considers these special units of the HJ, one can establish that here a
premilitary education actually took place, but not a military training.
The youth were not prepared for the war in any place in the HJ; they
were not even prepared for the military service, because the youth did
not go direct from the Hitler Youth into the Army. From the Hitler Youth
they went into the Labor Service.
DR. SAUTER: And how long were they in the Labor Service?
VON SCHIRACH: Half a year.
DR. SAUTER: And only then did they get to the Wehrmacht?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: In that connection, however, the Prosecution has used an
agreement which was made between the HJ leadership and the OKW in August
1939, and which has been submitted as Document 2398-PS by the
Prosecution. What are the facts about that agreement between you and the
OKW?
VON SCHIRACH: I cannot remember any details. Between Field Marshal
Keitel and myself, according to my recollection, there was no discussion
concerning that agreement, but I believe we arranged that by
correspondence. And I should just like to state that during the entire
time from 1933 to 1945, only one or two conversations of about half an
hour took place between Field Marshal Keitel and me. The agreement,
however, resulted from the following considerations: We endeavored in
the Hitler Youth, and it was also the endeavor of the leading men in the
Wehrmacht, to take nothing into our training which belonged to the later
military training. However, in the course of time, the objection was
raised on the part of the military, that youth should not learn anything
in its training which later would have to be corrected in the Wehrmacht.
I am thinking, for instance, of the compass. The Army used the infantry
compass; the Hitler Youth, in cross-country sports, used compasses of
various kinds. It was, of course, quite senseless that youth leaders
should train their boys, for instance, to march according to the Bèzar
compass if later, in their training as recruits, the boys had to learn
something different. The designation and the description of the terrain
should also be given according to the same principles in the Hitler
Youth as in the Army, and so this agreement was made by which, I
believe, thirty or sixty thousand HJ leaders were trained in
cross-country sports. In these cross-country sports no training with war
weapons was practiced.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, now I come to another chapter. It may be that
this is the best time to adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
[_The Defendant Von Schirach resumed the stand._]
DR. SAUTER: Witness, before the adjournment we spoke about the question
of the military or premilitary education of the youth. And now I come to
a similar chapter; that is the question of whether you, as Youth Leader,
in your articles, speeches, and orders did in any way attempt to
influence young people psychologically towards an aggressive war in
order to make them war-minded by such means.
VON SCHIRACH: No, never in my speeches to German youth, or in anything
which I laid down for youth in the way of orders and directives, did I
prepare German youth for war; nor have I ever, even in the smallest
circle of my collaborators, expressed myself in such terms. All my
speeches are contained in the collection _Das Archiv_, at least their
essential contents. A considerable part of my speeches is collected also
in a book _Revolution der Erziehung_ (_The Revolution in Education_),
which has been submitted to the Tribunal.
All this evidence shows that I never spoke to the youth of the country
in that sense; it would have been in direct contradiction to all my aims
of co-operation with the youth of other nations.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, perhaps I may draw your attention in this
connection to the document which is in the Schirach document book under
Number Schirach-125, I repeat 125—and also 126, where Schirach
expresses his opinion about the question of preserving peace and
rejecting war. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these
documents as evidence.
Witness, you have just spoken of co-operation between your Reich Youth
Leadership Office and the German Hitler Youth with the youth of other
nations. Could you give us a more detailed statement on that, in
particular which youth associations of other nations you co-operated
with, which you attempted to approach, and in which way and to what
degree?
VON SCHIRACH: Starting in 1933, and in an increasing degree year by
year, I made efforts to bring about exchange camps with youth
organizations in other countries. Here in Germany these groups of
English youth, French youth, Belgian youth, and the youth of many other
countries, particularly, of course, from Italy, often came as our
guests. I remember that in one year alone, I think in 1936, there were
approximately 200,000 foreign youths who stayed overnight in our youth
hostels.
Perhaps it is important in this connection to say that the youth hostel
system, which I took over in 1933, was developed by me and finally
formed a part of an international youth hostel system, the president of
which was sometimes a German, sometimes an Englishman. An international
youth hostel agreement made it possible that youngsters of our nations
could stay overnight in youth hostels of the guest nations.
I myself took great pains to bring about an understanding with the youth
of France. I must say that this was a pet idea of mine. I think that my
former assistants will remember just how intensely I worked towards the
realization of that idea. I had my leaders’ periodical appear in the
French language; I do not know whether more than once, but certainly at
least once, so that the understanding between the French and the German
youth could be strengthened thereby.
I went to Paris and I invited the children of one thousand veterans of
the first World War to come to Germany. I very often had young French
guests as visitors in Germany. But over and above this understanding
with France, which eventually also led to difficulties between the
Führer and myself, I co-operated with many, many other organizations.
Perhaps I may add that German-French co-operation, as far as youth was
concerned, was supported particularly by Ambassador Poncet in Berlin,
Premier Chautemps, and other French personalities who wrote in my
leadership periodical on that particular subject. I exchanged views with
youth leaders all over the world, and I myself undertook long journeys
to visit youth organizations in other countries and establish contact
with them. The war terminated that work. I do not want to omit
mentioning here that for one whole year I put the entire youth program
under the slogan “Understanding,” and that in all my speeches before the
youth I tried to direct and educate it toward a better understanding of
other nations.
DR. SAUTER: Is it true that, for instance, even during the last years
before the war, I think even in the winter of 1937-1938 and again
1938-1939, you received large delegations of English youth in skiing
camps of the Hitler Youth and that vice versa also during those years
considerable delegations of Hitler Youth leaders and Hitler Youth
members were sent to England so that the people could get to know and
understand each other?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, that is correct. There were innumerable encampments
of foreign youth in Germany and very many camps of German youth abroad,
and I myself often visited such camps or received delegations from them.
I would like to add that as late as 1942 I made an attempt to co-operate
with the youth of France. At that time the difficulty lay in Mussolini’s
attitude. I went to Rome and, through Count Ciano’s intervention, had a
long conversation with Mussolini and succeeded in having him withdraw
his objections to having our youth invite all French groups to come to
Germany.
Unfortunately, when I reported this result to our Foreign Minister,
Hitler turned it down. At any rate, that is what Herr Von Ribbentrop
said.
DR. SAUTER: From an article in the paper _Das Archiv_ of 1938 I gather,
for instance, that during that year you invited among others, 1,000
children of French war veterans to come into the Hitler Youth camps in
Germany and into the German-French youth skiing camps. Is that correct?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I have already told you that.
DR. SAUTER: Another article shows me that, for instance, I believe in
1939, you had a special memorial erected, I think in the Black Forest,
when some members of an English youth delegation were accidentally
killed there during games.
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the defendant had mentioned earlier that near
Berlin he erected a special house for these purposes under the name “The
Foreign House of the Hitler Youth.” May I present to the Tribunal in the
original, pictures of this “Foreign House,” as Document Number
Schirach-120; and may I ask the Tribunal to look at these pictures,
because in them...
THE PRESIDENT: We are quite prepared to take it from you without looking
at the house. The particular style of architecture will not affect us.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, but if you will not look at the pictures, then you will
not know how the house was furnished; and you will not see that in the
house, for instance, there was not a single swastika, not a single
picture of Hitler, or any such things. That, again shows considerations
for the views of the foreign guests.
In this connection, Mr. President, may I also ask you to take judicial
notice of a number of documents, all of which refer to the efforts of
the Defendant Von Schirach to bring about an understanding between
German youth and the youth of other nations. These are the documents in
Schirach’s document book which have the Numbers Schirach-99 up to and
including Schirach-107, then Documents Schirach-108 through 113, and
also Documents Schirach-114 up to and including 116, and then Documents
Schirach-117, 119, and 120. All these documents refer to the same
subject.
Witness, when you invited such delegations from foreign youth
organizations to Germany, was anything concerning German institutions
and organizations, particularly with reference to the Hitler Youth, ever
kept secret from these delegations, or how was that?
VON SCHIRACH: No, as a matter of principle, foreign youth leaders who
wished to get to know our institutions were shown everything without any
reservations whatever. There was, in fact, no institution of German
youth in the past which was not shown to our foreign guests. Also the
so-called premilitary education was demonstrated to them in every
detail.
DR. SAUTER: And then in 1939 the second World War broke out. During the
last months before that happened, did you seriously expect a war; or
with what did you occupy yourself at the time?
VON SCHIRACH: I was firmly convinced that Hitler would not allow a war
to break out. It was my opinion that he was in no way deceived about the
fact that the Western Powers were firmly resolved to be serious. Until
the day when war broke out, I firmly believed that the war could be
avoided.
DR. SAUTER: Did you discuss with military leaders or political
personalities at that time the danger of war and the prospects of
maintaining the peace?
VON SCHIRACH: No; in fact, I want to say something here and now about my
discussions with military personalities.
I have already stated that over a period of 12 years—that is from 1933
to 1944 or 1945; that is, 13 years—I had perhaps one or possibly two
half-hour conversations with Field Marshal Keitel. I remember that one
of them dealt entirely with a personal matter.
During the same period I had, I think, only one single discussion with
Admiral Raeder, and Admiral Dönitz I met for the first time here in
Nuremberg.
I never had any official discussions with Generaloberst Jodl at all, and
I talked to the late Field Marshal Von Blomberg, if I remember rightly,
possibly twice for half an hour. I had no official discussions at all
with the former Supreme Commander of the Army, Von Fritsch. I was his
guest on one occasion only, when he was running skiing competitions for
the army, and he kindly invited me because he knew that I was interested
in skiing.
With his successor, Von Brauchitsch, I had a general chat on questions
of education when I talked before the youth of Königsberg in 1933.
Later, I believe, I visited him once on official business; and we
discussed a question which was of no particular importance for the
education of youth. It was some technical matter.
These are the discussions which I have had with military personalities.
In fact, altogether I must say that I did not have time for conferences.
I led an organization comprising 8 million people; and my duties in that
organization were such that I did not possibly have the time to
participate in conferences and discussions in Berlin regarding the
situation, even if I had been admitted to them, which was not the case.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, from 1932 you were a Reichsleiter. That means that
you belonged to the highest level of leaders in the Party. Were you not,
in that capacity as Reichsleiter, informed by Hitler, his deputy, or
other political personalities about the political situation?
VON SCHIRACH: I think that Hitler invited the Reichs- and Gauleiter, on
an average, twice a year to a conference, during which he
retrospectively discussed political events. Never at any time did Hitler
discuss before these men operations of the future, whether of a
political or military nature.
DR. SAUTER: Then, if I understand your answer correctly, you were always
surprised by these foreign developments.
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Does the same apply to the question of the Austrian
Anschluss?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I heard of the Anschluss of Austria, which of course
I hailed enthusiastically, through the radio, if I remember rightly,
during a trip by car from my Academy at Brunswick to Berlin. I continued
my journey to Berlin, boarded a train at once, and arrived the following
morning in Vienna. There I greeted the young people: youth leaders, some
of whom had been in prisons or in a concentration camp at Wöllersdorf
for a long time, and also many women youth leaders, who had also
experienced great hardships.
DR. SAUTER: And what about the march into Czechoslovakia?
VON SCHIRACH: Like every other German citizen, I heard of that through
the radio, and did not learn any more than any other citizen learned
from the radio.
DR. SAUTER: Were you, in any capacity, a participant in the negotiations
regarding the Munich Pact with Chamberlain and Daladier in 1938?
VON SCHIRACH: No.
DR. SAUTER: And what was your opinion?
VON SCHIRACH: I regarded that agreement as the basis for peace, and it
was my firm conviction that Hitler would keep that agreement.
DR. SAUTER: Did you know anything about the negotiations with Poland in
1939?
VON SCHIRACH: No, I heard about the negotiations which led to the war,
only here in this courtroom. I was merely acquainted with that version
of the negotiations which was officially announced through the radio or
by the Ministry of Propaganda; and I know no more, therefore, than what
every other German citizen knows. The version which Hitler announced
before the Reichstag was considered by me to be absolutely true; and I
never doubted it, or at least I did not doubt it until about 1943, and
all I have heard about it here is new to me.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Prosecution, among other things, have made the
accusation against you that in your book, _Die Hitler-jugend—Idee und
Gestalt_ (_Hitler Youth—Idea and Form_)—which, Mr. President, is
Number 1458-PS—you used the expression “Lebensraum” (living space) and
“Ostraum” (eastern space) and that by doing so you welcomed or
considered as a necessity German conquests in the East, that is, at the
expense of Soviet Russia and Poland.
What do you have to say about that?
VON SCHIRACH: In this book of mine, _Die Hitler-jugend—Idee und
Gestalt_, the word “Lebensraum” (living space) is not used at all to my
knowledge. Only the word “Ostraum” (eastern space) is used, and I think
it is in connection with a press service in the East. In a footnote, in
connection with a description of the tasks of the Colonial Advisory
Board in the Reich Youth Leadership, there is a statement to the effect
that, as a result of the activities of this Colonial Advisory Board the
necessity of drawing the attention of youth to the exploitation of the
eastern territory—and by that is meant the thinly populated eastern
area of Germany—should not be overlooked.
That was at a time when we in the youth organizations were particularly
concerned with the problem of the “flight from the land,” that is to
say, the migration of the second or third sons of farmers to the cities.
I formed a special movement of youth to combat that trend, the Rural
Service, which had the task of stopping this flow of youth from the
country to the towns and also of bringing home to youth in towns the
challenge of the country.
Of course I never thought of a conquest of Russian territory because
ever since I occupied myself with history it was always my point of view
politically that the policy regarding mutual security with Russia, which
broke off with Bismarck’s dismissal, should be resumed. I considered the
attack against the Soviet Union as the suicide of the German nation.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, did you, as the Youth Leader of the German Reich,
have the right to report to Hitler directly?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, that is true; but this right to make reports was more
or less only on paper. To picture that precisely, before the seizure of
power I frequently reported to Hitler in person. In 1932 he quite often
announced his intention to dine with me in the evening, but it is clear
that in the presence of my wife and other guests political questions
were not discussed, particularly not the questions which fell into my
special sphere. Only now and then, perhaps, could I touch upon a subject
which interested me in connection with education.
In 1933, as far as I can remember, I reported twice to him personally,
once regarding the financing of the youth movement, and the second time
in connection with the Party Rally of 1933. During the following years
my reports averaged one or two a year whereby I was treated in the same
way as most people who reported to Hitler. Of the 15 odd points on which
I wanted to report to him, I managed to deal with 3 or 4, and the others
had to be dropped because he interrupted me and very explicitly
elaborated on the things which interested him most.
I then tried to help myself by taking along models of youth buildings,
views of the big stadiums and of youth hostels, which I had set up in a
hall in the Reich Chancellery, and when he looked at them I used the
opportunity to put two or three questions to him.
I must state here—I think I owe it to German youth—that Hitler took
very little interest in educational questions. As far as education was
concerned, I received next to no suggestions from him. The only time
when he did make a real suggestion as far as athletic training was
concerned was in 1935, I believe, when he told me that I should see to
it that boxing should become more widespread among youth. I did so, but
he never attended a youth boxing match. My friend Von Tschammer-Osten,
the Reich Sports Leader, and I tried very often to persuade him to go to
other sporting events, particularly to skiing contests and ice hockey
championships in Garmisch, but apart from the Olympic Games, it was
impossible to get him to attend.
DR. SAUTER: You have told us a little earlier about this so-called
military or premilitary education, stating that, as far as one could
talk about such education at all, it played only a minor part in the
training of the Hitler Youth.
May I ask you to tell us, though not at length but only in condensed
phrases, what, in your mind, were the chief aims of your youth education
program. Be very brief.
VON SCHIRACH: Tent encampments.
DR. SAUTER: Tent encampments?
VON SCHIRACH: Trips, construction of youth hostels and youth homes.
DR. SAUTER: What do you mean by “trips”?
VON SCHIRACH: Youth hikes, individually and in groups; also the
construction of more and more youth hostels. In one year alone, more
than 1,000 homes and youth hostels were built by me in Germany. Then
there was additional professional training, and then what I called the
“Labor Olympics,” namely, the annual Reich trade contests, voluntary
competition between all youth of both sexes who wanted to participate.
In fact millions participated. Then our great Reich sports contests,
championships in every type of sport, our cultural work, and the
development of our singing groups, our acting groups, youth concert
choirs, and the development of our youth libraries, and then something
which I mentioned in connection with combating the migration from the
country, the Rural Service with its rural help groups, those youths, who
for idealistic reasons were working in the country, even town boys—to
show the farmer boys that the country was really more beautiful than the
city, that even a city boy will give up his life in the city temporarily
to devote himself to the land and to tilling the soil. Then, as a great
communal accomplishment of youth, I must mention the dental improvement
and the regular medical examinations.
These, in a few summary words, were the main tasks which our youth
organizations had, but they are by no means all.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, these ideas, these thoughts, and these aims
of the Defendant Von Schirach are contained in a number of documents
which are found in the Schirach document book, and which are extracts
from his works, speeches, and orders. I am referring to Schirach
document book, Numbers Schirach-32 through 39, 44 through 50, 66 through
74(a), 76 through 79, and, finally, 80 through 83.
All these documents deal with the tasks which the Defendant Schirach has
just described to you, and I am asking the Tribunal to take judicial
notice of the details in these documents.
[_Turning to the defendant._] There is only one point of that Hitler
Youth program, if I may call it that, with which I would like to deal,
because it has been particularly stressed against you in the Indictment.
That is your collaboration with the Lawyers’ League, that is to say,
your occupation with law. In that connection I would like to know why
you, the Reich Youth Leader, were interested in legal problems at all.
What were you striving for, and what did you achieve? Please, will you
tell us that briefly, because it has been emphasized in the Indictment.
VON SCHIRACH: May I remind you that the youth of the state was regarded
by me as being a Youth State. In that Youth State all professions and
all tasks were represented. My collaboration with the Lawyers’ League
was due to the necessity of training legal advisers for our working
youth whom they could offer the necessary legal protection. I was
anxious that those Hitler Youth leaders who were studying law should
return to the organization to deal with just such tasks within the
organization.
From this type of training a large organization developed within the
ranks of youth which was equivalent to the organization of doctors
within the youth organization; our medical organization comprised
approximately 1,000 doctors, men and women. These legal men assisted the
staff, in the districts and other units of our youth organization,
putting into practice those demands which I had first enunciated early
in our fighting days, before the seizure of power, and which I had
championed in the State later on, namely, the demand for free time and
paid vacations for the young worker.
This legal work of our youth led to the founding of seminars for Youth
Law and Working Youth Law, _et cetera_, attached to the universities at
Kiel and Bonn. In particular it had the result that those demands which
I voiced in a speech in 1936, before the Committee for Juvenile Law of
the Academy for German Law, could be carried through.
DR. SAUTER: Just one moment.
[_Turning to the Tribunal._] This is the speech of which excerpts are
reproduced, in Schirach document book, Number Schirach-63. It is copied
from _Das Archiv_ of October 1936.
Herr Von Schirach, perhaps you can tell us very briefly which social
demands you, as Reich Youth Leader, made regarding youth. You said
earlier, “free time.” What did you mean by that?
VON SCHIRACH: In the first place, a shortening of working hours for
young people, the abolition of night work for young people, a
fundamental prohibition of child labor, extended weekends, and 3 weeks’
paid vacation every year.
In 1937 at Liegnitz I noticed that at that time 50 percent of the young
workers had no holidays at all and that only 1 percent had 15 to 18 days
per annum. In 1938, on the other hand, I had put through the Youth
Protection Law which prohibited child labor, raised the age of
protection for juveniles from 16 to 18 years, prohibited night work, and
realized my demand regarding the extended weekend, at the same time
stipulating at least 15 days’ vacation annually for youngsters. That was
all I could achieve. It was only part of what I wanted to achieve.
DR. SAUTER: These are the demands which are contained in the following
documents in the document book: Schirach-40 to 41 and 60 to 64. I ask
the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these.
Witness, I now come to another problem, and that is your position within
the Party. Some time ago we were shown a chart here giving a clear
picture of the organization of the Party. Was that plan correct, or what
was your position within the Party?
VON SCHIRACH: My position in the Party was not correctly depicted in
that chart, at least not as far as the channels of command are
concerned. According to the chart which was exhibited here, the channel
of command would have been from the Reich Leader for Youth Education to
the Chief of the Party Chancellery, and from there to Hitler and from
Hitler to the Reich Youth Leadership Office of the Party. That, of
course, is an erroneous picture.
I was not in the Party Directorate to give my orders via the Gauleiter
to the district leaders but as the representative and head of the youth
movement, so that if you want to describe my position and the position
of my organization in the framework of the NSDAP correctly, you would
actually have to draw a pyramid, the apex of which, that is to say my
position in the Party Directorate, would be above the Reichsleiter. I
was the only person in the youth movement who was connected with the
Party.
DR. SAUTER: And the other leaders and subleaders of the youth movement?
VON SCHIRACH: Some of them may have been Party members, but not all. At
any rate, they were not members of the Gauleitung or Kreisleitung. The
entire staff of the youth movement, the entire youth organization, stood
alongside the Party as a unit.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, as the Youth Leader of the German Reich, were you a
civil servant?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And from 1 December 1936, I believe, you were the chief of a
high Reich office?
VON SCHIRACH: I was a civil servant only from 1 December 1936.
DR. SAUTER: With the title?
VON SCHIRACH: Youth Leader of the German Reich.
DR. SAUTER: As the chief of a high Reich office, were you actually
independent of the Minister of the Interior and the Minister for
Education?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, that was, after all, the purpose of creating an
independent Reich office.
DR. SAUTER: Did you thereby become a member of the Reich Cabinet, as has
been claimed?
VON SCHIRACH: I am sure I did not. I heard here for the first time that
I was supposed to have been a member of the Cabinet. I never
participated in a Cabinet meeting. I never received a decree or anything
of the sort which would have made me a member of the Cabinet. I never
received invitations to attend Cabinet meetings. I never considered
myself a member of the Cabinet, and I believe that the Ministers did not
consider me a member either.
DR. SAUTER: Were you in any way informed of the resolutions passed by
the Reich Cabinet, for instance, by having the minutes of the meetings
sent to you?
VON SCHIRACH: No. Resolutions passed by the Reich Cabinet, insofar as
any were passed after 1 December 1936, only came to my attention in the
same way as they reached any other higher official or employee of the
Reich who read the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ or the _Reichsministerialblatt_.
Records and minutes: were never sent to me.
DR. SAUTER: When you became a high Reich authority, did you receive the
staff which you needed through a ministry, or how did you obtain that
staff for yourself?
VON SCHIRACH: A few youth leaders who had worked on my staff for a
number of years were made civil servants through me. I did not receive a
single official from any ministry to deal with matters relating to the
youth organization. The entire high Reich office, if I remember
correctly, consisted of no more than five officials. It was the smallest
of the high Reich offices, something I was particularly proud of. We
carried out a very large task with a minimum of personnel.
DR. SAUTER: And now, Witness, I want to come to a subject which is going
to be rather extensive and that is the affidavit by Gregor Ziemer, which
you have already mentioned. It is a very lengthy affidavit which has
been presented by the Prosecution under Document Number 2441-PS.
Witness, what do you have to say in detail with regard to that
affidavit? Do you know it? Do you know this man Gregor Ziemer?
VON SCHIRACH: No.
DR. SAUTER: Have you found out who he is and from where he gathered his
alleged knowledge?
VON SCHIRACH: I gather from the affidavit that Herr Ziemer before the
war was headmaster of the American school in Berlin and that he has
written a book which apparently deals with youth and school education in
Germany. This affidavit is an extract from that book.
The affidavit as such, if you regard it in its entirety, has, I believe,
more importance as propaganda than as an impartial judgment.
I want to start by quoting something from the very first page, which is
the page containing Ziemer’s affidavit, and in the last paragraph it
says that street fights took place outside the American school between
the Jewish children going to this school and the local youngsters. I
need not deal with the difficulties which the school itself had, because
that was not part of my department. But these street fights took place
outside the school, and I think I ought to say something about them. I
never heard anything about these clashes, but I should have heard about
them under all circumstances, because during most of 1938 I was in
Berlin. I should have heard of them first through the youth organization
itself, because the senior youth leaders would have been obliged to
report to me if such incidents had taken place.
Furthermore, I would have had to hear about it through the Foreign
Office, because if youngsters from the American colony had been
molested, protests would certainly have gone through the Embassy to the
Foreign Office, and these protests would without fail have been passed
on to me at once or reported to me by telephone.
I can only imagine that the whole affair is a very gross exaggeration.
The American Ambassador Wilson even had breakfast with me—I think in
the spring of 1939, and I do not think I am wrong about the date—in
Gatow.
DR. SAUTER: In the Foreign House?
VON SCHIRACH: In the Foreign House.
And we discussed a number of subjects privately. I believe that on that
occasion or afterwards he would most certainly have mentioned such
incidents if they had in reality occurred in the way Herr Ziemer
describes them.
DR. SAUTER: I believe I can go over to Page 2, where...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, how much of this document has been read by
the Prosecution? As far as I know, very little.
DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: How much of this affidavit has been read and put in
evidence by the Prosecution?
DR. SAUTER: I cannot tell you that offhand, Mr. President. But judging
by practice, I must assume that if a document is submitted to the
Tribunal, judicial notice of the entire document is taken by the
Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not so. We have stated over and over again that
we take only judicial notice on documents which have been read to the
Tribunal, unless they are documents of which full translations have been
given. This document was, I suppose, presented in the course of the
Prosecution’s case, and probably one sentence out of it was read at the
time. I do not know how much was read; but you and the defendant ought
to know.
MR. DODD: There was only one paragraph read, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: One paragraph?
MR. DODD: One full paragraph and perhaps one short one on Page 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have it here.
MR. DODD: I think the Prosecution covered the part having to do with the
speech at Heidelberg.
THE PRESIDENT: And that is the only part of it that has been read, and
that is, therefore, the only part of it that is in evidence.
VON SCHIRACH: Perhaps for the sake of credibility—and I shall not deal
in detail with the accusations contained in that affidavit—I might be
allowed to say, with one sole exception, all the annual slogans of the
Hitler Youth are reproduced falsely in this affidavit and that Gregor
Ziemer nevertheless swears to the correctness of his statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn’t it be the best, if you want to reply to his
affidavit, that you should direct the defendant’s attention to the part
which has been read? Then he can make an answer to that.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in Ziemer’s affidavit, which the defendant
has told me he regards as a clearly inflammatory piece of writing, the
annual slogans are mentioned which are supposed to have been issued by
the defendant, that is, the slogans for the work for the following year.
THE PRESIDENT: One passage of this document has been put in. If you want
to put in the rest, you are entitled to do so. But I should have thought
that it would have been the best way for you to answer the passage which
has been put in. The rest of the affidavit is not in evidence.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in that case my client would get the worst
end of the bargain, because in other passages which have not been used
by the Prosecution...
THE PRESIDENT: I said you could use the other passages if you want to.
DR. SAUTER: Certainly, but I want to prove that Herr Ziemer’s statements
are not correct; that is why I have just been discussing the question of
annual slogans with the defendant. This is only one example.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the defendant is apparently saying that the
affidavit is unreliable because of the slogans which are referred to in
it. Is that not sufficient for your purpose?
DR. SAUTER: Yes; but I intend to prove that Herr Ziemer’s statements are
untrue. The defendant maintains that the statements contained in that
affidavit are not true. But I am trying to prove to you that, in fact,
Herr Ziemer has deliberately stated and sworn to untruths.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Sauter, there being one passage in this
affidavit which is in evidence, you can deal very shortly with the
question of the credit of the person who made the affidavit.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, this Herr Ziemer, in his affidavit, has made
statements regarding the annual slogans...
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: ...which you issued for the Hitler Youth. How these annual
slogans were worded can be easily seen by the Tribunal from the
affidavit. I now ask you to tell us how the annual slogans of the Hitler
Youth were worded during your time; that is, 1933 to 1940.
VON SCHIRACH: Herr Ziemer mentions the slogan on Page 15 of the English
document. Herr Ziemer says that in 1933 the motto for German Youth had
been “One Reich, One Nation, One Führer.” He probably means “One People,
One Reich, One Führer.” Actually, the year 1933 was the year of “Unity.”
DR. SAUTER: What do you mean by “Unity”?
VON SCHIRACH: The year in which German youth joined ranks in one
organization.
DR. SAUTER: I want to skip a few years now and come to the year 1938.
What was your slogan for the Hitler Youth in 1938?
VON SCHIRACH: 1938 was the year of “Understanding.”
DR. SAUTER: The year of “Understanding”?
VON SCHIRACH: Herr Ziemer says the slogan was “Every Youth a Flyer.”
DR. SAUTER: And then in 1939 what was your slogan?
VON SCHIRACH: That was the year of “Duty Towards Health.”
DR. SAUTER: The year of “Duty Towards Health”?
VON SCHIRACH: According to Herr Ziemer, it was “Hitler Youth on the
March.”
DR. SAUTER: And finally 1940, your last year?
VON SCHIRACH: It was the year of “Instruction.” But he called it “We
March Against England.”
But I want to add that the first slogan, “One People, One Reich, One
Führer,” which Ziemer says was the official slogan of the year 1933 for
German youth, arose first in 1938 when Hitler went into Austria. Before
that, that slogan did not exist at all. It was never the annual slogan
of German youth.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, we must comply with the wish of the Tribunal and
not go into the affidavit of Ziemer any further, with the exception of
the one point which has been used by the Prosecution in the Indictment
against you in connection with the accusation of anti-Semitism. I skip
Herr Ziemer’s further statements and come to this speech at Heidelberg.
Will you tell me first of all, what Ziemer said, and then make your own
comments on that.
VON SCHIRACH: Ziemer said that during a meeting of students in
Heidelberg—I think either at the end of 1938 or the beginning of
1939—I had made a speech against the Jews in connection with a rally of
the National Socialist Student Union. He says that on that occasion I
praised the students for the destruction of the Heidelberg Synagogue,
and that following that I had the students file past me and gave them
decorations and certificates of promotion.
First of all, I have already referred to my activity in the student
movement. Upon the request of the Deputy of the Führer, Rudolf Hess, I
handed the leadership of the student movement over to him in 1934. He
then appointed a Reich student leader; and after that I did not speak at
any student meetings.
As far as I can remember, I visited Heidelberg during the summer of
1937; and there I spoke to the youth group. This was 1 or 1½ years
before Ziemer’s date. And on one occasion I attended a festival play at
Heidelberg.
DR. SAUTER: All of this is irrelevant.
VON SCHIRACH: I have no recollection of any meeting of this sort with
students, and I have no recollection of ever having publicly stated my
views about the Jewish pogrom of 1938. I will state at another point
what I said in my capacity as Youth Leader regarding this.
Ziemer says—I am translating from the English text—he says that “the
day will come when the students of Heidelberg will take up their place
side by side with the legions of other students to win the world over to
the National Socialist ideology.”
I have never spoken like that before youth, in public, or even in a
small circle. These are not my words; I did not say that. I had no
authority whatsoever to confer decorations or certificates, _et cetera_,
upon students. Medals of distinction for students did not exist. All
decorations were conferred by the head of the State.
I personally had the right to confer the golden youth decoration, and I
think it was conferred by me about 230 times in all, almost entirely
upon people who earned distinction in the field of education, but not
upon unknown students.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the important point in your testimony is to tell us
whether it is correct that the speech made at the end of 1938 before the
students at Heidelberg, in which the speaker referred to the wreckage of
the synagogues, was not made by you, because at that time you had not
had anything to do with the student movement for years. Is that correct?
VON SCHIRACH: I had nothing to do with the student movement, and I do
not remember having spoken before such a meeting. I consider it quite
out of the question that such a meeting of students took place at all. I
did not make those statements.
DR. SAUTER: Have you got the affidavit before you?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I cannot find that particular passage at the moment.
DR. SAUTER: It says something which I have translated into German,
namely, it mentions the “small, fat student leader.” Have you got that
passage? Does it not say so?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, it says so.
DR. SAUTER: Well then, surely “small, fat student leader” cannot be
applied to you.
May I, Mr. President, in this connection, draw your attention to an
affidavit which appears in Schirach’s document book under Number
Schirach-3, and which I herewith submit to the Tribunal. It is an
affidavit of a certain Hoepken, who, beginning with 1 May 1938, was the
female secretary of the Defendant Von Schirach and who, in this
affidavit under the Figure 16—which is Page 22 of the document
book—mentioning exact details—states under oath that during the time
with which we are here concerned the defendant was not at Heidelberg at
all.
I do not suppose it is necessary for me to read that part of the
affidavit. I am asking the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this would be a good time to break off.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you have spoken in another connection about the
fact that you did not consider officers suitable as youth leaders. I
would be interested to know how many members of the leadership corps of
the Hitler Youth in 1939 at the outbreak of the war were reserve
officers in the Armed Forces.
VON SCHIRACH: I would judge that the leadership corps of the HJ had
about 1,300 leaders. Those were leaders of the Banne, leaders of the
districts or regions, and the corresponding staff of assistants. Of
these 1,300 youth leaders, 5 to 10 men were reserve officers.
DR. SAUTER: And how many active officers did you have at that time on
your staff or in the leadership corps?
VON SCHIRACH: Active officers were not youth leaders and could not be
youth leaders.
DR. SAUTER: Why not? Was that contained in the regulations?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes. An officer was not permitted to be a member of the
Party or any one of its organs or affiliated organizations.
DR. SAUTER: Who was responsible to you for the physical education and
sports programs in the Hitler Youth?
VON SCHIRACH: Obergebietsführer Von Tschammer-Osten, who was also Reich
Sports Leader. In the Olympic year he co-operated very closely with me
and voluntarily subordinated himself to me in December or November 1936.
He was responsible to me for the entire physical education of the boys
and girls.
DR. SAUTER: This Herr Von Tschammer-Osten, who was very well known in
the international sports world, was he an officer by profession?
VON SCHIRACH: According to my recollection he had been an officer during
the first World War. Then he left the Army and was a farmer by
profession. Later on he concerned himself only with questions of
physical education and sport. One of his brothers was an active officer.
DR. SAUTER: Did Von Tschammer-Osten become an officer during the second
World War?
VON SCHIRACH: No, he did not.
DR. SAUTER: Do you remember that? A document has been submitted here by
the Soviet Prosecution, namely a report from Lvov, in which it is stated
that the Hitler Youth or the Reich Youth Leadership had conducted
courses for young people from Poland, and these young people were to be
trained as agents, spies, and parachutists. You have stated today that
you take the complete responsibility for the youth leadership. I ask you
to tell us something about that.
VON SCHIRACH: We had absolutely no possibilities for espionage training
in our youth organization. Whether Heydrich on his part, without my
knowledge and without the knowledge of my assistants, had hired youthful
agents in Poland and used them within his intelligence service, it is
not possible for me to say. I myself did not conduct any espionage
training; I had no courses for agents, and courses for training
parachutists were out of the question because, after all, I had no air
force. Training of that kind could only have been conducted through the
Air Force.
DR. SAUTER: Then you, as Reich Youth Leader or, as you were called
later, Reich Leader for Youth Education, have never known anything about
these things before this Trial? Can you state that under oath?
VON SCHIRACH: That I can state upon my oath. I should like to add that
shortly before the war young refugees from Poland came to us in large
numbers, but they of course could not return to Poland. The persecution
of the Germans in Poland is a historical fact.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Prosecution has asserted that in the Hitler
Youth a song was sung, “Heute gehört uns Deutschland, und morgen die
ganze Welt” (Today Germany belongs to us, tomorrow the whole world);
that is the alleged title of that song, and that is supposed to have
expressed the will for conquest of the Hitler Youth; is that correct?
VON SCHIRACH: The song says, in the original text which was written by
Hans Baumann and is also included in a document here: “Heute da hört uns
Deutschland und morgen die ganze Welt” (Germany hears us today and
tomorrow the whole world). But it had come to my knowledge also that the
song, from time to time, was being sung in the form which has been
mentioned here. For that reason I issued a prohibition against singing
the song which differed from the original text. I also prohibited, years
ago, the song “Siegreich wollen wir Frankreich schlagen” (Victoriously
we will conquer France) from being sung by the German Hitler Youth.
DR. SAUTER: You prohibited the last mentioned song entirely?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Out of consideration for your French guests?
VON SCHIRACH: Not out of consideration for guests but because it was
contrary to my political conceptions.
DR. SAUTER: Thus, Mr. President, I submit the correct text which I got
from a song book. It is Number Schirach-95 of the Schirach document
book.
In connection with the question of whether the Hitler Youth intended a
premilitary training of youth, I should like to put the following
additional questions. Did the physical and sport training of youth apply
only to the boys, Herr Von Schirach?
VON SCHIRACH: No. Of course all young people received physical training.
DR. SAUTER: Also the girls?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Is it correct that your efforts directed toward the physical
training and physical strengthening of youth also applied to the
physically handicapped and to the blind and other young people who from
the very outset could not be used for military purposes?
VON SCHIRACH: Very early in our work I included the blind and deaf and
the cripples in the Hitler Youth. I had a periodical especially issued
for the blind and had books made for them in Braille. I believe that the
Hitler Youth was the only organization in Germany which took care of
these people, except for special organizations of the NSV (National
Socialist Welfare Organization) and so on.
DR. SAUTER: I ask, in connection with that, Mr. President, that you take
notice of Document Schirach-27 of the Schirach document book. That is a
long article entitled “Admission of Physically Handicapped Young People
in the Hitler Youth,” where the deaf, dumb, and blind are especially
mentioned and their training to enable them to take up a professional
occupation.
MR. DODD: I have refrained all day from making any objection, but I
think this examination has gone very far afield. We have made no charge
against this defendant with respect to the blind, the deaf, the lame,
and halt. He keeps going way back to the Boy Scouts and we haven’t
gotten to any of the relevant issues that are between us and this
defendant. At the present rate I fear we will never get through.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we have listened to this somewhat long
account of the training of the Hitler Youth. Don’t you think you can go
on to something more specific now? We have got a very fair conception, I
think, of what the training of the Hitler Youth was; and we have got all
these documents before us.
DR. SAUTER: I shall try, Mr. President, to proceed according to your
wishes so far as it is at all possible.
Witness, is it correct that you personally intervened with Hitler to
prevent the re-establishment of cadet academies as institutions for
purely military training?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, that is correct. I prevented the re-establishment of
cadet academies.
DR. SAUTER: I come now to another chapter. The defendant has been
accused of wrecking the Protestant and Catholic youth organizations.
What can you say in answer to that?
VON SCHIRACH: First, the following: I wanted, as I have already
explained, the unification of all our youth. I also wanted to bring the
Protestant organizations, which were not very large numerically, and the
numerically very large Catholic organizations into the Hitler Youth,
particularly because some of the organizations did not limit themselves
to religious matters but competed with the Hitler Youth in physical
training, hikes, camping, and so on. In this I saw a danger to the idea
of unity in German national education, and above all I felt that among
young people themselves there was a very strong tendency toward the
Hitler Youth. The desertion from the confessional organizations is a
fact. There were also many clergymen who were of the opinion that the
development should perhaps take the following direction: All youth into
the Hitler Youth; the religious care of the youth through clergymen;
sports and political work through youth leaders.
In 1933 or 1934—but I think it was as early as 1933—Reich Bishop
Müller and the Protestant Bishop Oberheidt approached me on their own
initiative and proposed that I incorporate the Protestant youth
organizations into the Hitler Youth. Of course I was very happy about
that proposal and accepted it. At that time I had no idea that there was
opposition to Reich Bishop Müller within the Protestant Church. I found
out about that only much later. I believed that I was acting with the
authority and in the name of the Evangelical Church, and the other
bishop who accompanied him further strengthened this belief of mine.
Even today I still believe that with the voluntary incorporation of the
Protestant youth into the Youth State, Müller acted in accordance with
the will of the majority of the Protestant youth themselves; and in my
later activity as Youth Leader I frequently met former leaders from the
Protestant youth organizations, who had leading positions with me and
worked in my youth organization with great enthusiasm and devotion.
Through that incorporation of Protestant youth—I should like to stress
this—spiritual ministration to youth was not limited or hindered in any
way; there never was a restriction of church services for youth in
Germany, either then or later. Since Protestant youth had been
incorporated on the basis of an agreement between the Church and the
Hitler Youth, there was practically only a dispute about youth education
between the Catholic Church and the Hitler Youth.
In May or June 1934 I asked personally to participate in the
negotiations for the Reich Concordat because I wanted to eliminate
entirely the differences between the Catholic Church and the Hitler
Youth. I considered an agreement in this field to be very important and
in fact I was allowed to participate in these negotiations which took
place in June ’34 in the Reich Ministry of the Interior under the
chairmanship of Reich Minister for the Interior Frick. On the Catholic
side Archbishop Gröber and Bishop Berning took part in the negotiations;
and at that time I personally proposed a formula for co-operation, which
met with the approval of the Catholic side, and I believed that I had
found the basis for agreement in this sphere.
The conferences were unfortunately interrupted on the evening of 29
June; and on 30 June ’34 we experienced the so-called “Röhm Putsch,” and
the negotiations were never resumed. That is not my fault, and I bear no
responsibility for that. Hitler simply did not want to accept the
consequences of the Concordat. I personally desired to conclude that
agreement, and I believe that the representatives of the Church saw from
these negotiations and from certain later conferences with me that the
difficulties did not originate with me. At any rate Bishop Berning came
to me, I believe in 1939. We discussed current questions between the
youth leadership and the Church. I believe that he also got the
impression at that time that it was not I who wanted to make
difficulties.
The difficulties arose at that time from the increasingly strong
influence of Martin Bormann, who tried to prevent absolutely any kind of
agreement between the Party offices and the Church or between the youth
leadership and the Church.
In the course of the dispute about the leadership of confessional youth
organizations and their incorporation, animated public discussions
arose. I myself spoke at various meetings. Statements were issued by the
Church also, which according to the state of affairs, were more or less
sharp. But I did not make statements inimical to religion in connection
with that subject, nor did I at any time during my life.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, is it correct that in 1937 you concluded an
agreement with the Church to the effect that the Hitler Youth should, in
principle, not be on duty on Sundays during church time, so that the
children could attend religious services, and furthermore, that on
account of this agreement you ran into considerable difficulties?
VON SCHIRACH: That is correct.
DR. SAUTER: Will you tell us very briefly about that?
VON SCHIRACH: I do not believe one can say that it was an agreement with
the Church. If I remember correctly, I issued a decree based on various
letters I had received from clergymen—which to a very great extent took
into account the wishes expressed in these letters. I then issued that
decree and I gather from many affidavits which have been sent by youth
leaders to me recently that that decree was very carefully obeyed.
Difficulties arose in the Party Chancellery on account of my attitude.
Bormann, of course, was an energetic enemy of such a basic concession to
the Church, and Hitler himself—I don’t know whether it was in
connection with this decree, but, at any rate, in connection with the
regulation of the dispute between the youth leadership and the
Church—also reprimanded me once.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have a small book here, entitled _A Good Year
1944_, with the sub-title “Christmas Gift of the War Welfare Service of
Reich Leader Von Schirach.” I submit that book as Document Number
Schirach-84 to the Tribunal for judicial notice. On Page 55 is a picture
of the Madonna. On Page 54 is a Christian poem written by the defendant,
with the title “Bavarian Christmas Crib.” On the lower half of Page 54
there is the famous “Wessobrunner Prayer,” the oldest prayer in the
German language, dating from the eighth century.
Witness, is it also correct that on account of the Christian content of
that book you had difficulties with Reichsleiter Bormann; and if so,
what were they?
VON SCHIRACH: That is correct. I had that Christmas gift made for, I
believe, 80,000 to 100,000 soldiers and sent to them at the front as
late as 1944. I did not hear anything directly from Bormann, but he
suddenly asked for 10 copies of that book; and I was informed by people
who were near the Führer in his headquarters that he used that book in
some way in order to incite Hitler against me.
I should like to add that at all times of my life, at any rate insofar
as I have written poetry, I have expressed myself in the same way as in
this poem. Also in the collection of poems, _The Flag of the
Persecuted_, which I do not have here unfortunately but which was
distributed among the youth in a very large edition, where my
revolutionary poems can be found, there are poems of a Christian content
which, however, were not reprinted by the Party press in the newspapers
and therefore did not become so well-known as my other verses. But I
should like to express quite clearly that I was an opponent of
confessional youth organizations, and I wish to make it just as clear
that I was not an opponent of the Christian religions.
DR. SAUTER: Not an opponent?
VON SCHIRACH: Of course not.
DR. SAUTER: Did you leave the Church?
VON SCHIRACH: In spite of many hints by Bormann, I never left the
Church.
DR. SAUTER: May I, Mr. President, ask the Tribunal to take judicial
notice of Documents Schirach-85 to 93, inclusive, of the Schirach
document book. All of these are documents from the period when he was
Reich Youth Leader and show his attitude toward the Church.
VON SCHIRACH: May I add something to that?
DR. SAUTER: If you please.
VON SCHIRACH: As far as my religious attitude is concerned, I always
identified myself with the thoughts expressed in _Wilhelm Meisters
Wanderjahre_ about religions in general and the importance of the
Christian religion in particular. I should like to say here that in my
work as an educator I was mistaken in holding the opinion that positive
Christianity existed outside of the Church.
However, I never made any anti-Christian statements; and I should like
to say here for the first time in public that in the closest circles of
the Hitler Youth I have always expressed a very unequivocal belief in
the person and teachings of Christ. Before educators of the Adolf Hitler
School—a fact which naturally was never allowed to come to the
knowledge of the Party Chancellery—I spoke about Christ as the greatest
leader in world history and of the commandment to “Love thy neighbor” as
a universal idea of our culture. I believe that there are also several
testimonials by youth leaders about that in your possession, Mr.
Attorney.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, I shall refer to that later. I should like to begin a
new chapter now. In 1940 you were dismissed as Reich Youth Leader?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And you were succeeded by Axmann who has already been
mentioned. But you remained connected with youth education through what
office?
VON SCHIRACH: Through the office of the Reichsleiter of Youth Education.
DR. SAUTER: And in addition to that you received another title, I
believe?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I became Deputy of the Führer for the Inspection of
the Hitler Youth.
DR. SAUTER: Was that only a title, or was that some kind of office?
VON SCHIRACH: That was an office to the extent that the Reichsleiter
office was concerned with youth work in the Party sector. The Youth
Leader of the German Reich—that was Axmann as my successor—also had a
field of activity in the State, and I too became competent for that by
my appointment as inspector.
DR. SAUTER: How did your dismissal as Reich Youth Leader come about, and
why were you called specifically to Vienna as Gauleiter? What can you
tell us about that?
VON SCHIRACH: At the end of the French campaign, in which I participated
as an infantryman, I was in Lyon when a wireless message from the
Führer’s headquarters was received, and the chief of my company told me
that I had to report to the Führer’s headquarters. I went there at once;
and at the Führer’s headquarters, which was at that time situated in the
Black Forest, I saw the Führer standing in the open speaking to Reich
Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop. I waited a while, maybe a quarter of an
hour or 20 minutes, until the conversation had ended and then reported
at once to Hitler and there, outside, before the Casino building where
later we all had our meal together, he told me the following in about 10
minutes:
I should propose to him a successor for the leadership of the youth. He
intended for me to take over the Reich Gau Vienna. I at once suggested
my assistant, Axmann, who was not a man who advocated physical or
military training but was concerned with social work among the youth,
and that was most important to me. He accepted this proposal...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we need not go through Axmann’s
qualifications, need we? Is it material to the Tribunal to know what his
successor was like?
DR. SAUTER: Axmann? Axmann was successor as Reich Youth Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: What I was asking you was whether it was material for the
Tribunal to know the qualities of Axmann. We have nothing to do with
that.
DR. SAUTER: Herr Von Schirach, you can be more brief about that point,
can you not?
VON SCHIRACH: Hitler then said that I should keep my job as Reich Leader
of Youth Education and that I should assume at the same time the office
of the Inspector of Youth and that I should go to Vienna as the
successor to Bürckel. In Vienna, especially in the cultural field,
serious difficulties had arisen; and therefore I was to direct my
attention to the case of the institutions of culture, particularly of
theaters, art galleries, libraries, and so forth; and I was to be
especially concerned about the working class. I raised the objection
that I could carry out that cultural work only if independent of
Goebbels, and Hitler promised at that time that this independence would
be fully safeguarded; but he did not keep that promise later.
And lastly he said that he was sending the Jewish population away from
Vienna, that he had already informed Himmler or Heydrich—I do not
remember exactly what he said—of his intentions, or at least would
inform them. Vienna had to become a German city, and in that connection
he even spoke of an evacuation of the Czech population.
That concluded that conversation. I received no other instructions for
this office, and then we dined together as usual. I took my leave then
and went to Berlin to talk to my assistants.
DR. SAUTER: Vienna was considered at that time, if I am correctly
informed, the most difficult Gau of the Reich; is that right?
VON SCHIRACH: Vienna was by far the most difficult political problem
which we had among the Gaue.
DR. SAUTER: Why?
VON SCHIRACH: Because—I learned the details only from other persons in
Berlin, after I had received my mission from Hitler—in Vienna the
population had sobered considerably after the first wave of enthusiasm
over the Anschluss had subsided. Herr Bürckel, my predecessor, had
brought many officials to Vienna from the outside; and the German system
of administration, which was in no wise more practicable or efficient
than the Austrian, was introduced there. This resulted in a certain
over-organization in the administrative field, and Bürckel had started
on a Church policy which was more than unsatisfactory. Demonstrations
took place under his administration. On one occasion the palace of the
archbishop was damaged. Theaters and other places of culture were not
taken care of as they should have been. Vienna was experiencing a
feeling of great disillusionment. Before I got there I was informed that
if one spoke in the streetcars with a North-German accent, the Viennese
took an unfriendly attitude.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, what duties did you have or what offices did you
hold in Vienna?
VON SCHIRACH: In Vienna I had the office of Reich Governor
(Reichsstatthalter), which included two administrations, the municipal
administration and the national administration. In addition, I was Reich
Defense Commissioner for Wehrkreis XVII, but only until 1942. In 1942,
the Wehrkreis was subdivided, and each Gauleiter of the Wehrkreis became
his own Reich Defense Commissioner.
DR. SAUTER: And then you also were Gauleiter?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I was also Gauleiter, the highest official of the
Party.
DR. SAUTER: In other words, you represented city, state, and Party, all
at once—the highest authority of city, state, and Party in Vienna?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes. Now the situation was such in the administration that
there was an official representative to take charge of national affairs,
namely, the Regierungspräsident; for the municipal administration there
was another representative, the mayor; in the Party, the Deputy
Gauleiter in Vienna had the title of Gauleiter.
I should not like to belittle my responsibility for the Gau by
explaining that, and I want to protect the exceptionally efficient
Deputy Gauleiter who was there. I just want to say that in order to
clarify my position.
DR. SAUTER: What really was your position as Reich Defense Commissioner,
Witness? Was that a military position, or what was it?
VON SCHIRACH: That was not a military position at all. The Reich Defense
Commissioner was simply the head of the civil administration, in
contrast to the situation prevailing during the first World War, where
the head of the civil administration was assigned to and subordinated to
the commanding general; in this war the Reich Defense Commissioner was
co-ordinate with him, not subordinate.
The tasks of the Reich Defense Commissioner—at least, that is how I saw
my tasks—were at certain intervals, to co-ordinate the most pressing
problems of food economy, transportation—that is, local and distant
transportation, coal supplies, and price regulation for the Gaue of
Vienna, Upper Danube, and Lower Danube, all of which belonged to
Wehrkreis XVII.
There were several meetings for that purpose—I believe three all
together. In 1942 the reorganization which I previously mentioned took
place. Bormann carried his point against the Reich Marshal. The Reich
Marshal was of the opinion that the Reich Defense Commissioner had to be
Defense Commissioner for the entire Wehrkreis. Bormann wanted each
Gauleiter to be Defense Commissioner, and so that led to the division.
From 1942 on I was only Reich Commissioner for Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, it seems that a decree was issued at that
time—will you please tell me when you were informed about it—namely, a
decree by Reichsleiter Bormann, that not more than two Gauleiter could
meet.
VON SCHIRACH: That is not a decree by Bormann; that was an order by
Hitler.
DR. SAUTER: What were its salient points?
VON SCHIRACH: I must explain that briefly. Because of the fact that the
Reich Commissariat was subdivided, I had to meet from time to time with
the Reichsstatthalter of other provinces in order to discuss the most
important questions, especially concerning our food economy. However, I
believe it was in 1943, Dr. Ley came to me in Vienna and brought me an
official order from the Führer, according to which it was considered
illegal—that was the way he expressed it—for more than two Gauleiter
to meet for a conference.
At that time I looked at Dr. Ley speechless; and he said:
“Yes, that does not concern you alone. There is still another
Gauleiter who has called a conference of more than two, and that
fact alone is already considered as virtual mutiny or
conspiracy.”
DR. SAUTER: Witness, when you were in Vienna, were you given a further
mission which took up much of your time? Please tell us briefly about
that.
VON SCHIRACH: I had just started to work in Vienna when, in October
1940, I received an order to appear at the Reich Chancellery.
DR. SAUTER: Will you please be very brief.
VON SCHIRACH: And there Hitler personally gave me the mission of
carrying out the evacuation of all German youth from areas endangered by
aerial attack, and simultaneously to carry out the evacuation of mothers
and infants; and he said that that should begin in Berlin and then
gradually take in the entire Reich. He said that education was of
secondary importance now; the main thing was to maintain the nervous
energy of the youth and to preserve life. However, I asked at once that
I be given the possibility of establishing an educational organization,
and I did so.
I do not wish to speak about details, but one of the demands, which I
made at once—this is important in connection with the Indictment—was
that there should be no difficulties placed in the way of young people’s
participation in church services. That was promised to me, and it was
expressed very clearly in my first directives for the children’s
evacuation. The youth leaders who were active in this field of my
organizational work will confirm this.
DR. SAUTER: This evacuation of children to the country was a very
extensive task, was it not?
VON SCHIRACH: It was the most difficult, and from a psychological point
of view, the most complicated work which I ever carried out. I
transferred millions of people in this way; I supplied them with food,
with education, with medical aid, and so on. Of course that work took up
my time fully or to a large extent only during the first years. After
that I had trained my assistants for that kind of work.
DR. SAUTER: Later, as I have heard from you, you tried from time to time
to report to Hitler about your successes and about problems requiring
decision. How often during the entire years of the war were you admitted
to discuss that important field of work with Hitler?
VON SCHIRACH: Mr. Attorney, I am afraid I have to correct you. I never
tried to report to Hitler about my successes, but only about my
problems.
DR. SAUTER: Problems, yes.
VON SCHIRACH: About that entire program of evacuation of children I
could only report to him twice; the first time in 1940, after I had got
the whole program under way, and the second time in 1941, when the
evacuation had reached very large proportions.
And about Vienna I could only report on very rare occasions, and in 1943
the possibility of reporting ceased altogether with the breach of
relations which I will describe later.
DR. SAUTER: Then, during your period in Vienna you became the Chairman
of the Würzburg Bibliophile Society.
VON SCHIRACH: That is an honorary office, the Würzburg Bibliophile
Convention had appointed me Chairman of the German Bibliophile Society.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, Schirach—Number Schirach-1 of the document book
makes reference to that matter, and I submit it as a piece of evidence.
It it an affidavit by an old anti-Fascist, Karl Klingspor, an honorary
member of the society, who gives valuable information about the
character of the Defendant Von Schirach.
And in addition, Herr Von Schirach, I believe you were the Chairman of
the Southeast Europe Society, is that correct?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: In brief, what was the mission of that society?
VON SCHIRACH: It had as its purpose the improvement of trade relations,
economic relations, with the southeast. Its functions were essentially
in the field of research and representation.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, what were your main Viennese activities?
VON SCHIRACH: My principal activities in Vienna were social work and
cultural work, as I have already explained before.
DR. SAUTER: Social work and cultural work?
VON SCHIRACH: These were the two poles which dominated my entire
political life.
DR. SAUTER: I come now to the particular accusations which have been
made against you by the Prosecution concerning that period in Vienna.
Among other things you have been accused of participating in the
so-called slave-labor program, and I ask you to state your position
concerning that, and in that connection also to deal with Directive
Number 1 of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, of
6 April 1942, which was presented, I believe, as Document 3352-PS.
Please go ahead.
VON SCHIRACH: Maybe I would do best to start with the decree by which
Gauleiter were appointed Plenipotentiaries for the Allocation of Labor
under the Plenipotentiary General.
DR. SAUTER: 6 April 1942.
VON SCHIRACH: In the way of documentary material that decree contains no
more than that the Gauleiter could make suggestions and submit requests
to the competent offices for the allocation of labor. But they were held
responsible—I do not know whether by this decree or another one—for
the supervision of the feeding and quartering, _et cetera_, of foreign
workers. This feeding and quartering, _et cetera_, of foreign workers
was—in my Gau and I believe also in all other Gaue of the Reich—mainly
in the hands of the German Labor Front.
The Gauobmann of the German Labor Front in Vienna reported to me very
frequently about the conditions among German workers and foreign workers
in the Gau. He often accompanied me on inspection tours of industries;
and from my own observations I can describe my impressions here of the
life of foreign workers in Vienna as far as I could watch it.
I well remember, for instance, my visit to a large soap factory where I
saw barracks in which Russian and French women were living. They had
better quarters there than many Viennese families which lived six or
eight people in the usual one-room apartments with kitchen. I remember
another inspection where I saw a billet of Russian workers. It was clean
and neat, and among the Russian women who were there I noticed that they
were gay, well-nourished, and apparently satisfied. I know about the
treatment of Russian domestic workers from the circle of my
acquaintances and from the acquaintances of many assistants; and here,
also, I have heard, and in part observed myself, that they were
extremely well treated.
Let me say something in general about Vienna as a place for foreign
workers. For centuries foreign workers have worked in Vienna. To bring
foreign workers from the southeast to Vienna is no problem at all. One
likes to go to Vienna, just as one likes to go to Paris. I have seen
very many Frenchmen and French women working in Vienna, and at times I
spoke with them. I also talked to French foremen in the factories. They
lived as tenants somewhere in the city, just like any other private
person. One saw them in the Prater. They spent their free time just as
our own native workers did.
During the time I was in Vienna, I built more factory kitchens than
there are in any other Gau in Germany. The foreign workers frequented
these kitchens just as much as the native workers.
About treatment at the hands of the population, I can only say that the
population of a city which has been accustomed for centuries to work
together with foreign elements, will spontaneously treat any worker well
who comes from the outside.
Really bad conditions were never reported to me. From time to time it
was reported that something was not going well here or there. It was the
duty of the Gauobmann of the Labor Front to report that to me. Then I
immediately issued a directive from my desk by telephone to the regional
food office or the quota office for the supply of material, for kitchens
or heating installations, or whatever it was. At any rate, I tried
within 24 or 48 hours to take care of all complaints that came to me.
While we are on the subject I would like to give my impression of the
use of manpower in general. I am not responsible for the importation of
labor. I can only say that what I saw in the way of directives and
orders from the Plenipotentiary General, namely the Codefendant Sauckel,
always followed the line of humane, decent, just, and clean treatment of
the workers who were entrusted to us. Sauckel literally flooded his
offices with such directives.
I considered it my duty to state that in my testimony.
DR. SAUTER: These foreign workers, who were in the Gau Vienna and for
whom you do not consider yourself responsible, were they employed in the
armament industry or elsewhere?
VON SCHIRACH: A large portion was employed in agriculture, some in the
supply industry. Whether there were some directly in the armament
industry I could not say. The armament industry was not accessible to me
in all its ramifications, even in my functions as Gauleiter, because
there were war production processes which were kept secret even from the
Reichsstatthalter.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, in connection with the subject of Jewish forced
labor, a letter was read, Document 3803-PS. It is, I believe, a
handwritten letter from the Defendant Kaltenbrunner to Blaschke.
Blaschke, I believe, was the second mayor of Vienna.
VON SCHIRACH: He was the mayor of Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: This is a letter of 30 June 1944. In that letter
Kaltenbrunner informs Blaschke that he had directed that several
evacuation transports should be sent to Vienna-Strasshof. “There are
four transports,” it says in the letter, “with about 12,000 Jews, which
will arrive in the next few days.” So much about the letter. Its further
content is only of importance because of what it says in the end—and I
quote:
“I beg you to arrange further details with the State Police
Office, Vienna, SS Obersturmbannführer Dr. Ebner, and SS
Obersturmbannführer Krumey, of the Special Action Command
Hungary, who is at present in Vienna.”
Did you have anything to do with that matter, and if so what?
VON SCHIRACH: I do not know of the correspondence between the
Codefendant Kaltenbrunner and the mayor of Vienna. To my knowledge Camp
Strasshof is not within Gau Vienna at all. It is in an altogether
different Gau. The designation, “Vienna-Strasshof,” is, therefore, an
error. The border runs in between the two.
DR. SAUTER: And were you informed of the matter itself at that time, or
only here in the courtroom?
VON SCHIRACH: I know of that matter only from this courtroom, but I
remember that mention was made about the use of Jewish workers in
connection with the building of the Southeast Wall or fortifications.
The Southeast Wall, however, was not in the area of Reich Gau Vienna. It
was a project in the area of Gau Lower Danube, Lower Austria, or Styria.
I had nothing to do with the construction of the Southeast Wall; that
was in the hands of Dr. Jury, that is, the O. T....
DR. SAUTER: O. T. is the Organization Todt?
VON SCHIRACH: ...the Organization Todt. And in the other part of the
border it was in the hands of Dr. Uiberreither, the Gauleiter of Styria,
and his technical assistants.
DR. SAUTER: So I can sum up your statement to mean that you had nothing
to do with these things because they were matters which did not concern
your Gau.
VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I cannot understand what connection there should be
with Gau Vienna. Whether the mayor intended to divert some of these
workers for special tasks in Vienna is not known to me. I do not know
about that matter.
DR. SAUTER: In the same connection, Witness, another document has been
submitted, 1948-PS, a file note of 7 November 1940. That was a date on
which you had already been Gauleiter in Vienna for several months and
it, too, concerns forced labor of the Jews who were capable of work.
That file note was written on stationery with the heading “The
Reichsstatthalter in Vienna,” and apparently the note in question was
written by a Dr. Fischer. Who is Dr. Fischer? What did you, as
Reichsstatthalter, have to do with that matter? What do you know about
it?
VON SCHIRACH: First of all, Dr. Fischer is not known to me personally. I
do not want to dispute the possibility that he may have been introduced
to me once and that I do not remember him; but I do not know who Dr.
Fischer is. At any rate, he was not an expert working in my central
office. I assume that he may have been an official, because his name
appears in connection with another document also. He was probably the
personal consultant of the Regierungspräsident. The note shows that this
official used my stationery, and he was entitled to do that. I believe
several thousand people in Vienna were entitled to use that stationery,
according to the usage of German offices.
On this note he has put down a telephone conversation with the Gestapo
from which it can be seen that the Reich Security Main Office—that is
Heydrich—was the office which decided, by internal directives to the
Gestapo, on the use of Jewish manpower.
The Regierungspräsident wanted to know more about that; but I believe
one cannot draw the conclusion from this that I was informed about
cruelties committed by the Gestapo, as the Prosecution has concluded. It
is doubtful whether I was in Vienna at all at that time. I want to
remind you of my other tasks, which I have described before.
However, if I was there, I certainly did not concern myself with the
work of cleaning up the streets. But I should like to say that the
variety of my tasks caused me to establish an organizational structure
which did not exist in other Gaue, namely, the Central Office of the
Reich Leader.
DR. SAUTER: Perhaps you will tell us, before concluding for today,
approximately how many officials in Vienna were subordinated to you.
VON SCHIRACH: I guess it may have been about 5,000 officials and
employees.
DR. SAUTER: Shall I continue, Mr. President? It is 5:00 o’clock.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned, until 24 May 1946 at 1000 hours._]
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY
Friday, 24 May 1946
_Morning Session_
[_The Defendant Von Schirach resumed the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel for the Defendant Bormann present?
DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient to you to present your documents
on Tuesday at 10 o’clock?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, agreed.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient to the Prosecution?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Quite convenient, would it?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, indeed.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, we left off yesterday with Document Number
1948-PS. That, as you will recall, is a memorandum by a certain Dr.
Fischer about a telephone conversation he had held with an official of
the Secret State Police, Standartenführer Huber, from Vienna, and refers
to forced labor of Jewish youth. Special mention is made of the
employment of Jews in the removal of ruined synagogues. In connection
with this memorandum I should like to put just one more question to the
Defendant Schirach.
[_Turning to the defendant._] When were these synagogues destroyed in
Vienna? Was it in your time and on your responsibility, or at another
time?
VON SCHIRACH: The synagogues in Vienna were destroyed 2 years before I
assumed office in Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I now proceed to the chapter on anti-Semitism
which—according to your admission yesterday—you followed in your
youth. I should like to know what your attitude was, when you joined the
Party and when you became an official in the Party, toward a practical
solution of this anti-Semitism?
VON SCHIRACH: According to my opinion—in 1924-1925—Jews were to be
entirely excluded from the civil service. Their influence in economic
life was to be limited. I believed that Jewish influence in cultural
life should be restricted. But for artists of the rank of, for instance,
Max Reinhardt, I still envisioned the possibility of a free
participation in this cultural life. That, I believe, exactly reflects
the opinion which I and my comrades held on the solution of the “Jewish
Problem” in 1924-1925 and in the following years.
Later, when I was leading the high-school youth movement, I put forward
the demand for the so-called _Numerus clausus_. It was my wish that the
Jews should be allowed to study only on a proportional basis
commensurate to their percentage of the total population. I believe one
can realize from this demand for the _Numerus clausus_, known to the
entire generation of students in that period, that I did not believe in
a total exclusion of the Jews from artistic, economic, and scientific
activities.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have submitted a document, Document Schirach-136,
in the Schirach document book, which contains statements by an official
of the Reich Youth Leadership about the treatment of Jewish youth as
contrasted with Christian youth. Do you know what attitude the Reich
Youth Leadership had adopted at that time toward the Jewish youth?
VON SCHIRACH: I believe that we are dealing with the decree of the year
1936.
DR. SAUTER: Autumn 1936?
VON SCHIRACH: Autumn 1936. According to that, Jewish youth organizations
were to exist under the official supervision of the Reich Youth Leader,
who controlled all the youth of Germany, and Jewish youth would be able
to carry out their own youth education autonomously.
DR. SAUTER: It says in that decree, _inter alia_—I quote one sentence
only from Document Schirach-136 of the Schirach document book:
“Today in its youth, Judaism already assumes that special,
isolated position, free within its own boundaries, which at some
future date Judaism will occupy within the German State and in
the economy of Germany and which it has already occupied to a
great extent.”
Witness, at about the same time, or shortly before then, the so-called
Nuremberg Laws had been promulgated, those racial laws which we have
frequently heard mentioned here.
Did you help pass these laws, and how did you personally judge these
laws?
VON SCHIRACH: I had no part in the drafting of these laws. In my room at
the Hotel Deutscher Hof, here in Nuremberg, I was surprised to find a
slip of paper stating that there would be a Reichstag meeting on the
next day and that it would take place in Nuremberg. At that Reichstag
meeting, at which I was present, the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated. I
do not know to this day how they were drafted. I assume that Hitler
himself determined their contents. I can tell you no more about them.
DR. SAUTER: Can you state on your oath, and with a clear conscience,
that before these laws were published you had not known of the plan for
such laws, although you had been Reich Youth Leader and Reichsleiter?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: After these laws had been promulgated in Nuremberg, how did
you personally envisage the further development of the Jewish problem?
VON SCHIRACH: I must say, first of all, that we had, as a matter of
fact, not expected these laws at all. I believe that the entire youth of
the country at that time considered the Jewish problem as solved, since
in 1935 there could be no more question of any Jewish influence. After
these laws had been published we were of the opinion that now,
definitely, the last word had been spoken on the Jewish problem.
DR. SAUTER: Briefly, Witness, you are accused of having incited and
influenced the youth of the country. I therefore ask you: As Reich Youth
Leader did you incite youth to anti-Semitic excesses, or did you, as
Reich Youth Leader, and particularly at meetings of the Hitler Youth,
make any inflammatory anti-Semitic speeches?
VON SCHIRACH: I did not make any inflammatory anti-Semitic speeches,
since I attempted, both as Reich Youth Leader and youth educator, not to
add fuel to the fire; for neither in my books nor in my speeches—with
the exception of one speech in Vienna, to which I shall refer later on
and which was not made at the time when I was Reich Youth Leader—have I
made any inflammatory statements of an anti-Semitic nature.
I will not make myself ridiculous by stating here that I was not an
anti-Semite; I was—although I never addressed myself to the youth in
that sense.
DR. SAUTER: The office of the Reich Youth Leader published an official
monthly entitled _Will and Power, Leadership Publication of the National
Socialist Youth_. Excerpts from this official publication have
previously been submitted to the Tribunal in the document book.
Now I would be interested to know: Is it true that certain Party
authorities repeatedly demanded from you that you publish a special
anti-Semitic issue of this official Youth Leadership publication in
order to show the youth of the country the path to follow in the future,
and what was your attitude with regard to that demand?
VON SCHIRACH: It is true that the Reich Minister for Propaganda
repeatedly demanded of my editor-in-chief that such an anti-Semitic
issue should be published. On receiving the report of the
editor-in-chief I invariably refused to comply with this request. I
believe that the editor-in-chief has already signed a sworn affidavit to
that effect.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the question of anti-Semitism would also include
your attitude to _Der Stürmer_, the paper issued by your
fellow-Defendant, Streicher. Did you distribute this anti-Semitic paper
_Der Stürmer_ within your youth organization, and did you in any way
further its distribution?
VON SCHIRACH: _Der Stürmer_ was not distributed within the youth
organization. I believe that with the sole exception of those of the
young people who lived in this Gau...
DR. SAUTER: Gau Franken?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, Gau Franken—that the rest of the German youth
organization never read _Der Stürmer_ at all. The paper was definitely
rejected by all the youth leaders—both boys and girls—in my
organization.
DR. SAUTER: Then, Witness, I must point out to you that the Prosecution
have accused you of having given, on one occasion, an introduction to
this paper, this anti-Jewish paper _Der Stürmer_. Do you know about it,
and what have you got to say on the matter?
VON SCHIRACH: I can say the following in this respect. I was always in
close collaboration with the press; in fact, I came from the press
myself. In my press office, as Reich Youth Leader, I gave definite
instructions that all requests from Gau papers for an introduction, or
something else of the kind from me should be granted on principle.
Therefore, whenever a Gau paper celebrated a jubilee—perhaps the tenth
or twentieth anniversary of its existence, or published some special
issue—then the experts in my press office would run up a draft and,
together with the considerable volume of evening mail presented to me
for my signature, these drafts and elaborations would be submitted to
me. In this way it might have happened that I signed that introduction
for _Der Stürmer_ which, of course, was the paper of the local Gau.
Otherwise I have no recollection of the episode.
DR. SAUTER: Consequently you cannot remember whether you drafted that
short introduction yourself, or whether it was drafted by one of your
experts and presented to you for signature?
VON SCHIRACH: I definitely believe that I did not draft it myself,
because such short introductions—as already stated—were always
submitted to me. I wrote my newspaper articles myself but never
introductions of this description.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, since we have just mentioned the name of Streicher,
I would remind you of a very ugly picture book which was submitted here
by the Prosecution. Was that picture book distributed among the youth
with your consent, or do you know anything else about it?
VON SCHIRACH: Of course this book was not distributed among the young
people. It is quite out of the question that an office of the HJ (Hitler
Jugend) would have transmitted that book to the youth. Besides, the
picture books of the Stürmer Publishing Firm are unknown to me. I am, of
course, not competent to speak on education in the schools, but I should
also like to say on behalf of education in the schools that I do not
believe this picture book was ever introduced into any school outside of
this Gau. At any rate, that book and similar writings of the Stürmer
Publishing Firm were not, as a rule, distributed among the young people
and the youth organizations. What I have already said when judging _Der
Stürmer_ also holds good for these books—namely, that the leadership
corps of the Hitler Youth categorically rejected writings of this
description.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you have also experienced how the anti-Semitic
question actually developed and how it eventually resulted in the
well-known anti-Jewish pogroms of November 1938. Did you yourself, in
any way, participate in these anti-Jewish pogroms of November 1938?
VON SCHIRACH: I personally did not participate in any way, but I did
participate in the Munich session...
DR. SAUTER: Which session?
VON SCHIRACH: The session which was traditionally held on 9 November of
each year in memory of those who had fallen on 9 November 1923. I did
not take part in all the discussions of that day. But I do remember a
speech by Goebbels in connection with the murder of Herr Vom Rath. That
speech was definitely of an inflammatory nature, and one was free to
assume from this speech that Goebbels intended to start some action. He
is alleged—but that I only discovered later—to have given detailed
instructions for this action directly from his hotel in Munich to the
Reich Propaganda Ministry. I was present at the Munich session, as was
my colleague Lauterbacher, my chief of staff, and we both rejected the
action. The HJ, as the largest National Socialist organization, was not
employed at all in the anti-Jewish pogroms, of 9, 10, and 11 November
1938. I remember one incident where a youth leader, without referring to
my Berlin office and carried away by some local propaganda, took part in
a demonstration and was later called to account by me for so doing.
After 10 November I was again in Munich for a few days and visited,
_inter alia_, a few of the destroyed business houses and villas as well.
It made a terrible impression on me at the time, and under that
impression I instructed the entire Youth Leadership, the regional
leaders if I remember rightly—in other words, all the highest
responsible youth leaders—to come to Berlin and there, in an address to
these youth leaders, I described the incidents of the 9 and 10 November
as a disgrace to our culture. I also referred to it as a criminal
action. I believe that all the colleagues present on that occasion will
clearly remember how agitated I was and that I told them that my
organization, both now and in the future, would never have anything to
do with acts of this sort.
DR. SAUTER: You previously mentioned one individual case where an HJ
leader, subordinate to you, participated in some action. Did you know of
other cases, in November 1938 and after, where units of the HJ were
factually supposed to have participated in the anti-Jewish pogroms?
VON SCHIRACH: No, I know of no other cases. The only thing I did hear
was that here and there individual lads, or groups of youths, were
called out into the streets by local authorities which were not of the
HJ. In the majority of cases these lads were promptly sent home again by
the youth leaders. The organization was never employed, and I attach
great importance to the statement that the youth organization, which
included more members than the Party itself with all its affiliated
organizations, was never involved in these incidents.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you saw at least, from the incidents in November
1938, that developments in Germany were taking a different trend to the
course you had expected—if we are to judge by your previous
description. How did you, after November 1938, envisage the further
solution of the Jewish problem?
VON SCHIRACH: After the events of 1938 I realized that Jewry’s one
chance lay in a state-supported emigration; for in view of Goebbels’
temper, it seemed probable to me that overnight similar actions could
arise from time to time, and under such conditions of legal insecurity I
could not see how the Jews could continue living in Germany. That is one
of the reasons why Hitler’s idea of a closed Jewish settlement in the
Polish Government General, of which he told me at his headquarters in
1940, was clear to me. I thought that the Jews would be better off in a
closed settlement in Poland than in Germany or Austria, where they would
remain exposed to the whims of the Propaganda Minister who was the
mainstay of anti-Semitism in Germany.
DR. SAUTER: Is it true that you yourself, whenever you had a chance of
approaching Hitler, gave him your own positive suggestions for settling
the Jews in some neutral country, under humane conditions?
VON SCHIRACH: No, that is not true.
DR. SAUTER: Well?
VON SCHIRACH: I should like fully to elucidate this matter. I mentioned
yesterday how I had reported to Hitler and how he had told me that the
Viennese Jews would be sent to the Government General. Before that, I
had never thought of an emigration of the Jews from Austria and Germany
for resettlement in the Government General. I had only thought of a
Jewish emigration to countries where the Jews wanted to go. But Hitler’s
plan, as it then existed—and I believe that at that time the idea of
exterminating the Jews had not yet entered his mind—this plan of
resettlement sounded perfectly reasonable to me—reasonable at that
time.
DR. SAUTER: But I believe that in 1942 you are supposed to have tried,
through the kind offices of your friend, Dr. Colin Ross, to suggest to
Hitler that the Jews from Hungary and the Balkan States be allowed to
emigrate to some neutral country, taking their goods and chattels with
them.
VON SCHIRACH: That was at a later date. I no longer remember exactly
when, but in any case it was after the occupation of Hungary. Among the
innumerable suggestions which I made to the Führer and to the Minister
for Foreign Affairs through Colin Ross, was one to the effect that the
entire Jewish population of Hungary be transferred to the neutral
countries. If the witness Steengracht has stated here that this idea had
been discussed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and that it had
emanated from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then he probably spoke in
good faith. The idea originated in discussions held between Colin Ross
and myself, and Ross then put it down in the form of a memorandum.
But—and this is specially important—it was reported verbally to the
Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs who, in turn, informed Colin Ross, on
the occasion of a further visit, that the Führer had definitely turned
the suggestion down.
DR. SAUTER: The emigration to neutral countries abroad?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, to neutral countries abroad.
DR. SAUTER: The majority of the Viennese Jews, Witness, were—as you
yourself know—deported from Vienna. In 1940, when you became Gauleiter
in Vienna—or later on—did you ever receive a directive from Hitler to
the effect that you yourself should carry out this deportation of the
Jews from Vienna or that you should participate in the deportation?
VON SCHIRACH: I never received any such directive. The only directive
which I received in connection with the deportation of the Jewish
population from Vienna was a question from Hitler asking about the
number of Jews living in Vienna at the time. That number, which I had
forgotten, was recalled to my memory by a document put to me by the
Prosecution. According to that document I reported to Hitler that 60,000
Jews were then living in Vienna. That figure probably comes from the
registration office. In former times about 190,000 Jews, all told, lived
in Vienna. That, I believe, was the highest figure reached. When I came
to Vienna there were still 60,000 Jews left. The deportation of the Jews
was a measure immediately directed, on orders from Hitler, or by
Himmler; and there existed in Vienna an office of the Reich Security
Main Office, or local branch office under Himmler-Heydrich, which
carried out these measures.
DR. SAUTER: Who was in charge of that office?
VON SCHIRACH: The head of that office was—that I found out now; I did
not know his name at the time—a certain Brunner.
DR. SAUTER: An SS Sturmführer?
VON SCHIRACH: An SS Sturmführer, Dr. Brunner.
DR. SAUTER: The one who, a few days ago, is supposed to have been
condemned to death? Did you know that?
VON SCHIRACH: I heard it yesterday.
DR. SAUTER: Did you have to issue any orders to this Brunner who was an
SS leader, or could you give him any kind of instructions?
VON SCHIRACH: It was entirely impossible for me to stop the deportation
of the Jews or to have any influence thereupon. Once, as early as 1940,
I told the chief of my Regional Food Supply Office that he should see to
it that departing Jewish people be provided with sufficient food.
Frequently, when Jews wrote to me requesting to be exempted from
deportation, I charged my adjutant or some assistant to intervene with
Brunner so that possibly an exception might be made for these persons.
More I could not do. But I have to admit frankly, here and now, that I
was of the opinion that this deportation was really in the interests of
Jewry, for the reasons which I have already stated in connection with
the events of 1938.
DR. SAUTER: Did the SS, which in Vienna too was charged with the
evacuation of the Jews, send continuous reports as to how and to what
extent this evacuation of the Jews was carried out?
VON SCHIRACH: No. I am, therefore, also not in a position to state when
the deportation of the Jews was concluded and whether the entire 60,000
were dragged out of Vienna or if only a part of them was carried off.
DR. SAUTER: Did not the newspapers in Vienna report anything at all
about these deportations of the Jews, about the extent of the
deportations and the abuses occasioned in this connection?
VON SCHIRACH: No.
DR. SAUTER: Nothing? But, Witness, I must put a document to you which
has been submitted by the Prosecution. It is Document Number 3048-PS, an
excerpt from the Viennese edition of the _Völkischer Beobachter_, on a
speech which you, Witness, made on 15 September 1942 in Vienna, and in
which occurs the sentence—I quote from the newspaper:
“Every Jew who operates in Europe is a danger to European
culture. If I were to be accused of having deported tens of
thousands of Jews from this city, once the European metropolis
of Jewry, to the Eastern ghetto, I would have to reply, ‘I see
in that an active contribution to European culture.’”
Thus runs the quotation from your speech which otherwise contains no
anti-Semitic declarations on your part. Considering your previous
statements, Witness, I am compelled to ask you: Did you make that
speech, and how did you come to make it despite your basic attitude
which you have previously described to us?
VON SCHIRACH: First, I want to say that I did make that speech. The
quotation is correct. I said that. I must stand by what I have said.
Although the plan of the deportation of the Jews was Hitler’s plan and I
was not charged with its execution, I did utter those words, which I now
sincerely regret; but I must say that I identified myself morally with
that action only out of a feeling of misplaced loyalty to the Führer.
That I have done, and that cannot be undone. If I am to explain how I
came to do this, I can only reply that at that time I was already
“between the Devil and the deep sea.” I believe it will also become
clear from my later statements that from a certain moment on I had
Hitler against me, the Party Chancellery against me, and very many
members of the Party itself against me. Constantly I heard from
officials of the Party Chancellery who expressed that to the Gauleiter
of Vienna, and from statements made in Hitler’s entourage that one was
under the impression—and that this could be clearly recognized from my
attitude and my actions—that I was no longer expressing myself publicly
in the usual anti-Semitic manner or in other ways, either; and I just
have no excuse. But it may perhaps serve as an explanation, that I was
trying to extricate myself from this painful situation by speaking in a
manner which today I can no longer justify to myself.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I should like to ask you, in this connection—you
have just spoken of a painful situation in which you found yourself in
Vienna. Is it true that Hitler himself, on various occasions, reproached
you personally and severely because your attitude in Vienna had not been
sufficiently energetic, that you had become too slack and too yielding;
that you should concern yourself more with the interests of the Party,
and that you should adopt far stricter methods? And what, Witness, did
you then do?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, I assume that you realize that you are
putting questions in the most leading form, that you are putting
questions which suggest the answer to the defendant, and such questions
cannot possibly carry—the answers to such questions cannot possibly
carry the weight which answers given to questions not in their leading
form would carry.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, did Hitler personally reproach you for your
behavior in Vienna, and what attitude did you adopt?
I believe that is not a suggestive question.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is. I should have thought it is a leading
question. He says he was in a very difficult situation. You could ask
him if he would explain what was the difficulty of the situation.
DR. SAUTER: Very well. Then will you answer this question, Witness?
VON SCHIRACH: Counsel for the defense, I could not, in any case, have
accepted the question in the form in which you previously presented it.
The difference between Hitler and myself arose primarily over an art
exhibition, and the breach between Hitler and myself in 1943 was in the
beginning the result of differences of opinion over the cultural policy.
In 1943 I was ordered to the Berghof where Hitler, in the presence of
Bormann, criticized me violently on account of my cultural work and
literally said that I was leading the cultural opposition against him in
Germany. And further, in the course of the conversation he said that I
was mobilizing the spiritual forces of Vienna and Austria and the
spiritual forces of the young people against him in cultural spheres. He
said he knew it very well indeed. He had read some of my speeches,
primarily the Düsseldorf speech; he had discovered that I had authorized
in Weimar and in Vienna art exhibitions of a decadent nature; and he
offered me the alternative, either to end this kind of oppositional work
immediately—then for the time being everything could remain as in the
past—or he would stop all Government subsidies for Vienna.
This scene made a frightful impression on me, for it represented to me a
breach of Hitler’s promised word, since he had granted me absolute
freedom of action when he appointed me to the Vienna mission. I then
recognized that he nourished an icy hatred toward me, and that behind
these statements on cultural policies something else was concealed.
Whether he was dissatisfied in every detail with the way I conducted my
office in Vienna at the time, I do not know. He rarely expressed himself
directly about such matters. From his entourage I learned only of
occasional happenings.
I then—and that led to the complete and final break between Hitler and
myself—a few weeks after I had received this order, if I may call it
so, received a strange invitation for myself and my wife to spend some
time on the Berghof. At that time I innocently believed that Hitler
wished to bridge the gap between us and to let me know, in one way or
another, that he had gone too far. In any case, at the end of a 3 days’
visit—I cut my stay short—I discovered that this was a fundamental
error on my part. Here I will limit myself to a few points only. I had
intended—and I also carried out my intention—to mention at least three
points during my visit. One was the policy toward Russia, the second was
the Jewish question, and the third was Hitler’s attitude toward Vienna.
I must state, to begin with, that Bormann had issued a decree addressed
to me, and probably to all the other Gauleiters, prohibiting any
intervention on our part in the Jewish question. That is to say, we
could not intervene with Hitler in favor of any Jew or half-Jew. That
too was stated in the decree. I have to mention this, since it makes
matters clearer.
On the first evening of my stay at the Berghof, on what appeared to me a
propitious occasion, I told Hitler that I was of the opinion that a free
and autonomous Ukraine would serve the Reich better than a Ukraine ruled
by the violence of Herr Koch. That was all I said, nothing more, nothing
less. Knowing Hitler as I did, it was extremely difficult even to hazard
such a remark. Hitler answered comparatively quietly but with pronounced
sharpness. On the same evening, or possibly the next one, the Jewish
question was broached according to a plan I made with my wife. Since I
was forbidden to mention these things even in conversation, my wife gave
the Führer a description of an experience she had had in Holland. She
had witnessed one night, from the bedroom of her hotel, the deportation
of Jewish women by the Gestapo. We were both of the opinion that this
experience during her journey and the description of it might possibly
result in a change of Hitler’s attitude toward the entire Jewish
question and in the treatment of the Jews. My wife gave a very drastic
description, a description such as we can now read in the papers. Hitler
was silent. All the other witnesses to this conversation, including my
own father-in-law, Professor Hoffmann, were also silent. The silence was
icy, and after a short time Hitler merely said, “This is pure
sentimentality.” That was all. No further conversation took place that
evening. Hitler retired earlier than usual. I was under the impression
that a perfectly untenable situation had now arisen. Then the men of
Hitler’s entourage told my father-in-law that from now on I would have
to fear for my safety. I endeavored to get away from the Berghof as
quickly as possible without letting matters come to an open break, but I
did not succeed.
Then Goebbels arrived on the next evening and there, in my presence and
without my starting it, the subject of Vienna was broached. I was
naturally compelled to protest against the statements which Goebbels at
first made about the Viennese. Then the Führer began with, I might say,
incredible and unlimited hatred to speak against the people of Vienna. I
have to admit, here and now, that even if the people of Vienna are
cursing me today, I have always felt very friendly toward them. I have
felt closely attached to those people. I will not say more than that
Joseph Weinheber was one of my closest friends. During that discussion,
I, in accordance with my duty and my feelings, spoke in favor of the
people under my authority in Vienna.
At 4 o’clock in the morning, among other things, Hitler suddenly said,
something which I should now like to repeat for historical reasons. He
said, “Vienna should never have been admitted into the Union of Greater
Germany.” Hitler never loved Vienna. He hated its people. I believe that
he had a liking for the city because he appreciated the architectural
design of the buildings on the Ring. But everybody who knows Vienna
knows that the true Vienna is architecturally Gothic, and that the
buildings on the Ring are not really representative.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I consider that this subject has little to do with
the Indictment—please adhere to the Indictment.
VON SCHIRACH: I shall now conclude. I only want to say that so total a
break resulted from that discussion—or, rather explosion—of Hitler’s
that on that very night at about 0430 I took my leave and left the
Berghof a few hours later. Since then I had no further conversations
with Hitler.
I must now refer to something else in this connection. Reich Marshal
Göring, in the witness box, mentioned a letter of mine which Hitler had
shown him, and Herr Von Ribbentrop has stated here that he was present
at a conversation during which Himmler suggested to Hitler that I be
indicted before the People’s Court, which meant in reality that I should
be hanged. I must add one thing more: What Göring said about this letter
is mainly true. I wrote in quite a proper manner about family relations
in that letter. I also wrote one sentence to the effect that I
considered war with America a disaster.
DR. SAUTER: When was that letter written?
VON SCHIRACH: 1943, shortly after my stay at the Berghof. That statement
contained nothing special, since Hitler even without...
THE PRESIDENT: He hasn’t given the date of his stay at the Berghof yet.
DR. SAUTER: He has said 1943, Mr. President. He has just said 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: There are 12 months in 1943.
DR. SAUTER: I believe you ought to give us the month.
VON SCHIRACH: I believe that the conversation on the Berghof was in the
spring, and that the letter, though I cannot tell you precisely when,
was written in the summer.
DR. SAUTER: Summer of 1943?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, 1943; but I could not say precisely when the letter
was written. The letter was correct. It was written by hand, and no
secretary read it. It went by courier to the head of the State.
DR. SAUTER: To Hitler personally?
VON SCHIRACH: To Hitler. It is also possible that it was addressed in
care of Bormann. I cannot remember exactly. It went by courier, and that
letter contained nothing else but the clarification required for
replying to questions put to me in a circular which Göring mentioned in
his statement here. That letter caused Hitler to have an absolute
loathing for me; and at about the same time a file was started against
me in the Reich Security Main Office. That was due to the fact that I
had described in a small circle of political leaders—of high-ranking
political leaders—the foreign political situation such as I saw it, as
I was accustomed to do from the days of my youth. One of these leaders
was an SS intelligence officer and reported what I said, and then the
file was started. The material was compiled in order to eventually bring
me to trial. That I was never brought to trial I owe solely and
exclusively to the circumstance that both in the Army and at home my
comrades from the Youth Leadership stood solidly behind me, and any
proceedings against me would have led to trouble. After 20 July 1944 my
situation became very precarious. My friends in the Army, therefore,
placed a company of hand-picked men at my disposal. They were under the
orders of the former adjutant of Generaloberst Fromm. The company was
directly subordinate to me. It took over the protection of my person and
remained with me to the end.
DR. SAUTER: Was that company of the Wehrmacht, which you have just
mentioned, placed at your disposal in place of the police protection
previously afforded you?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have to refer once more to your Vienna speech of
September 1942. In that speech you speak of the deportation of tens of
thousands of Jews to the Eastern ghetto. You did not speak about the
extermination or the murder of the Jews. When did you discover that
Hitler’s plan aimed at extermination or destruction?
VON SCHIRACH: Counsel, if I at that time had known anything about the
destruction—that is the extermination of the Jews—I would not be
sitting here today. As far as I can recall, I heard about an
extermination of the Jews for the first time through the following
incident.
Dr. Ross came to see me...
DR. SAUTER: Who?
VON SCHIRACH: Dr. Colin Ross came to Vienna in 1944 and told me that he
had received information, via the foreign press, that mass murders of
Jews had been perpetrated on a large scale in the East. I then attempted
to find out all I could. What I did discover was that in the Warthegau
executions of Jews were carried out in gas vans. These shootings in the
East...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, what was the Gau that he spoke of? The Wart
Gau?
DR. SAUTER: The Warthegau, My Lord.
VON SCHIRACH: The Warthegau.
DR. SAUTER: That is a Gau, a district on the Polish border. That is an
area in the east of Germany,—W-a-r-t-h-e-g-a-u—in the west of Poland,
near Silesia.
Please, Witness, will you continue briefly:
VON SCHIRACH: The executions, the shootings on Russian territory,
mentioned in the documents submitted in the course of the
cross-examination in the Kaltenbrunner case, were not known to me at
that time. But at a later date—it was before 1944—I heard about
shootings in the ghettos of the Russian area and connected this with
developments on the front, since I thought of possible armed uprisings
in the ghettos. I knew nothing of the organized annihilation which has
been described to us in the Trial.
DR. SAUTER: Then, if I have heard you correctly, you were informed about
these events for the first time in 1944 by your friend, Dr. Colin Ross,
who knew it from reports in the foreign papers?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Do you still remember the month?
VON SCHIRACH: That I cannot say.
DR. SAUTER: In any case it would be in 1944?
VON SCHIRACH: That again I cannot say. But I believe I have to explain
something more about it. I asked myself what can one do to prevent it?
And I still ask myself, day after day, what did I do to prevent it? I
can only answer practically nothing, since from 1943 on I was
politically dead. Beyond what I had attempted in 1943 on the Berghof, I
could do nothing at all.
DR. SAUTER: Nothing?
VON SCHIRACH: Nothing.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I should in this connection like to ask you a
question of principle. You admitted yesterday that you had become an
anti-Semite—and that is according to your conception—in your very
early youth. You have, in the interim, heard the testimony of Hoess, the
Auschwitz commander, who informed us that in that camp alone, I believe,
2,500,000 to 3,000,000 innocent people, mostly Jews, had been done to
death. What, today, does the name of Auschwitz convey to you?
VON SCHIRACH: It is the greatest, the most devilish mass murder known to
history. But that murder was not committed by Hoess; Hoess was merely
the executioner. The murder was ordered by Adolf Hitler, as is obvious
from his last will and testament. The will is genuine. I have held the
photostat copy of that will in my hands. He and Himmler jointly
committed that crime which, for all time, will be a stain in the annals
of our history. It is a crime which fills every German with shame.
The youth of Germany is guiltless. Our youth was anti-Semitically
inclined, but it did not call for the extermination of Jewry. It neither
realized nor imagined that Hitler had carried out this extermination by
the daily murder of thousands of innocent people. The youth of Germany
who, today, stand perplexed among the ruins of their native land, knew
nothing of these crimes, nor did they desire them. They are innocent of
all that Hitler has done to the Jewish and to the German people.