Hitler. The defense of Vienna was a matter for the military authorities,
that is, the commandant of the city of Vienna, the military commander
who was in charge of the 6th SS Panzer Division....
DR. SAUTER: What was his name?
VON SCHIRACH: Sepp Dietrich, and the officer commanding the Army Group
South, Generaloberst Rendulic.
DR. SAUTER: Did they give the orders?
VON SCHIRACH: In carrying out the order which Hitler had given them
regarding the defense of Vienna, they defended Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: What orders did you, Witness, give your subordinates in this
connection?
VON SCHIRACH: For the defense of Vienna I gave only such orders as
related to the Volkssturm, or those dealing with the food supply of the
city and similar matters with which I was charged. I personally had
nothing to do with the actual defense of the city. For even the work of
destruction which was necessary in the course of the military defense of
the city is to be traced back to orders which originated from the
Führer’s headquarters and had been transmitted to the officer commanding
the Army group, and to the city commandant.
DR. SAUTER: My second question, Witness: In your cross-examination you
were questioned about Document 3763-PS. This is a document which deals
with the songs of youth, into which the Prosecution seems to read a
different attitude from the one you set forth. Do you wish to supplement
your testimony on this point?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I must supplement it briefly.
DR. SAUTER: Please do.
VON SCHIRACH: The Prosecution accuses me concerning a certain song, a
song which begins, “We are the black swarms of Geyer, hey, ho”; the
chorus of which goes, “Spear them, spike them, put the red cock on the
cloister roof,” and one verse runs, “We will cry to Him on high that we
want to kill the priest.”
This is a Christian song.
DR. SAUTER: How is that?
VON SCHIRACH: This can be seen in the fourth and fifth verses. It is the
song of the Protestant peasants under the leadership of Florian Geyer.
The fourth verse goes: “No castle, abbey, and monastery matters. Nothing
but the Holy Scripture is of value to us.” The next verse goes: “We want
the same law from prince down to peasant.”
Protestantism, too, was once a revolution. The rebel peasants sang this
song; and it may serve as an example, this song of the 16th century,
like some of the songs of the French revolution. This song may be used
as an example to show how, in the beginning, revolutions are radical
rather than tolerant.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, with this point I should like to conclude my
direct examination of the Defendant Von Schirach. Thank you very much. I
have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Who were your principal assistants in your office at
Vienna?
VON SCHIRACH: First of all, the chief of my Central Office, Hoepken;
secondly, the Regierungspräsident Dr. Dellbrügge; thirdly, the Mayor,
Blaschke; and fourthly, the Deputy Gauleiter, Scharizer. They were my
chief collaborators.
THE PRESIDENT: That makes four, does it?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And did they occupy the whole of their time working for
you in your office?
VON SCHIRACH: Not all of them. The Deputy Gauleiter had already been
functioning under my predecessor, Bürckel. Mayor Blaschke, as far as I
recall, first became mayor in 1943. His predecessor as mayor was a Herr
Jung. The District President, Dr. Dellbrügge, assumed his office in
1940, after my arrival in Vienna. He was sent to me from the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, from the time that you took over the office in
Vienna these four men were working for you, is that right?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I should like to mention also that the head of the
Central Office, Hoepken, was first of all active under me as adjutant
and assumed his position as chief only when the former chief of this
office, Obergebietsführer Müller, lost his life in an air raid.
THE PRESIDENT: Which of the four was it who initialed those weekly
reports which were received in your office?
VON SCHIRACH: That was the District President, Dr. Dellbrügge.
THE PRESIDENT: Dellbrügge?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And at the time that he received them he was working in
your office as one of your principal assistants?
VON SCHIRACH: He was my deputy in the State Administration.
THE PRESIDENT: That was your office?
VON SCHIRACH: That was one of my offices.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, one department in your office?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes. May I add, by way of explanation, that there were
various branches: The State Administration, the Municipal
Administration, the Party Management and the Reich Defense Commissariat.
The Reich Defense Commissariat and the State Administration were
combined as far as their representation was concerned. Everything was
co-ordinated in the Central Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in which department was this principal assistant
who initialed these documents? Which department was he head of?
VON SCHIRACH: He held a key position in the office of the
Reichsstatthalter as Chief of the State Administration.
THE PRESIDENT: Civil administration?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, Civil State Administration.
THE PRESIDENT: Was he the Deputy Reich Defense Commissioner?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you were the Reich Defense Commissioner for the
Military District Number XVII, were you not?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And he was your deputy in that military district?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: He received and initialed those reports in that office,
did he not?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can return to the dock.
[_The Defendant Von Schirach left the stand._]
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, with your permission I should like to call to
the witness box the witness Lauterbacher.
[_The witness Lauterbacher took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
HARTMANN LAUTERBACHER (Witness): Hartmann Lauterbacher.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that your full name?
LAUTERBACHER: Lauterbacher.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you sit down.
DR. SAUTER: Herr Lauterbacher, I have already discussed this matter with
you in the prison; is that right?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Please pause after each question before you answer so that
the interpreters may keep up.
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: When were you born?
LAUTERBACHER: On 24 May 1909.
DR. SAUTER: 1909?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, 1909.
DR. SAUTER: Are you married?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: You have three children?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: What is your profession?
LAUTERBACHER: Druggist.
DR. SAUTER: Retail druggist?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: You are in an American prison?
LAUTERBACHER: In an English prison.
DR. SAUTER: Since when?
LAUTERBACHER: Since 29 May 1945.
DR. SAUTER: Have you been interrogated by the Prosecution on this
matter?
LAUTERBACHER: No.
DR. SAUTER: When did you become an official, that is to say, a paid
employee of the Hitler Youth?
LAUTERBACHER: I became a paid employee of the Hitler Youth when
appointed District Leader (Gebietsführer) of the Westphalia-Lower Rhine
area.
DR. SAUTER: And when was that?
LAUTERBACHER: In April 1932:
DR. SAUTER: April 1932. That was at the age of 23?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, at the age of 23.
DR. SAUTER: Before then had you been a member of the HJ?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes. I was...
DR. SAUTER: Slowly, please, and always wait until the question has been
completed before you answer.
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: I was asking you if you were already a member of the Hitler
Youth when you took up your paid appointment in the year 1932.
LAUTERBACHER: Yes. When I was 13 years old, in the year 1922, I joined
what was then known as the National Socialist Youth Organization. Then,
when I was 18 years old, in the year 1927, I accepted the duties of an
Unterführer in my home province of the Tyrol...
DR. SAUTER: And officially you were...
LAUTERBACHER: ...then I worked in an honorary capacity in Brunswick from
1929 until 1932; and later on I had a paid appointment.
DR. SAUTER: That is to say from 1932?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: What was your status in the year 1932? What position did you
get then?
LAUTERBACHER: In the year 1932 I was entrusted with the leadership of
the area then known as Westphalia-Lower Rhine.
DR. SAUTER: When were you assigned to the Defendant Von Schirach?
LAUTERBACHER: On 22 May 1934.
DR. SAUTER: What was your position under him?
LAUTERBACHER: Stabsführer.
DR. SAUTER: How long did you remain a Stabsführer?
LAUTERBACHER: Until August 1940.
DR. SAUTER: I suppose until the time he resigned his office as Reich
Youth Leader?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: When you took up your paid appointment with the HJ, had you
already served with the Army?
LAUTERBACHER: No.
DR. SAUTER: Then you had not been an officer?
LAUTERBACHER: No.
DR. SAUTER: You told us, I believe, that since 1934 you had been
Stabsführer of the Reich Youth Leadership. What tasks did the
Stabsführer of the Reich Youth Leadership have? Please tell us briefly,
so we may have an idea of what your jurisdiction was.
LAUTERBACHER: As the title of Stabsführer indicates, I was in the first
place the chief of the staff of the Reich Youth Leadership. As such, I
had the task of dealing with the general directives of the Reich Youth
Leader, particularly those concerning the Hitler Youth offices and
regions insofar as the Youth Leader did not do that himself. I had to
co-ordinate the various departments of the Reich Youth Leadership and in
particular to deal with matters of an organizational and personal
nature.
Furthermore, in the years 1935 to 1939 I made a number of journeys
abroad at Von Schirach’s request.
DR. SAUTER: Who was the deputy of the Reich Youth Leader when he could
not act personally?
LAUTERBACHER: I was his deputy on occasions when he was prevented from
acting personally.
DR. SAUTER: Then apparently you were the first man in the Reich Youth
Leadership after Schirach?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Were your relations with Von Schirach purely official, or
were you friends as well?
LAUTERBACHER: Our association was not limited only to official matters;
we were also personal friends, and so our personal relationship was not
interrupted by Schirach’s appointment in Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: Do you believe, Herr Lauterbacher—regarding this friendly
relationship that you had with Von Schirach—that he concealed certain
things from you; or are you of the conviction that so far as official
matters were concerned he had no secrets from you?
LAUTERBACHER: I always have been, and still am today, convinced of the
fact that Von Schirach made all his intentions and educational measures
known to me.
DR. SAUTER: So he kept nothing from you?
LAUTERBACHER: No, he kept nothing from me. If Schirach had discussions
with Adolf Hitler during the earlier years he always informed me
immediately afterwards.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, in the year 1939 the second World War broke out.
Did the Defendant Von Schirach, in the last few years prior to the
outbreak of the World War, have any discussions with you in which he
expressed the view that youth should be educated for war—in other
words—that in educating youth the necessities and requirements of
future war must be taken into account? What transpired on this point
between you and Von Schirach before the war?
LAUTERBACHER: The possibility of war was never discussed. Occasionally I
attended Party rallies in the company of Von Schirach; and on these
occasions, when Adolf Hitler delivered a speech, I only—on the occasion
of these rallies I had the definite and unalterable impression that
Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Reich were determined to
maintain peace and to allow matters to follow a peaceful course. That is
why it never occurred to me that youth should be trained specifically
for war.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, in your capacity as Stabsführer of the Reich Youth
Leadership, did you have any knowledge about the mail as a whole which
either came to Schirach or was dispatched by him?
LAUTERBACHER: I always saw all the official mail.
DR. SAUTER: In the mail which reached Schirach in his office, did you
see anything about directives for the Reich Youth Leadership received
from Hitler, from the Party leadership, from the OKW, or from any other
agency, either State or Party, regarding the preparations for war?
LAUTERBACHER: No, neither open nor camouflaged.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, we have already heard about the main functions of
youth education in the course of the last few days. I do not believe,
Mr. President, that I need go into these subjects in detail. The witness
is the person best qualified to give us information, but I think I may
take the subject of youth education as clarified.
THE PRESIDENT: I think so. I think the facts about it have been
sufficiently stated.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you. Then I can pass on to another subject
immediately.
[_Turning to the witness._] You said that you had not been a soldier.
Did not Schirach attach importance to the inclusion among his
collaborators of a certain number of officers, or at least of men who
had served their term of military service and who might be enrolled as
instructors? Please be brief.
LAUTERBACHER: No, at first, that is, during the early years of the
period of development, Von Schirach rejected officers as youth leaders
on ideological and educational grounds. The aim and mission of the
Hitler Youth were those of a socialist community and of a socialist
state; and the old type of officer of the period, the representative of
a reactionary epoch, would have been absolutely incompatible.
DR. SAUTER: Absolutely incompatible? Do you mean with the...
LAUTERBACHER: With the principles of education which Schirach had laid
down for the Hitler Youth.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, have you any idea whether Schirach always rejected
the proposal, or to put it the other way round, do you know whether he
agreed when any military authorities tried to influence the character of
the Youth Leadership? Perhaps you could also answer this point briefly.
LAUTERBACHER: Even in 1933 attempts were made to introduce officers into
the Hitler Youth as leaders. As far as my information goes, two officers
had been given appointments in the Hitler Youth before my period of
office as Stabsführer, under more or less direct orders from Hitler.
They were entirely unable to cope with youth as such; and I think I am
justified in saying that their appearance was a complete failure.
DR. SAUTER: What happened to them?
LAUTERBACHER: Schirach went to Adolf Hitler and succeeded in having
these gentlemen dismissed; also through him, a directive was drawn up by
Hitler which said that officers were not to hold positions in the Hitler
Youth.
DR. SAUTER: Were no further attempts of the kind made to force officers
from somewhere or other upon him?
LAUTERBACHER: Oh, yes. In 1936 and 1937, and then again in 1938,
attempts were made to influence the education of the Hitler Youth
through so-called liaison officers. But these attempts also failed; and
up to the very end there were no officers working with the Hitler Youth
who were responsible to any other authority except Schirach, apart from
former Hitler Youth leaders who had served in the Army and received
officers’ commissions.
DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, Witness, you wish to say—and
please confirm whether I have understood you correctly—that Schirach
rejected these attempts. Is that correct?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, why did the Hitler Youth wear uniform—the girls as
well?
LAUTERBACHER: Uniform is perhaps not quite the correct term for the
clothing worn by the members of the Hitler Youth. It was more in the
nature of a national costume which was worn by members of youth
organizations before the existence of the Hitler Youth, not only in
Germany but in other countries as well. Moreover, Schirach was anxious
that all boys and girls should, as he expressed himself, wear the dress
of the socialist community.
DR. SAUTER: Of the socialist community. Does that mean a community of
all—of all the boys and girls of every class of German society without
any distinction?
LAUTERBACHER: Without any distinction as to descent or creed or anything
else.
DR. SAUTER: Or rich or poor?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Were the Hitler Youth in possession of weapons and were they
trained in the use of military weapons? You must know that.
LAUTERBACHER: No, they were not trained in the use of military weapons
during the period in which Schirach and I held office.
DR. SAUTER: Did the Hitler Youth have, in particular, tanks, armored
cars, and so forth, since reference was made to the training of the
young men in the so-called “motorized Hitler Youth” in connection with
the question of the special unit (Sonderformation)—tanks, armored cars?
LAUTERBACHER: No, to my knowledge the Hitler Youth never received any
training in armored cars, tanks, or anything of the kind, even after
Schirach’s term of office. At any rate...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the facts stated by the defendant as to the
weapons of the Hitler Youth and their formations were not
cross-examined. You need not go into that. Mr. Dodd did not suggest that
they had tanks.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Mr. President. Then I can perhaps be more brief.
I now come, Herr Lauterbacher, to the Defendant Von Schirach’s attitude
toward the Jewish question. Was the Hitler Youth involved in any way in
the Jewish pogroms of November 1938?
LAUTERBACHER: I think I can answer your question with a definite “no.”
DR. SAUTER: Herr Lauterbacher, you told me something about a speech made
by the Defendant Von Schirach a few days after 9 November 1938, on the
subject of these Jewish pogroms. Tell me when and to whom he delivered
this speech and what the contents of the speech were.
LAUTERBACHER: Von Schirach was in Munich on 10 November 1938 and I was
in Berlin. Schirach instructed me by telephone to tell the district
leaders of the Hitler Youth that their organizations were in no
circumstances to take part in these anti-Jewish demonstrations, and to
call a meeting of all these leaders to hear a specific declaration on
this point. This meeting took place about 15 November 1938.
DR. SAUTER: Where?
LAUTERBACHER: In Berlin. Schirach asked these district leaders to report
to him and expressed his satisfaction at having in the meantime received
reports to the effect that the Hitler Youth had not been involved in
these excesses. He then described the said excesses in his speech. I
still remember this speech extraordinarily well, for it was particularly
impressive. He described these pogroms as a disgrace to our culture and
as amounting to self-defamation. He said that such things might be
expected of an uncivilized people but not of the German people. He went
on to say that we had antagonized not only the world in general but also
all decent people in Germany itself by these demonstrations. He was
afraid that serious political difficulties would arise at home, as well
as difficulties within the Party itself. As we know, the Party was not
at all unanimous in its judgment of these happenings. A very large
section of the Party members and of the Party leadership condemned these
excesses.
DR. SAUTER: Please tell us more of what Schirach said at that time. I
should be more interested in that.
LAUTERBACHER: Von Schirach then gave the Youth Leadership special
instructions to keep out of demonstrations of this or a similar kind in
the future, no matter what the circumstances might be, and condemned
every use of violence on educational grounds alone. He concluded the
proceedings by prohibiting the reading of the newspaper _Der Stürmer_ by
the Hitler Youth at club evenings or on any other occasions.
DR. SAUTER: On this occasion, Herr Lauterbacher, did he say anything
about the needless destruction of so many cultural treasures, art
treasures, property belonging to the people, _et cetera_, and did he not
give certain instances of this?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes. As an especially glaring instance, he quoted the case
of the attempt, which was at least partially carried through, to loot
the Jewish firm of Bernheimer, art dealers in Munich.
DR. SAUTER: Munich?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes. He quoted this example to the Youth Leadership to
illustrate the dangerous and irreparable inroads made on the reservoir
of our culture and our cultural treasures by these demonstrations.
DR. SAUTER: Is it true that immediately after this Berlin speech about
which you have just told us, the Defendant Von Schirach caused definite
directives to be issued by telephone from Berlin, through your agency,
to the individual Hitler Youth offices?
LAUTERBACHER: This took place as early as 10 November, the day after the
Munich meeting. It had nothing to do with the district leaders’ meeting,
which only took place about 15 November.
DR. SAUTER: Herr Lauterbacher, I assume that, as time went on, you were
present at a good many speeches made by the Defendant Von Schirach to
his subleaders, or to the Hitler Youth, and that you listened to many of
these speeches yourself. Did the Defendant Von Schirach engage in
Jew-baiting on these or other occasions? Did he suggest that violence be
used against the Jews? What was his attitude?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes; I must have listened to all the important speeches
delivered by Von Schirach before the Leadership Corps of the Hitler
Youth, and on the occasion of these speeches I never heard him urge the
use of violence, which would in any case have been completely foreign to
his nature. At any rate, I cannot recall that Von Schirach ever called
upon the Youth Leadership, either directly or indirectly, to take part
in acts of violence of any kind against anyone.
DR. SAUTER: What did Schirach usually talk about in delivering one of
his many speeches addressed to youth? Just the main topic, briefly.
LAUTERBACHER: One must certainly differentiate between the long speeches
which he delivered at public demonstrations and the speeches which he
made before the leaders of the Hitler Youth.
In the speeches he addressed to the leaders he always discussed the main
political and ideological tasks and the tasks of social policy, cultural
policy, and professional training which he had assigned to the Hitler
Youth.
DR. SAUTER: Now, we shall turn to a different topic, Herr Lauterbacher.
Did Schirach cause you to leave the Church?
LAUTERBACHER: No.
DR. SAUTER: Did you leave the Church?
LAUTERBACHER: I do not believe that Herr Von Schirach even knew to what
religious denomination I belonged or whether I left the Church or not. I
left the Church in 1937 or 1938, without being influenced or forced to
do so by anyone.
DR. SAUTER: Did Von Schirach urge his other collaborators to leave the
Church, as far as you know?
LAUTERBACHER: No.
DR. SAUTER: Did Schirach abuse Christianity or incite others to attack
it on the occasion of the numerous speeches made by him, to which you
have just told us that you listened?
LAUTERBACHER: On those occasions Schirach always told the youth to
respect religious convictions, and characterized atheism as an evil, not
only once but many times. In his speeches, Von Schirach vigorously
criticized, for instance, the athletic clubs existing both before and
after 1933 in connection with the various churches and demanded the
unity of youth; but on these occasions he did not attack Christianity or
the religious convictions of others either in public or in private.
DR. SAUTER: Herr Lauterbacher, during the time the Defendant Von
Schirach was Reich Youth Leader, negotiations were pending with the
Roman Catholic Church with a view to concluding a concordat, so that
relations between the State and the Church would be regulated by an
agreement. Do you know whether Von Schirach took part in these concordat
negotiations and whether he took much trouble to effect an understanding
with the Church on a basis satisfactory to both sides?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes. In 1933 and 1934 Schirach had numerous discussions
with representatives of the Church, Reich Bishop Müller of the
Protestant Church and the representative of the Fulda Conference of
Bishops, Bishop Berning of Osnabrück. I remember that Schirach strove to
draw a dividing line between their respective powers and jurisdiction on
some such basis as: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s
and unto God the things which are God’s.”
DR. SAUTER: I have another question, Witness: Do you know whether Von
Schirach actually tried to bring about an understanding between the
Hitler Youth, of which he was the leader, and the youth of other
countries, and can you tell us, for instance, what he did and what steps
he took to that end?
LAUTERBACHER: The establishment of a cordial understanding between
German youth and world youth generally was undoubtedly one of those
tasks the importance of which Schirach constantly emphasized to his
youth leaders, and I always had the impression that this task was, as I
might almost say, his particular passion. I myself, on his orders—and
perhaps I am a cardinal witness on precisely this point—visited the
various European countries, from 1935 onwards, at least once a year and
sometimes even two or three times a year, so that I could get in touch
with existing youth organizations and with organizations of combatants
of the first World War, in order to establish contact with them.
DR. SAUTER: Which countries?
LAUTERBACHER: It can truthfully be said that the Hitler Youth sought
contacts with all the countries of Europe; and I myself, at the direct
order of Von Schirach, visited England several times. There I met the
leader of the British Boy Scouts and his colleague, but also...
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think those facts are in dispute. It is merely
the inference that is to be drawn from the facts that the Prosecution
will rely upon. Therefore it is not necessary for you to go into the
facts again, as to the connection of the Hitler Youth with the foreign
youth.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President.
Witness, you have just heard that these facts are not in dispute. We can
therefore turn to another topic. You were the Stabsführer of the Hitler
Youth in the Reich Youth Leadership. Do you know whether the Leadership
of the Hitler Youth maintained spies or agents abroad, or whether it
trained people for the so-called Fifth Column—and I take it you know
what that is—in other countries, or whether it brought young people
over to be trained as parachutists in Germany and then sent them back to
their own countries. During your whole period of office as Stabsführer,
did you ever learn of anything like that?
LAUTERBACHER: The Hitler Youth did not have spies, agents, or
parachutists to operate in any country in Europe. I would have been
bound to learn of such a fact or such an arrangement in any
circumstances.
DR. SAUTER: Even if Schirach had made such an arrangement behind your
back, do you believe that you would have been bound to learn of it in
any case through the channels of reports from district leaders and
similar channels?
LAUTERBACHER: I would inevitably have learned of this or have observed
it in these districts on some of my many official trips.
DR. SAUTER: Then, Witness, I should like to turn to another topic. The
other day you told me about a certain discussion. After the Polish
campaign—that would be, presumably, at the end of September or
beginning of October 1939—and before the actual campaign in France you
had a meeting with the Defendant Von Schirach in your residence in
Berlin-Dahlem, on which occasion the Defendant Von Schirach voiced his
attitude to the war. Will you describe this conversation briefly to the
Court?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes. Von Schirach came to see me at the end of September
or beginning of October 1939. He visited me in the house which I
occupied at the time in Berlin. The conversation very quickly turned to
war, and Schirach said that, in his opinion, this war should have been
prevented. He held the Foreign Minister of that time responsible for
having given Hitler inadequate or false information. He regretted the
fact that Hitler and the leading men of the State and the Party knew
nothing about Europe and the world generally and had steered Germany
into this war without having any idea of the consequences.
At that time he was of the opinion that if the war could not be brought
to an end in the shortest possible time, we should lose it. In this
connection he referred to the enormous war potential of the United
States and England. He said—and I remember the expression very
well—that this war was an unholy one and that if the German people were
not to be plunged into disaster as a result of it, the Führer must be
informed of the danger which would arise for Germany if America were to
intervene, either through deliveries of goods or through actual entry
into the war.
We considered at the time who could inform Hitler, who, in fact, could
even obtain access to him. Schirach suggested trying in some way to
introduce Colin Ross into Adolf Hitler’s presence. Colin Ross was to
call Hitler’s attention to the threatening catastrophe and to inform
Hitler of the facts. This was to be done outside the competency of the
Foreign Minister and without the Foreign Minister being present. At that
time Colin Ross was not yet in Germany. I remember that when he returned
he was introduced into Hitler’s presence by way of Schirach.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, will you tell us more about the discussion which
you mentioned as having taken place in 1939. I should like you to answer
this question: How did he come to choose Dr. Colin Ross in particular?
How did you happen to think of him?
LAUTERBACHER: I have already mentioned that the leaders of the National
Socialist State and of the Party were almost totally lacking in
knowledge of the world and foreign countries generally, and had
consequently hit upon this man, who had seen so much of the world. Colin
Ross had occasionally attended meetings of the Hitler Youth Leaders
before 1939 and had addressed them...
DR. SAUTER: What about?
LAUTERBACHER: ...and thus he was known to Schirach and the Hitler Youth.
DR. SAUTER: What were the topics he discussed before the Hitler Youth?
LAUTERBACHER: Colin Ross spoke of his experiences in every continent.
DR. SAUTER: How did Colin Ross become known to the Hitler Youth? On this
occasion did you also speak of whether an attempt should be made to find
a solution of the Jewish problem, so that it would be easier to reach an
understanding with other countries, and if so, on what basis?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes. In the course of this conversation Schirach referred
to the excesses of 9 November 1938 and to the speech he made immediately
afterwards, and said that in the circumstances it would naturally be
extremely difficult to start discussions with America; that we might
have to try beforehand—if circumstances permitted—and he wished to
suggest this to Hitler during an interview...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal does not think it is really
sufficiently important to go into Schirach’s private discussions with
this witness. If he can say anything as to what Schirach did, it may be
different, but now the witness is simply reciting the discussions which
he had with Schirach, nothing more than private discussion.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, what steps did Schirach actually take towards
peace, or to shorten the war, as a result of these discussions with you?
Did he take any steps; and what were these steps?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, as he told me at a later discussion, Schirach made
use of every opportunity at the beginning of the war to convince Hitler
of the need for discussions with America, and with this purpose in view,
he actually brought Colin Ross to Hitler, as he told me later. Colin
Ross was with Hitler for several hours. When Colin Ross visited me at
Hanover he told me about this discussion and on this occasion he said
that Hitler was very thoughtful. He did say also, however, that a second
discussion which had been planned with Hitler had not materialized, for,
according to his version, the Foreign Office had protested against this
kind of information.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal thinks that this witness is
dealing in great detail with matters which are of very little importance
and the Tribunal wishes you to bring his attention to something which is
of real importance.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have in any case only one more question.
One last question, Witness. You have not been with Schirach since 1940.
I believe you became a Gauleiter.
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Schirach went to Vienna. But in 1943 you again had a long
talk with him, mainly about why Schirach did not resign from his post.
My reason for putting this question to you is that one member of the
Prosecution has already discussed the question today. Will you tell us
briefly what reasons Schirach gave at the time for retaining his office
or why he did not resign, and what his views on the war were in 1943—at
that time, I mean?
LAUTERBACHER: In March 1943, when I made an unofficial visit to Vienna,
a very long conversation took place between Von Schirach and myself. At
that time, Von Schirach talked very pessimistically about the prospects
of the war and told me that we should soon be fighting outside Vienna,
in the Alps and along the Rhine. On that occasion he said that he had
not been able to see Adolf Hitler for a very long time; that he had had
no further opportunity of reporting to him, as had formerly been the
case; and that the Chief of the Party Chancellery, Bormann, had
consistently prevented him from seeing the Führer and talking to him
alone; and that he therefore no longer had any opportunity whatsoever of
discussing Viennese questions or general questions with Hitler. In this
connection he also stated that Bormann came to him with objections and
complaints every day, cancelling orders and directives he had issued in
his capacity of Gauleiter in Vienna, and that in view of all this, it
was no longer possible for him to remain in office and to shoulder the
responsibility.
At a later stage of that conversation, in the course of which we
considered all kinds of possibilities, he said that, as he had sworn an
oath of allegiance to Hitler, he felt bound to remain in office whatever
happened and that, above all, he could not take the responsibility in
the present military situation for abandoning the population over which
he had been appointed Gauleiter.
He saw the catastrophe coming but said that even his resignation or any
action that he might take would not have any influence on the leaders of
the State or on Hitler himself and that he would, therefore, remain true
to his oath, as a soldier would, and retain his appointment.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, that concludes my examination of this
witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defense counsel want to ask him any
questions?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, were you Gauleiter in Hanover from 1940?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, from December 1940.
DR. SERVATIUS: You were also Plenipotentiary for Labor in that capacity?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there many foreign laborers in your Gau?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, there were a great many foreign laborers in my
district. This was mainly due to the Hermann Göring Works, which had
been established near Brunswick.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have to look after them?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, my assignments as Plenipotentiary for Labor were
confined to looking after foreign civilian workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive instructions from Sauckel on that point?
LAUTERBACHER: I, like all other Gauleiter of the NSDAP, constantly
received instructions from Sauckel with regard to the recruitment of
labor; that is to say, regarding the welfare of these civilian workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: What type of instructions were they?
LAUTERBACHER: The instructions which I received as Gauleiter consisted
almost exclusively of repeated demands to do everything to satisfy the
foreign workers in matters of accommodation, food, clothing, and
cultural welfare.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that carried out in practice?
LAUTERBACHER: It was naturally carried out within the limits of existing
possibilities.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you inspect camps or factories where these workers
were employed?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, I myself inspected such camps and especially such
factories on my official trips. Apart from that I had, as my Gau
supervisor of the German Labor Front, a man who assisted me in this task
on such occasions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you or your Gau supervisor discover the existence of
shocking conditions?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes. After the air raids from which Hanover and Brunswick
suffered particularly badly from 1943 onwards, I found conditions in
foreign civilian labor camps—just as I did in the living quarters of
German people—to be what I would call, perhaps not shocking, but
certainly very serious; and after that I tried as far as possible to
have these destroyed dwellings repaired, for instance, or to have new
ones built.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you see any abuses for which these industrial
enterprises of the supervisory agencies were directly responsible?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, I do remember two such cases.
Several firms in Hanover had formed a kind of industrial association—a
kind of union—and had established a camp for their foreign civilian
workers. The trustees of these firms were responsible for this camp. One
day the Gau supervisor of the German Labor Front reported to me that
living conditions did not comply with instructions received and asked my
permission to intervene, that is to say, to be allowed to assume
responsibility through the German Labor Front for that collective camp.
I gave him this assignment; and sometime afterwards he reported that
these difficulties had been overcome.
The Hermann Göring Works constitute another example of this kind. Since
I am speaking under oath here, I must mention the fact that that firm
disregarded Sauckel’s instructions in many respects. On one occasion
they recruited workers independently, outside the jurisdiction of the
labor administration through their branches in the Ukraine and other
countries. These laborers came to Watenstedt, in the area supervised by
the Executive Board of the Party, outside the quota fixed by the
Plenipotentiary for Labor, and consequently outside of his jurisdiction.
I myself had very considerable difficulty in obtaining entry to the
works and the camp. For although Gauleiter and Plenipotentiary, I was
not by any means in a position simply to...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What has this got to do with the Defendant
Sauckel?
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked him about any abuses which he had found, for as
plenipotentiary for the recruitment of foreign workers it was his duty
to ascertain where such bad conditions existed and to report them so
that they would finally be brought to Sauckel’s notice. He has digressed
rather widely and has just been describing the Hermann Göring Works.
THE PRESIDENT: You should stop him, Dr. Servatius. You know the question
you were asking.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, did you discover the existence of abuses in the
camp?
LAUTERBACHER: I was unable to enter the camp, because entry was
forbidden.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Sauckel himself address the workers in your Gau?
LAUTERBACHER: No, not during my period of office. But he frequently sent
representatives.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have now got some questions to put on behalf of the
political leaders whom I represent.
Did you receive special instructions from the Führer on your appointment
as Gauleiter?
LAUTERBACHER: No. When I was appointed Gauleiter I was merely introduced
by Herr Hess as Gauleiter, during an assembly of Gauleiter. But I
received no special instructions on the occasion of that meeting, and
during my...
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, the answer was “no” and you did not need to add
to it at all.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you talk to the Führer later on? Did you receive
special or secret instructions?
LAUTERBACHER: I only saw the Führer now and again at Gauleiter meetings
and I never had any official discussions with him.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know anything about the activities of block
leaders? In particular, I want to ask you: Were they used as spies?
LAUTERBACHER: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: But there seems to be a widespread belief that in fact
block leaders did act as spies and informers and that has been brought
up by the Prosecution. Perhaps the SD used block leaders for that
purpose?
LAUTERBACHER: The SD had its own agents who were not known to the Party.
At any rate, the block leaders had no instructions to work for the SD.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was no card index kept of Party opponents?
LAUTERBACHER: Not in the Party organizations. As far as I know this card
index was kept by the Secret Police, as was made known in connection
with the plot of 20 July 1944.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the Party use agents for spying who may not have been
block leaders but who worked for you in your capacity of Gauleiter?
LAUTERBACHER: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
MR. DODD: When did you join the SS, Witness?
LAUTERBACHER: I was made an SS Brigadier General on 2 August 1940, on
the occasion of my appointment as Deputy Gauleiter.
MR. DODD: I did not hear your answer as to when you first joined the SS.
Would you repeat it, please?
LAUTERBACHER: On 2 August 1940.
MR. DODD: You had not belonged before that date to the organization at
all?
LAUTERBACHER: I was not a member of the SS before that date; but I
served in the Waffen-SS as a soldier, from 26 May 1940 to September
1940.
MR. DODD: And then you later became an SS Obergruppenführer, did you
not?
LAUTERBACHER: On 20 April 1944.
MR. DODD: And when did you join the staff of Himmler?
LAUTERBACHER: I was never a member of Himmler’s staff.
MR. DODD: Did you not join it in January of 1944, or what would you say
that you did join in the Reichsführer SS Organization? Perhaps I have
used the wrong term “staff.” There is some other name for it. Were you
not affiliated in some way with Himmler?
LAUTERBACHER: No, I never had any SS assignments.
MR. DODD: Did you have any connection with the Reichsführer SS from
January 1944 on?
LAUTERBACHER: In October 1944 the Reichsführer SS had gone in his
special train to Bad Pyrmont, on the occasion of a meeting of West
German Gauleiter and Higher SS and Police Leaders. I had orders to be
present at that function; and in the course of the meeting I had a talk
with him.
MR. DODD: That is not what I asked; but I will pass it. Did you become
an SA Obergruppenführer in 1944, as well as SS Obergruppenführer?
LAUTERBACHER: I became an SA Obergruppenführer, I think, in 1944 or
1943.
MR. DODD: You were also a member of the Reichstag in 1936, were you not?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
MR. DODD: And a member of the Party, I guess you said, since 1927; is
that right?
LAUTERBACHER: Since 1927.
MR. DODD: And a member of the Hitler Youth, or NSDAP, since 1923?
LAUTERBACHER: I joined the Hitler Youth in 1927. The Hitler Youth was
not established until 1927.
MR. DODD: Well, whenever it was, the youth organization of the Party,
that is what I mean. How many people did you have hanged publicly while
you were the Gauleiter up in Hanover?
LAUTERBACHER: I did not understand the question.
MR. DODD: I said: How many people did you have hanged publicly while you
were the Gauleiter up in Hanover?
LAUTERBACHER: I never hanged anyone publicly.
MR. DODD: Are you sure about that?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
MR. DODD: How many people did you send to concentration camps?
LAUTERBACHER: I might have handed over 5 or 10 persons to ordinary
courts for violating war economy regulations. And in one case which I
remember particularly well, there were two people who refused...
MR. DODD: Well, I do not care about the details. Just tell me how many
you sent.
LAUTERBACHER: There were two. I do not know if they were sent to
concentration camps, because I myself could not intern them. The
internment was decided in Berlin.
MR. DODD: Do you know a man by the name of Huck, H-u-c-k, Heinrich Huck?
LAUTERBACHER: Huck—no. At the moment I cannot remember that name.
MR. DODD: The police commissar under your Gau, or in your Gau?
LAUTERBACHER: No, I do not know him.
MR. DODD: I want to ask: Did you not have a foreign worker from one of
the eastern countries hanged, publicly hanged in the market square, and
to remain there a whole day, at one time, while you were the Gauleiter
up there?
LAUTERBACHER: No. Where is that supposed to have happened?
MR. DODD: It is supposed to have happened in Hildesheim.
LAUTERBACHER: No.
MR. DODD: In March of 1945, just before the war ended.
LAUTERBACHER: No. That is unknown to me. I never gave any such
instructions.
MR. DODD: Did you order 400 or 500 prisoners poisoned or shot just
before the city was taken by an Allied army?
LAUTERBACHER: No, that was put to me in London, and I think I cleared up
the matter.
MR. DODD: You know what I am talking about, then?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, the penitentiary at Hameln.
MR. DODD: You know that your Kreisleiter says that you ordered them
poisoned with either prussic acid or strychnine, or else they were to be
shot?
You know about that, do you not?
LAUTERBACHER: I was told about that in London.
MR. DODD: And not only does your Kreisleiter say that but Richard
Rother, who was an inspector at the prison at Hameln, confirms that the
order was passed on, that either they were to be poisoned or shot; do
you know about that as well?
LAUTERBACHER: I never gave any such order.
MR. DODD: I am asking you if you know that these people associated with
you have sworn under oath that you did. You have seen these affidavits,
have you not?
LAUTERBACHER: I was told of it in London; but I was also told that the
inmates of that penitentiary were neither poisoned nor shot, but sent
back.
MR. DODD: Yes, they were, but not because of you, but because your
people refused to carry out your orders, is not that so?
LAUTERBACHER: I know nothing about that, because I was no longer in
Hameln and no longer a Gauleiter.
MR. DODD: You have seen these affidavits, so I do not think there is any
need to hand them to you, but I am going to offer them in evidence.
LAUTERBACHER: I received the statement of the commissioned Kreisleiter,
Dr. Krämer, in London, and I replied to it.
MR. DODD: Very well. You know what he says, then?
I offer this D-861 as Exhibit USA-874, Mr. President. It is a document
consisting of 7 affidavits from persons associated with this witness
when he was the Gauleiter, and having to do with his conduct while he
was Gauleiter there.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you suggest that that evidence is relevant?
MR. DODD: I offer them in relation to this man’s credibility, or rather
lack of it. I do not think that they have anything to do directly with
the case, other than they show the kind of individual he is, as we
claim, and that the Tribunal should have this information before it when
it considers the weight it will give to his testimony.
I have also just been reminded by my friend, Mr. Elwyn Jones, that of
course it would have a bearing on the issue of the Leadership Corps of
the Nazi Party, of which he is a member. That had not occurred to me,
however. However, I do wish to claim it as a ground, also, for this
document.
THE PRESIDENT: Where are the people who made these affidavits?
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I will have to inquire. I do not know. They are
in custody, some of them at least, in the British zone here in Germany.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, you have just inquired where these people are
who made these affidavits. Perhaps I can assist you in clarifying these
questions. This Josef Krämer, whom the Prosecution have just quoted as
the leading witness against the witness Lauterbacher, was sentenced to 7
years’ imprisonment by an English court some 8 or 10 days ago, and this
for the very reason which the prosecutor has just mentioned. Herr
Lauterbacher knows nothing about this matter, but quite accidentally I
read a report of this trial in a German newspaper and I have the report
here. In that article, dated 2 May of this year, it is stated that the
former Kreisleiter of Hameln, Dr. Josef Krämer, was sentenced by the
court of the 5th British Division to 7 years’ imprisonment. I quote from
that article:
“Upon the approach of the Allied troops Krämer had given the
order to liquidate the inmates of the penitentiary at Hameln.
‘No dangerous prisoner and no foreigner is to be allowed to fall
into the hands of the enemy,’ was his order. ‘They must all be
poisoned with prussic acid, or, if that is not possible, they
will have to be shot.’”
That was the wording of the order given by ex-Kreisleiter Josef Krämer;
and he is now being used as a witness against my witness here. The
report goes on to say that officials at the penitentiary, who appeared
as witnesses, stated that in spite of this order from Dr. Krämer they
had refused to liquidate the prisoners. The rest is of no interest but I
thought that perhaps it might be important for the Tribunal, when
dealing with this question, to see from a document how this former
Kreisleiter behaved in reality. If you are interested, Mr. President,
the newspaper clipping, although it is in German, can be admitted to you
at once.
MR. DODD: May I say, Mr. President, that perfectly substantiates the
document; that is, Krämer says in here that is what he did, that he
passed orders on but that he got them from this man. If anything, it
supports us. It does not hurt us one whit insofar as the value of this
document is concerned.
In looking them over, I think it is perhaps best if I only offer the
first one and the last one. There are some others in this group that are
not particularly helpful, I expect, for the Court. I shall withdraw all
but the first and last and offer only the affidavit of Krämer and the
affidavit of Huck.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the Tribunal does not think that these
documents ought to be admitted. In the first place, so far as the credit
of the particular witness is concerned, they do not think that his
answers on questions of credit ought to be challenged by other evidence.
So far as the Leadership Corps is concerned, they think that these
documents are only evidence of one individual crime.
MR. DODD: Very well, Mr. President.
Witness, I understood you to say that you never heard the Defendant Von
Schirach say anything really derogatory of the Jewish people, and, on
the contrary, you heard him speak out quite openly after the events of 9
November 1938. Did I understand you correctly?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, he criticized the atrocities in no uncertain terms at
the meeting of Gauleiters. He had no doubt that...
MR. DODD: Do not go all through it again. I just wanted to be sure that
I understood you correctly.
I suppose you read the Hitler Youth yearbook for the year 1938, as the
Deputy to the Reich Leader.
LAUTERBACHER: At the moment I do not remember this book. If I could have
a look at it?
MR. DODD: Of course I do not expect you to. I merely wanted to ascertain
that you did read it. I suppose you always read your yearbook?
LAUTERBACHER: No.
MR. DODD: What, you did not read it?
LAUTERBACHER: I cannot remember, no.
MR. DODD: Well, would it not be customary for you to read the yearbook?
Let us put it that way.
LAUTERBACHER: The yearbook was compiled by the Press Department and I
had no influence on the details of the journalistic make-up of our
newspapers, periodicals or yearbooks. I do not remember this book, at
least as far as it concerns demands for anti-Semitic atrocities, or a
policy of force.
MR. DODD: Well, I will show it to you in any event and call your
attention to an article in the yearbook concerning the Jewish people. Do
you know what I refer to? Where they were charged with having spilled
the blood of millions of dead in history. That was put out, I assume,
after the brave statements by the defendant in November of 1938, since
it is for the whole year of 1938. You will find the article that I refer
to on Page 192.
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
MR. DODD: Have you seen that article before?
LAUTERBACHER: No. That yearbook had no official character; it was a
private enterprise on the part of the publishers.
MR. DODD: Now, just a minute. What do you mean, “it had no official
character”? It was the yearbook of the Hitler Youth, was it not?
LAUTERBACHER: This yearbook was not officially edited by the Hitler
Youth or by the Party. I never saw it until after it was published.
MR. DODD: It was published by the Central Publishing House of the NSDAP,
was it not?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes, that is correct; I see that.
MR. DODD: It was called _The Yearbook of the Hitler Youth_, and you put
it out for a good many years consecutively, did you not? I do not mean
you personally, but I mean the Party and the Hitler Youth.
LAUTERBACHER: No. This yearbook was compiled and published every year by
the gentleman mentioned there, or by others, as the case might be.
MR. DODD: I know that. I am simply trying to establish this, that this
was the yearbook of the Hitler Youth and the only one that was put out,
and it was put out each year. Now is that not so?
LAUTERBACHER: This book appeared every year, but I repeat again that it
had no official character, nor do I believe that...
MR. DODD: Well, what would you say would give it an official character?
LAUTERBACHER: If it said here, “Published by the Reich Youth Leader’s
Office,” it would have an official character.
MR. DODD: And the fact that it said, “Published by the Central
Publishing House of the NSDAP” would not give it one, is that it?
LAUTERBACHER: Certainly not.
MR. DODD: You did not put out any other publications in the nature of a
yearbook, did you, except this one?
LAUTERBACHER: A calendar was published every year.
MR. DODD: Well, I am certainly not talking about a calendar; I am
talking about a report or a book.
LAUTERBACHER: No.
MR. DODD: And you are still telling this Tribunal that this was not the
yearbook of the Hitler Youth and the only one that was published in
Germany?
LAUTERBACHER: I repeat that this yearbook did not have any official
character.
MR. DODD: Well, after having read that quotation, do you still think
that Schirach, as leader of the Reich Youth, was not actively speaking
about the Jews in a derogatory sort of way, or that talk of this kind
was not going on under his leadership?
LAUTERBACHER: Von Schirach never left any doubt regarding his
anti-Semitic attitude as long as he was Reich Youth Leader.
MR. DODD: Do you know the speech he made in 1942 when he took credit for
deporting the Jews from Vienna? Are you familiar with that speech?
LAUTERBACHER: No, I do not know that speech. During that time I was in
Hanover, and Schirach was in Vienna.
MR. DODD: Yes. He was a fellow Gauleiter at that time.
Did you ever get any SS reports on what was happening to the Jews in the
East?
LAUTERBACHER: Never. I never had access to SS reports, SS circulars, or
orders.
MR. DODD: Did you deport any Jews from your Gau?
LAUTERBACHER: When I came to the Gau in December 1940, the Jews had
already emigrated.
MR. DODD: They were already out by the time you got there?
LAUTERBACHER: Yes.
MR. DODD: Did you ever hear of Gauleiters getting reports from Heydrich
or from Himmler about what was happening to the Jews in the East? Did
any of your fellow Gauleiter ever tell you that they got reports
regularly, say by the month or by the week?
LAUTERBACHER: No. Himmler’s reports were no more accessible to the
Gauleiter than they were to the honorary leaders of the SS. As
Obergruppenführer of the SS I never received a report or an instruction
from Himmler.
MR. DODD: Those Himmler reports were handled pretty carefully, were they
not?
I am now asking you—as an SS Obergruppenführer I suppose you know
something about it—were those reports handled very carefully, those
Himmler and Heydrich reports?
LAUTERBACHER: As an SS Obergruppenführer I never received any of
Himmler’s reports, and I know that Himmler sent all reports dealing with
confidential or internal SS matters only to SS and Police, that is, SS
leaders in the service of the SS, but never to the honorary leaders.
MR. DODD: Now, what I really asked you was whether or not the reports,
when they were sent out, were very carefully handled. Do you know the
answer to that?
LAUTERBACHER: I do not know. I do not know how these reports were
handled.
MR. DODD: What was Heydrich’s reputation, so far as you were concerned,
in 1942? Did you think very well of him or did you think very poorly of
him before he was killed?
LAUTERBACHER: I only knew Heydrich from meeting him a few times in the
Reich Youth Leader’s Office, and I had a good impression of him
personally. I am forced to have a different opinion of him now; but only
because I now know of his measures.
MR. DODD: What was he doing in the Reich Youth Leader’s Office the few
times that you met him? What business did he have there?
LAUTERBACHER: He had intervened on his own initiative and through his
own agencies in cases of homosexuality. Schirach forbade that and told
him that these matters too were first of all subject to his own
jurisdiction.
MR. DODD: You sat in on all of these conferences with Heydrich, no
matter how many there were, did you not?
LAUTERBACHER: I participated in one conference on the question of
homosexuality in the Hitler Youth.
MR. DODD: Tell us this: Did it appear to you, from what you saw and
heard there, that Heydrich and Schirach were very friendly, or on a very
friendly basis?
LAUTERBACHER: That conference did not take place with Von Schirach, but
with one of the officials from the Reich Youth Leader’s Office who, as
Chief of the Hitler Youth Legal Administration, conducted the discussion
with Heydrich.
MR. DODD: Were you ever present when Heydrich talked to Von Schirach?
Were you ever present?
LAUTERBACHER: No.
MR. DODD: Did Heydrich ever talk to you, or rather, did Von Schirach
ever talk to you about Heydrich?
LAUTERBACHER: No, I cannot remember that.
MR. DODD: We have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire.
DR. SAUTER: With the permission of the President, I shall now call my
next witness, Gustav Hoepken.
[_The witness Hoepken took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
GUSTAV DIETRICH HOEPKEN (Witness): Gustav Dietrich Hoepken.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SAUTER: Herr Hoepken, I have already examined you on the case of
Schirach when you were in prison?
HOEPKEN: Yes, you have already examined me.
DR. SAUTER: How old are you?
HOEPKEN: I am 36.
DR. SAUTER: What is your father’s occupation?
HOEPKEN: My father is a dock laborer.
DR. SAUTER: And yourself?
HOEPKEN: I was a newspaper boy, a dock laborer, a spare-time student,
and sports instructor.
DR. SAUTER: Sports instructor. You are now in American hands, are you
not?
HOEPKEN: Yes, I am a prisoner in American hands.
DR. SAUTER: Since when?
HOEPKEN: Since 19 May 1945.
DR. SAUTER: Has the Prosecution interrogated you on this matter?
HOEPKEN: Up to now the Prosecution has not interrogated me.
DR. SAUTER: When did you join the Hitler Youth?
HOEPKEN: I joined the Hitler Youth in 1933.
DR. SAUTER: You joined the Hitler Youth in 1933? How old were you at
that time?
HOEPKEN: I was 23.
DR. SAUTER: And in what capacity did you join?
HOEPKEN: First as an ordinary member. In September 1933 I became an
Unterbannführer in the Hitler Youth.
DR. SAUTER: Unterbannführer in 1933?
HOEPKEN: Yes, in September 1933.
DR. SAUTER: Was that a salaried position or an honorary appointment?
HOEPKEN: From 1933 to 1935 I worked as a sports instructor in the Hitler
Youth.
DR. SAUTER: And in 1935?
HOEPKEN: In 1935 I joined the government offices at Potsdam as an expert
on PT in schools.
DR. SAUTER: But that had nothing to do with the Hitler Youth, had it?
HOEPKEN: At Potsdam I also commanded the Potsdam unit and local
headquarters of the Hitler Youth.
DR. SAUTER: So you were a civil servant—or rather, an employee of the
State and apart from that an honorary leader of the Hitler Youth?
HOEPKEN: From 1935 until 1939 I was a civil servant in the government
offices at Potsdam and I also commanded the Hitler Youth unit and local
headquarters at Potsdam in an honorary capacity.
DR. SAUTER: Therefore in the summer of 1939 you joined the Reich Youth
Leadership, did you?
HOEPKEN: In June 1939 I joined the Reich Youth Leadership and became
adjutant to Baldur von Schirach who was Reich Youth Leader at the time.
DR. SAUTER: And how long did you hold that office?
HOEPKEN: Until August 1939, and then I became a soldier.
DR. SAUTER: Before you joined Schirach’s staff, had you not served in
the Armed Forces?
HOEPKEN: Up to joining Schirach in 1939 I had done 8 weeks’ obligatory
training in the Air Force.
DR. SAUTER: Apart from that, you had no training?
HOEPKEN: Apart from that I had no military training.
DR. SAUTER: Were you an officer?
HOEPKEN: I had not been an officer up to that time.
DR. SAUTER: So far as his other collaborators were concerned, did
Schirach attach importance to their being officers or trained soldiers?
HOEPKEN: So far as I know, Von Schirach did not care whether his
collaborators were soldiers or officers, on the contrary, it was his
view, as he told me repeatedly, that soldiers and officers, as far as he
could see, were less suitable as youth leaders.
DR. SAUTER: I do not want to go into the general question of the
training of the Hitler Youth, but I wish to ask you one single question
on this point, especially because you are a sports instructor by
profession. It is a question about the training of the Hitler Youth in
shooting. Were they trained with military weapons, or how were they
trained in firing?
HOEPKEN: The Hitler Youth were trained in shooting with air guns or
small arms. They did not shoot with military weapons.
DR. SAUTER: In that case I will not put any further questions to you on
the subject of uniform as these questions have already been clarified.
But there is one other thing in which I am interested and that is the
relationship to the Church: Do you know, Witness, whether the Defendant
Von Schirach in 1937, that is in the issue of the Berlin paper, the
_Berliner Tageblatt_ of 14 January 1937, published an article written by
his press adviser Günther Kaufmann, headed “Can the Gap be Bridged”?
That article, a copy of which I have before me, deals with a problem in
which I am interested, and that is why I want to ask you: Do you know
what Schirach made his press adviser write in that article on the
question of whether the Hitler Youth leaders should consider the young
people’s need for church services or not?
HOEPKEN: I know the article.
DR. SAUTER: You know it?
HOEPKEN: I also know the order issued by the Reich Youth Leader of that
time stating that on Sundays there should be no Hitler Youth duty for
all those boys and girls who wanted to attend church. Every boy and girl
in the Hitler Youth at that time was supposed to be able to attend
religious services of his or her own free will; and it was made part of
the duty of the Hitler Youth leaders at the time to refrain from
entering into any arguments or controversies about the Hitler Youth and
the Church. He prohibited that.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, that is the main point of that article of 14
January 1937. But you know that the Defendant Schirach had certain
difficulties with Hitler because of this article. Will you tell us
briefly what you know about it?
HOEPKEN: As soon as the agreement between the Church and the Hitler
Youth was made, the article mentioned appeared in the _Berliner
Tageblatt_. On the day that article appeared, Schirach was at a meeting
in Rosenberg’s office. Hitler called Schirach to the telephone at that
time. Hitler took Schirach sternly to task, firstly, for making an
agreement between the Church and the Hitler Youth and, secondly, for
publishing this article. His intention was to cancel the agreement and
to ban any further issue of the newspapers. Neither of these things
happened.
DR. SAUTER: Did Schirach refuse to withdraw the article?
HOEPKEN: So far as I know he did.
DR. SAUTER: In 1940 you went to Vienna with Schirach?
HOEPKEN: No, I did not.
DR. SAUTER: When did you go?
HOEPKEN: I went to Vienna for the first time in September 1941.
DR. SAUTER: Where had you been in the meantime?
HOEPKEN: I have already told you that I joined the Luftwaffe in August
1939 and served during that time as a service flying instructor in a
Luftwaffe training school.
DR. SAUTER: And you did not rejoin Schirach until 1941, and then in
Vienna?
HOEPKEN: Yes; I joined Schirach in Vienna in September 1941.
DR. SAUTER: The highest dignitary of the Catholic Church in Vienna is
Cardinal Innitzer, right?
HOEPKEN: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know what Von Schirach’s attitude to Cardinal
Innitzer was? I will tell you at once why I am asking you this question;
I want to know if it is true that Schirach objected to Cardinal
Innitzer’s being molested by the Hitler Youth, and what steps he took,
_et cetera_.
HOEPKEN: Schirach told me repeatedly that he would like to have a talk
with Cardinal Innitzer, but that he was not allowed to do so, firstly,
because of a decree issued by the former head of the Party Chancellery,
Martin Bormann, prohibiting the Gauleiter from contacting Church
dignitaries and, secondly, because Schirach knew that he himself was
under surveillance.
DR. SAUTER: Who, Schirach?
HOEPKEN: That Schirach was under surveillance and thought that if he
forced such a discussion, Bormann would be certain to know of it on the
next day, which would have had most unpleasant consequences both for
Schirach and Cardinal Innitzer. On the other hand, it was Schirach’s
view that Cardinal Innitzer also would certainly have liked to have a
talk with Schirach and Schirach thought that certainly would not have
been the case if Cardinal Innitzer had not known of his tolerant
attitude toward the Church and the Christian religion. It is furthermore
known to me—and I think this happened in the winter of 1944 to
1945—that Cardinal Innitzer was molested by youthful civilians while
returning from mass. Cardinal Innitzer had the police find out the names
of these youngsters, and they turned out to be Hitler Youth leaders.
Schirach ordered the competent district leader of the Hitler Youth to
him the same day, took him severely to task, and demanded that the youth
leaders in question be relieved of their duties at once. As far as I
know, this was actually done. I believe I also remember that Schirach
had a letter of apology sent to Cardinal Innitzer, either personally or
through one of his officials.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better break off now.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 28 May 1946 at 1000 hours._]
ONE HUNDRED AND FORTIETH DAY
Tuesday, 28 May 1946
_Morning Session_
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that Defendant
Göring is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: We were going to deal with Defendant Bormann’s documents,
were we not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, two witnesses only have arrived so far for
the Defendant Sauckel. Three essential witnesses are still missing.
Perhaps the Court can help to bring these witnesses quickly so that the
case will not be delayed. They are the witnesses Stothfang, Dr. Jäger,
and Hildebrandt. I have repeatedly asked the Prosecution to get them but
they are not here yet. I have not yet spoken to the witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Have they been located?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. One is in a camp in Kassel, which is only a few
hours from here, and the other is in Neumünster. That is a little
farther, perhaps 6 or 7 hours from here. Dr. Jäger is free.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not in accordance with the information which the
Tribunal has. The Tribunal has the information that they cannot be
found.
DR. SERVATIUS: I received the information that their whereabouts has
been ascertained.
THE PRESIDENT: From whom did you receive that information?
DR. SERVATIUS: Officially, from the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will make inquiries into it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, first, with regard to the witnesses
applied for for the Defendant Bormann. They are, as I understand it,
Fräulein Krüger, to whom we have no objection. The witness Müller is no
longer applied for?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I have dispensed with that witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, Klopfer, and lastly, Friedrich. These are
with regard to Bormann’s law-making activities, and the Prosecution have
no objections.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Lordship, in place of the witness Müller, whom I have
withdrawn, I have an additional request for the witness Gerta Christian
on the same subject for which I had requested the witness Müller.
THE PRESIDENT: The first witness, Miss Krüger, is going to speak to
exactly the same facts, is she not, to the death of Bormann?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Your Lordship. The circumstances concerning Bormann’s
death are not very clear. It is very necessary to hear all the available
witnesses on this subject because only in this way can one be convinced
of the fact, which I am trying to establish, that the Defendant Bormann
is already dead.
THE PRESIDENT: It does not seem to be a very relevant fact. It is very
remotely relevant whether he is dead or whether he is alive. The
question is whether he is guilty or innocent.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Lordship, my point of view is that sentence cannot be
passed against a dead man. That is not provided for in the Charter.
According to the Charter, the Court can only sentence an absent person,
but a dead person cannot be included under the term “absent.” If the
defendant is dead, the Charter does not provide the possibility of
continuing proceedings against him.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you any objection to that other witness?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord, the Prosecution does not make any
objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, My Lord, with regard to the documents, the
first batch of documents is a series of treaties and diplomatic
pronouncements and documents to counteract the statement of Sir Hartley
Shawcross as to the position of international law before the Charter,
the statement that the law of nations had constituted aggressive war an
international crime before this Tribunal was established and this
Charter became part of the public law of the world. The position of the
Prosecution is that evidence on that point is really irrelevant because
after all, the Tribunal is covered by the Charter, and it seems
unnecessary to translate and publish, by way of document books, all
these matters which the learned counsel has set out in his application.
That is, shortly, the position of the Prosecution with regard to that
first batch of documents. Especially, I do not want to discuss the
problem for the reason that I have given.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What are the numbers of them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They are 1 to 11—no, 7, in the application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Are they long documents?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Lordship, I have not seen them yet. I applied for
these documents 3 months ago in order to look them over, but
unfortunately I have not received them yet and therefore I cannot give
the Court any information as to whether they are long or not and what
parts of them I will need for my defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Number 2 looks like a long document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
DR. BERGOLD: But I will not use all these documents if I receive them. I
shall probably take some of them, Your Lordship; I shall only...
THE PRESIDENT: When you say you applied for them 3 months ago, you do
not mean you applied to the Tribunal, do you?
DR. BERGOLD: I applied to the General Secretary, but perhaps it was put
aside when Your Lordship decided that my case should be postponed to the
end. Perhaps it was forgotten.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there any order on your application?
DR. BERGOLD: No.
THE PRESIDENT: You applied, I think, for an adjournment, did you not, in
order that the matter might be brought up later?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Your Lordship; I am in an especially difficult
situation. I have questioned many witnesses and have tried very hard,
but I can find nothing exonerating. All the witnesses are filled with
great hatred toward the Defendant Bormann, and they want to incriminate
him in order to exonerate themselves. That makes my case especially
difficult. The man himself is probably dead and can give me no
information. Any day now I might get new information. For example, a few
days ago one of Bormann’s co-workers, a Dr. Von Hummeln, was arrested in
Salzburg. I will go to see him and perhaps I shall get fresh
information—perhaps none. I must also assume...
THE PRESIDENT: We need not bother about that now. We are only inquiring
about your application with reference to the documents.
Sir David, have you anything further you want to say about the
documents?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, that is my short point. I do not want to
discuss the merits of my points because that is the issue, that I am
saying is irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: What about Number 11?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not disposed to object to any of the other
documents, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any others besides...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 11—I can see a possible argument on
that, My Lord; therefore I am not going to object to it. The other
documents we certainly have no objection to; the ordinances of the
Führer’s Deputy and...
THE PRESIDENT: All under “B”?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. The Prosecution makes no objection to
these.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Now, what do you say to Sir David’s objection to these documents, 1 to
7?
DR. BERGOLD: Well, Your Lordship, I have already made my point of view
clear in my application. In order to save the time of the Court, I will
merely refer to this written application. I will not say any more at the
moment on the subject, but if Your Lordship wants me to explain it here
now I am ready to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did Your Lordship wish to deal with the other
outstanding applications or would Your Lordship prefer to deal with that
later on at the end of the case of Von Schirach?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think we have the papers here. We were only
going to deal with Bormann this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, we have got a document here, D-880, said to be
extracts from testimony of Admiral Raeder, taken at Nuremberg on 10
November 1945 by Major John Monigan. Have you offered that document in
evidence or not?
MR. DODD: May I have just a minute to check it? I am not certain.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will give you the document.
MR. DODD: I believe not, Mr. President; I do not believe it has been
offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to have been handed up yesterday or the day
before...
MR. DODD: I think through a mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: ...or last week. Yes. But you will find out about that
and let us know.
MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you were still examining Gustav Hoepken, were
you not?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I shall continue my examination of the
witness Hoepken.
[_The witness Hoepken resumed the stand._]
DR. SAUTER: Herr Hoepken, we stopped yesterday when discussing the
question whether the Defendant Von Schirach during his time in Vienna
was opposed to the Church or was tolerant in this connection. The last
answer you gave me yesterday referred to the relations of the Defendant
Von Schirach to the Viennese Cardinal, Innitzer. Is it correct, Witness,
that at the suggestion and with the knowledge of the Defendant Von
Schirach during his time in Vienna you periodically had talks with a
Catholic priest there, a Dean, Professor Ens, for the purpose of
discussing Church questions with him and removing any differences which
might arise?
HOEPKEN: Yes, that is true. Professor Ens was not, as you assume,
Catholic, but Protestant. He was Dean of the faculty of theology of the
University of Vienna. When he visited me he submitted many Church and
religious questions to me. I discussed them with him. He then asked me
to report on them to Herr Von Schirach so that, if it were in his power,
he could make redress. This was done as far as possible.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know, Witness, that the Defendant Von Schirach, for
example, ordered that at the Party Christmas celebrations new National
Socialist Christmas songs were not to be sung, but the old Christian
Christmas hymns?
HOEPKEN: Yes, I know that at the Christmas celebrations of the Party and
of the Hitler Youth, and the Christmas celebration for wounded soldiers,
the old Christian Christmas carols, such as “Es ist ein Ros’
entsprungen,” and “Silent Night, Holy Night...”
THE PRESIDENT: This is surely not a matter which is worthy to be given
in evidence.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know that the Defendant Von Schirach, in the
official magazine of the Hitler Youth, had a special number published
which was in favor of humane treatment of the people of the Eastern
Territories, and when was that?
HOEPKEN: I know that it was the quarterly number for April to June 1943.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know that in the same official magazine of the Hitler
Youth, at the request of the Defendant Bormann, a special anti-Semitic
number was to appear, but that Von Schirach refused it?
HOEPKEN: I know that it was requested at that time by the Propaganda
Ministry and also by the Party Chancellery. Von Schirach refused each
time.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know that Von Schirach once inspected a
concentration camp?
HOEPKEN: Yes, I know that.
DR. SAUTER: Which one?
HOEPKEN: The concentration camp Mauthausen.
DR. SAUTER: In regard to this point, which has already been more or less
cleared up by the testimony of other witnesses, I am interested only in
one question. When was this visit to Mauthausen?
HOEPKEN: I cannot say exactly. I can say with certainty, however, that
it was not after April 1943.
DR. SAUTER: Why can you say that?
HOEPKEN: In April 1943 I was discharged from hospital and began my
service in Vienna. From that day on until April 1945 I knew every day
where Von Schirach was. Moreover, immediately after my arrival in Vienna
in April 1943, when I asked him, as I was rather run-down physically
because of my wound and was also a sports teacher, whether I might do
some sports between 7 and 8 in the morning...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we do not want to know about the witness’
health, do we?
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you heard what the President just said. I have
already told you I am interested in when this visit to Mauthausen was.
You said, if I understood you correctly...
THE PRESIDENT: He said he could not say when it was and it was after
April 1943. He said he could not say when it was.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe you misunderstood the witness.
Witness, please pay attention as to whether this is correct. I
understood the witness to say that it was before April 1943. The visit
must have been before April 1943. It could not have been later.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, he also said, according to the conversation I
heard and took down, that he could not say when the particular time was.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, but through the testimony of the witness I should like
to settle the fact that it was not later than April 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: He said that already. He said it. He said, “I cannot say
when it was, but it was not after April 1943.” He said: “In April 1943 I
was discharged from the hospital and began my service in Vienna. I knew
every day where Schirach was.” I have got that all written down.
DR. SAUTER: Very well. Witness, in this conversation about his visit to
Mauthausen did the Defendant Von Schirach tell you anything to the
effect that on this visit he got to hear of any atrocities,
ill-treatment, and such things?
HOEPKEN: No, he said nothing about that.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I now turn to the question of the deportation of
Jews from Vienna. As far as I know you were an ear-witness of a
conversation between the Reichsführer SS Himmler and the Defendant
Schirach. Will you tell us what was said in this conversation on the
question of the deportation of Jews?
HOEPKEN: I believe it was in November 1941; Himmler and Schirach were
motoring through East Prussia from Himmler’s quarters to his special
train. In the car Himmler asked Von Schirach: “Tell me, Von Schirach,
how many Jews are still in Vienna?” Von Schirach answered, “I cannot say
exactly. I estimate 40,000 to 50,000.” And Himmler said: “I must
evacuate these Jews as quickly as possible from Vienna.” And Schirach
said: “The Jews do not give me any trouble, especially as they are now
wearing the yellow star.” Then Himmler said: “The Führer is already
angry that Vienna, in this matter as in many others, is made an
exception, and I will have to instruct my SS agencies to carry this out
as speedily as possible.” That is what I remember of this conversation.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know anything about the anti-Semitic speech made by
the Defendant Von Schirach in September 1942 at a Congress in Vienna,
which the Prosecution submitted to the Court?
HOEPKEN: Yes, the contents of the speech are known to us.
DR. SAUTER: I want to know whether you know anything about it,
especially whether Schirach said anything to you about why he made this
anti-Semitic speech?
HOEPKEN: I know from the press officer Günther Kaufmann, who was
mentioned yesterday, that directly after this speech Von Schirach
instructed Kaufmann that every point in the speech should be telephoned
to the DNB (Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro) in Berlin, with the remark that
he had every reason to make a concession to Bormann on this point.
DR. SAUTER: Why a concession?
HOEPKEN: I assume that Schirach knew that his position in Vienna was
precarious, and that he constantly heard, especially from the Party
Chancellery, that he must take a stricter course in Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: You were Chief of the Central Bureau with Schirach in
Vienna. In this capacity, did all Schirach’s incoming mail go through
you?
HOEPKEN: Not all of his mail, but the great majority of it. Mail stamped
“only direct” and “personal” did not go through my hands.
DR. SAUTER: But the other mail?
HOEPKEN: That went through my office.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, we have here a number of documents which have been
submitted to the Court. They are the activity and situation reports
which the Chief of the Security Police made, I believe, monthly or
weekly and which have been submitted to the Court under Number 3943-PS.
These reports came from Vienna, and since you know the situation in the
Central Bureau in Vienna and are well-informed about its activity, I
will now hand you several of these documents. Please look at the
documents and then tell us whether from these documents, which are
photostat copies, you can determine whether these reports of the SS came
to you or to the Defendant Von Schirach, or whether they went to a
different office. I call your special attention to the manner in which
these documents are annotated. Please note on the individual documents
who initialed the document and what was done with the document after
that. And then please tell us who these officials are who figure in the
documents as officials of the Reich Defense Commission; for instance, a
Dr. Fischer, _et cetera_.
Those are the documents, Mr. President, about which the Court asked
questions the other day.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know they are, but I do not know what the question
is exactly. It seems to me there are a great number of questions. Well,
let us get on, Dr. Sauter. We shall have to consider these documents,
you know, and the witness ought to be able to give his answer.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President. Of course, the witness has to look at
the documents first. He must especially note which officials initialed
the documents and what the officials did with them. That is what I must
ask the witness, in order to ascertain what the documents...
THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought that he had seen these documents
before.
DR. SAUTER: No; they were just handed over in cross-examination. I could
not discuss them previously with the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: They were certainly handed over before this morning.
DR. SAUTER: Not to the witness—to me, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, get on, Dr. Sauter, get on.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, what do these documents tell you? Did they come to
the knowledge of the Defendant Von Schirach, or how were they dealt
with?
HOEPKEN: These documents did not go through the Central Bureau. I see
here that they are initialed by a Dr. Felber. I know him. He was the
expert assigned to the Regierungspräsident in Vienna for all matters
concerning the Reich Defense Commissioner.
From the treatment given these documents, I must assume that the Berlin
SD agency sent them directly to the office of the Regierungspräsident,
and from there they were entered into the files, as I see here. I do not
see Von Schirach’s initials here.
DR. SAUTER: The Regierungspräsident was a certain Dellbrügge?
HOEPKEN: Dr. Dellbrügge.
DR. SAUTER: And this Dr. Felber whom you mentioned was an official of
the Regierungspräsident?
HOEPKEN: Yes, an official of the Regierungspräsident.
DR. SAUTER: And when such a document as you have there arrived, where
did the post office or any other agency deliver it? Was it delivered to
you or did the Regierungspräsident have his own office for incoming
mail, or how was it?
HOEPKEN: I already said that they must have been sent directly to the
office of the Regierungspräsident, who had his own office for incoming
mail.
DR. SAUTER: How can you tell that the Defendant Von Schirach had no
knowledge of these documents?
HOEPKEN: Because he did not initial these documents. If documents were
submitted to him, they were initialed “z.K.g.”—noted—“B.v.S.,” and
that does not appear on these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, I do not think the Prosecution suggested that
they were initialed by Von Schirach. It was quite clearly brought out in
Von Schirach’s evidence that he had not initialed them, and that fact
was not challenged by Mr. Dodd.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe it is a decisive point whether
Defendant Von Schirach had any knowledge of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you keep asking whether they were initialed by him
or not? That fact, as I have pointed out, has already been proved and
not challenged.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have here an additional collection of documents
under Number 3876-PS. They are additional reports from the Chief of the
Security Police. There is another address on these. It says here, among
other things: “To the Reich Defense Commissioner for the Defense
District XVII”—that was Vienna—“for the attention of Oberregierungsrat
Dr. Fischer in Vienna.”
I am interested in knowing who Dr. Fischer was. Was he in the Central
Bureau, or who was he?
HOEPKEN: I do not know a Dr. Fischer either in the Central Bureau or in
the Reichsstatthalterei.
DR. SAUTER: Then how do you explain the fact that in these reports it
always says, “To the Reich Defense Commissioner for the Defense District
XVII, for the attention of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Fischer?”
HOEPKEN: I assume he was a colleague of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Felber,
who specialized in these matters. Also I see they were secret letters,
and were therefore addressed to him personally.
DR. SAUTER: As far as you know, did not the Regierungspräsident
Dellbrügge report to the Defendant Von Schirach on these reports which
reached him, or have one of his officials report about them?
HOEPKEN: The Regierungspräsident reported directly to Herr Von Schirach
about matters concerning the Reich Governor and the Reich Defense
Commissioner. I was not present at these conversations; consequently I
cannot say to what extent he reported to Von Schirach on these matters.
DR. SAUTER: If the Regierungspräsident or one of his officials reported
to the Defendant Von Schirach on these reports, would that be shown in
the documents?
HOEPKEN: Probably yes. In that case the Regierungspräsident or the
officials would have had to write on them “To be filed after being
reported to the Reich Governor,” or “for further action.”
DR. SAUTER: On the documents which I submitted to you there is no such
indication?
HOEPKEN: On these documents, no.
DR. SAUTER: And on the documents which I have here, there is no such
note either. Do you conclude from this that the Defendant Von Schirach
received no report on them?
HOEPKEN: I must conclude that Von Schirach was not informed on these
matters.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Defendant Von Schirach was chief of the state
administration in Vienna in his capacity as Reich Governor, as well as
chief of the local administration to a certain extent as mayor, and
finally chief of the Party as Gauleiter. Now, we hear that in each of
these capacities he had a permanent representative.
I should like to know who normally administered the affairs of the Reich
Defense Commissioner and the Reich Governor; that is, the affairs of the
state administration?
HOEPKEN: I have already said that it was the Regierungspräsident, Dr.
Dellbrügge.
DR. SAUTER: And then what did the Defendant Von Schirach do in the field
of state administration?
HOEPKEN: He was given regular reports by the Regierungspräsident. Von
Schirach then made his decision, and these decisions were then carried
out by the officials or departments.
DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, the Defendant Von Schirach
concerned himself only with such matters as were reported to him by the
Regierungspräsident or which were brought to his special attention in
writing; is that true?
HOEPKEN: Yes, that is true.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, were you yourself a member of the SS?
HOEPKEN: No, I was never a member of the SS.
DR. SAUTER: Of the SA?
HOEPKEN: No.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know that these three permanent representatives,
whom the Defendant Von Schirach had in Vienna, namely the
Regierungspräsident, the Deputy Gauleiter, and the Mayor, were
all three SS Führer?
HOEPKEN: Yes, I know that.
DR. SAUTER: How was that? Did the Defendant Von Schirach select these
men himself, or how do you explain the fact that all three of his
representatives were SS Führer?
HOEPKEN: The Deputy Gauleiter, Scharizer, was an honorary SS Führer and,
as far as I recall, he was Oberbefehlsleiter of the Party. When Von
Schirach came to Vienna, Scharizer had already been active for several
years in Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: As what?
HOEPKEN: As Deputy Gauleiter. I do not know when the
Regierungspräsident, Dr. Dellbrügge, came to Vienna; but I assume either
before or at about the same time as Von Schirach. Moreover, the
Regierungspräsidenten were appointed by the Ministry of the Interior, so
that I think he could hardly have had sufficient influence to refuse or
select a particular Regierungspräsident.
As for the mayor, the situation was similar.
DR. SAUTER: He was a certain Blaschke?
HOEPKEN: Yes. He was SS Brigadeführer Blaschke, he was also appointed by
the Ministry of the Interior as acting mayor.
DR. SAUTER: By the Ministry of the Interior?
HOEPKEN: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: When was that?
HOEPKEN: I believe that was in 1944, in January or February of 1944.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know that this SS Brigadeführer, or whatever he was,
this Blaschke, before the time of the Defendant Von Schirach, was active
in Vienna as a town councillor, and I believe also as vice mayor?
HOEPKEN: He was a town councillor before; and I believe he was vice
mayor before I came to Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know that the Defendant Von Schirach for a long time
opposed this SS Oberführer or Brigadeführer Blaschke being appointed
mayor of Vienna?
HOEPKEN: I should say he opposed this for about 6 or 9 months, and I
believe later he refused to allow the Minister of the Interior finally
to confirm his appointment as mayor.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, what were the relations between the Defendant Von
Schirach and the SS and the SS officers? Were they especially friendly
and cordial or what were they like?
HOEPKEN: As far as I know, Schirach associated with the SS Führer as far
as was officially necessary and no more.
DR. SAUTER: Was he friendly with SS men?
HOEPKEN: No; I do not know. In any case I knew of no such friendship.
DR. SAUTER: Did he not express to you his attitude toward the SS?
HOEPKEN: I have already said that he always had the feeling that he was
under a certain supervision from them and for that reason he was rather
distrustful.
DR. SAUTER: Distrustful of...
HOEPKEN: Of the SS.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know how the Defendant Von Schirach received
his information about the foreign press and foreign press reports?
HOEPKEN: He received them from the Reich Propaganda Office in Vienna.
They were excerpts which the Propaganda Ministry issued in collaboration
with the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich. As far as I know, however,
they were selected and screened.
DR. SAUTER: Did you live for a long time with Von Schirach in Vienna?
HOEPKEN: From 1944 on I lived in Schirach’s house.
DR. SAUTER: You also took your meals with him?
HOEPKEN: Yes, I also took meals with him.
DR. SAUTER: Did not the Defendant Von Schirach obtain information from
the foreign radio?
HOEPKEN: No, I am almost certain he did not, because after every meal he
listened to the official German news services with me and a few other
co-workers. Besides, if he had done so it would in my opinion have
become known very soon for, as I said already, he had the feeling that
he was being watched.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the witness can only tell us what he knows.
How could he know whether Von Schirach ever listened to any foreign
news? If he does not know, why do you not take him on to something else?
DR. SAUTER: The witness said, Mr. President, that during the latter part
of his time in Vienna, from the spring of 1944 I believe he said, he
lived in the house of the Defendant Von Schirach.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know he said that, and he said that he did not
think he heard foreign news. What more can he give? What more evidence
can he give on that subject?
DR. SAUTER: I wanted to hear that, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: But he said it already. I have taken it down. Why do you
not go on to something else?
DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know that in the last weeks of the
resistance an order came to Vienna from Berlin according to which all
defeatists, whether men or women, were to be hanged? What attitude did
Schirach take toward this order?
HOEPKEN: I know that so-called courts martial were to be set up with the
purpose of speedily sentencing people who objected to the conduct of the
war or who showed themselves to be defeatists. This court martial was
set up in Vienna, or rather appointed, but it did not meet once, and
thus did not pronounce any sentences.
DR. SAUTER: Did the court martial of the Defendant Von Schirach carry on
any proceedings at all?
HOEPKEN: No, not to my knowledge.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know anything about it?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, that fact, again, was given in evidence by
Von Schirach and was not cross-examined to—that that court martial did
not meet.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know anything about the fact that in the
last weeks an order came to form _franc-tireur_ units? What was Von
Schirach’s attitude to that?
HOEPKEN: I do not know that _franc-tireur_ units were to be formed, but
I do know that a “Freikorps Hitler” was to be formed. They were to be in
civilian clothes. Schirach ordered that no people from the Reichsgau
Vienna were to be assigned to this “Freikorps.”
DR. SAUTER: Why not?
HOEPKEN: Because at that time he considered resistance senseless.
Secondly, because he considered it contrary to international law.
DR. SAUTER: My last question to you, Witness. You were with Schirach to
the last, until he left Vienna?
HOEPKEN: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Did Schirach give an order to destroy bridges or churches,
residential quarters, and so forth, in Vienna?
HOEPKEN: No, I do not know of that.
DR. SAUTER: What was the position he took?
HOEPKEN: That orders to blow up bridges or to take any defense measures
were given only by the military authorities, as far as I know.
DR. SAUTER: But not by Schirach?
HOEPKEN: No.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no more questions to put to this
witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defendant’s counsel want to ask questions?
The Prosecution?
MR. DODD: Witness, would you see all of the files that were in Von
Schirach’s office during the time that you were his adjutant?
HOEPKEN: I have already told you, or I told the defense counsel, that
most of the mail went through the Central Bureau.
MR. DODD: I want to show you a document that is in evidence here and ask
you if you can tell us whether or not you have seen this before.
[_A document was handed to the witness._]
Have you ever seen that document before?
HOEPKEN: I do not know this document officially, as I see it is dated 28
May 1942, at which time I was an officer in the Luftwaffe.
MR. DODD: I see, you did not mean the Tribunal to understand that you
were familiar with everything that was in Von Schirach’s files, because
certainly this document was there during the years that you were his
adjutant. You never saw it. It is marked “Central Bureau,” and you had
charge of these very files, yet you never saw this teletype to Bormann?
So you certainly did not know everything that was in his files, did you?
HOEPKEN: I said that the majority of the mail went through my offices
but, of course, since I was not in Vienna at this time but only came to
Vienna in April 1943, I was not able to look through all the back
documents and letters in the files of the Reich Governor. That would
have taken years.
MR. DODD: Let me ask you something else. You were there in the last
days, I assume, when the city was taken by the Allied Forces, were you
not?
HOEPKEN: I was in Vienna until April 1945.
MR. DODD: What was done with Von Schirach’s files when the end was very
obviously coming? What did you do with all those files over which you
had control?
HOEPKEN: I was not in charge of any files. I was chief of the bureau,
and I...
MR. DODD: Well, you know what I mean—chief of the bureau or of the
office where these files were kept. What I want to know is what did you
do with the files?
HOEPKEN: I gave no orders in this connection.
MR. DODD: Do you know what became of the files?
HOEPKEN: No, I do not.
MR. DODD: They were taken out of the office sometime before the city was
captured; do you not know that?
HOEPKEN: No, I did not know that.
MR. DODD: Were the files there the last day that you were there?
HOEPKEN: Probably, yes.
MR. DODD: I do not want a “probably.” I want to know if you know and if
you do, to tell us. Were they there or not the last day that you were in
the office?
HOEPKEN: I gave no orders to destroy them or to remove them.
MR. DODD: I did not ask you if you gave orders. I asked you if you know
what became of them and whether or not they were in the office the last
day that you were there?
HOEPKEN: I do not know what happened to them. Nor can I say whether they
were still there on the last day.
MR. DODD: Do you not know that they were all moved to a salt mine in
Austria?
HOEPKEN: No, I do not know that.
MR. DODD: You have never heard that, or that they were taken out of the
office and were later found by the Allied Forces in a salt mine?
HOEPKEN: No, I do not know that.
MR. DODD: I do not mean that you heard they were found there, but you
certainly knew that they were taken out of the office?
HOEPKEN: No, I do not know. I also gave no orders.
MR. DODD: Well, now, let me put this proposition to you, and then
perhaps you can give an explanation of it to the Tribunal. This document
that I have just shown to you and these reports that you examined for
Dr. Sauter were all found in Schirach’s files in a salt mine. Would you
have any explanation for that?
HOEPKEN: No, I cannot explain that.
MR. DODD: They were found together. Would that mean anything to you, or
would you have any explanation for it?
HOEPKEN: No, I have not. I can only explain that by saying that probably
the Chief of the Reich Governor’s office or one of his officials who was
in charge of these things gave the order to that effect, of course
without my knowledge and without any order from me.
MR. DODD: Tell the Tribunal exactly what day you closed up your office
in Vienna, or the last day that you were in this office.
HOEPKEN: It might have been the 3d or 4th of April.
MR. DODD: When was the city taken?
HOEPKEN: I read in the newspaper afterwards that the city finally fell
into the hands of the Allies on 13 April.
MR. DODD: Did you all leave your office on the 3d or 4th of April? Did
Von Schirach leave as well, and all the clerical staff, _et cetera_?
HOEPKEN: Schirach and I and his adjutant left the office on this day, or
rather, Schirach had previously set up his office at his home and was
working there.
MR. DODD: Had he taken any files from his office to his home?
HOEPKEN: Only what he needed immediately to carry on his business; that
is, the matters which were being dealt with at the moment.
MR. DODD: Did you leave someone in charge of the files when you left
there, you and Von Schirach on the 3d of April; and if you did, who was
it that you left in charge?
HOEPKEN: I did not leave anyone to supervise. The file clerks did that
of their own accord.
MR. DODD: I am trying to understand—and I think it would be helpful to
the Tribunal—whether or not you just walked out of this office and left
everything there, or whether just you and Von Schirach left and left
other people there, or whether the place was in such chaos that nobody
remained. I have not any accurate picture of it, and I think it is of
some importance. You ought to be able to tell us. You left there with
him. What was the situation on the 3d or 4th of April? The city was
practically to be taken in another 10 days. It was under siege. There
was much confusion. What were you doing about your files and all of your
other papers in your office when you walked out of there that day? You
certainly just did not walk out and not give some directions.
HOEPKEN: I believe that we are not clear about the character of the
Central Bureau. The Central Bureau, of which I was in charge for the
last few months, had no powers, no executive powers, but all of these
things were done by the competent Reich Governor, that is, the
Regierungspräsident, and he probably...
MR. DODD: I do not need any explanation of how your office was set up. I
want to know if the papers were left there or not, or if anybody was
left with them.
HOEPKEN: The papers, as far as I know, were left there, and the
archivists were instructed to take care of them.
MR. DODD: Did you order any papers to be destroyed before you walked out
that day, the 3d or 4th of April, anything at all?
HOEPKEN: I gave no orders to destroy anything in the Reich Governor’s
Office; I had no authority to do that.
MR. DODD: Did anybody to your knowledge order anything destroyed,
whether you did or not?
HOEPKEN: Whether such an order was given and who gave it, I do not know.
MR. DODD: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document you put to him?
MR. DODD: Number USA-865. It is Document 3877-PS, a teletype to Bormann
from Von Schirach on 28 May 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to re-examine the witness, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I should like to go back to what the Prosecution
just asked you.