Chapter XXIII: Book 4: , Page 28 of the English book, and just look at Captain (14)

DR. SAUTER: Then it was not in 1944?

VON SCHIRACH: Probably 1942. I therefore confirm Höllriegel’s testimony. There was a meeting at Linz at which various departments of the Ostmark participated. There were conferences on economic or agrarian problems, and in the late afternoon we went to Mauthausen Concentration Camp at the request of Gauleiter Eigruber. At the time I was rather surprised that the Gauleiter was even in a position to invite us there. I assumed that he had previously been in touch with the SS offices, and that the reason for Eigruber’s invitation was that he wished to erect a rifle factory or something of the kind there. At any rate, though I can no longer remember exactly, it was somehow connected with the production of the Steyr Works.

DR. SAUTER: Who showed you about and what did you see?

VON SCHIRACH: We were shown about by the camp commandant.

DR. SAUTER: Whose name was?

VON SCHIRACH: His name—as has already been mentioned here—was Ziereis, or something of the kind.

DR. SAUTER: SS leader?

VON SCHIRACH: SS Camp Commandant. And I should now like to give you my first impressions. The camp area was very large. I immediately asked how many internees there were. I believe I was told 15,000 or 20,000. At any rate, the figure varied between 15,000 and 20,000. I asked what kind of internees were imprisoned there and received the reply I was always given whenever I inquired about concentration camps—namely, that two-thirds of the inmates were dangerous criminals collected from the prisons and penitentiaries and brought to work in the camp; that the remaining third was allegedly composed of political prisoners and people guilty of high treason and betrayal of their country, who, it is a fact, are treated with exceptional severity in wartime.

DR. SAUTER: Did you, in this camp, convince yourself as to the nature of the treatment meted out to the prisoners, accommodations, the food situation, _et cetera_?

VON SCHIRACH: I witnessed one food distribution and gained the impression that, for camp conditions, the food ration was both normal and adequate. I then visited the large quarry, once famous and now notorious, where the construction stone for Vienna had been quarried for centuries. There was no work going on at the quarry since the working day had come to an end, but I did, however, visit the works where the stone was cut. I saw a building with an exceptionally well-equipped dental clinic. This clinic was shown to me because I had questioned Ziereis about the medical assistance afforded in the camp. I would add that, during this visit, I asked in general the same questions which I had been used to ask during all my visits to the camps of the youth organizations—that is, questions pertaining to food, medical aid, the number of people in the camp, _et cetera_.

I was then taken to a large room in which music was being played by the prisoners. They had gathered together quite a large symphony orchestra, and I was told that on holiday evenings they could amuse themselves, each man according to his own tastes. In this case, for instance, the prisoners who wished to make music assembled in that room. A tenor was singing on that occasion—I remember that particularly.

I then inquired about the mortality rate and was shown a room with three corpses in it. I cannot tell you here and now, under oath, whether I saw any crematorium or not. Marsalek has testified to that effect. I would not, however, have been surprised if there had been a crematorium or a cemetery in so large a place, so far removed from the city. That would be a matter of course.

DR. SAUTER: Herr Von Schirach, during this official visit under the guidance of Camp Commandant Ziereis, did you discover anything at all about any ill-treatment, or atrocities, or of the tortures which were allegedly inflicted in the camp? You can answer the question briefly—possibly with “yes” or “no.”

VON SCHIRACH: Had that been the case, I would of course have endeavored to do something about it. But I was under the impression that everything was in order. I looked at the inmates, for instance, and I remember seeing, among others, the famous middle-distance runner Peltzer, who was known as a sexual pervert. He had been punished because he had, on innumerable occasions, freely committed sexual offences against youths in his charge in a country school.

I asked Ziereis, “How does one ever get out of these concentration camps? Do you also release people continuously?” In reply he had four or five inmates brought to me who, according, to him, were to be released the very next day. He asked them in my presence, “Have you packed everything, and have you prepared everything for your release?”—to which, beaming with joy, they answered, “Yes.”

DR. SAUTER: Witness, can you remember whether on this occasion you also asked Camp Commander Ziereis whether political prisoners from your Vienna district—that is, from the city of Vienna—were interned in the camp? And did you then have a group of political prisoners from Vienna brought before you?

VON SCHIRACH: You have already, Counsel, put this question to me during an interview, and I can only tell you the following under oath: I cannot remember, but you may take it for granted that, on an occasion of this kind, I would certainly ask after prisoners from my own Gau. But I cannot remember. Herr Marsalek mentioned it in his testimony, and I consider it probable.

I should, in connection with this visit, like to add the following: I have always been rather hampered in my recollections of Mauthausen...

DR. SAUTER: What hampered you?

VON SCHIRACH: After May 1945 I heard innumerable radio reports on Mauthausen and other concentration camps, and I read everything I could lay my hands on in the way of written reports about Mauthausen—everything that appeared in the press—and I always pondered on the question, “Did you see anything there which might have pointed to a mass destruction of human beings?” I was, for instance, reading the other day about running belts for the conveyance of corpses. I did not see them.

I must add that I also visited Dachau; I must not forget that. In 1935, together with the entire Party leadership group, I paid a visit to Dachau from Munich. This visit was a result of the objections against existing preventive custody measures expressed by certain political leaders to the Deputy of the Führer Hess who, in turn, passed these objections on to Himmler who subsequently sent out an invitation to inspect Dachau. I believe that there were, at that time, 800 or 1,000 internees at Dachau.

I did not participate in the entire official visit for I was conversing with some of the Gauleiter who were being shown about the camp. I saw quite excellent living quarters at Dachau and, because the subject interested me particularly, I was shown the building which housed the camp library. I saw that there were also good medical facilities. Then—and I believe this fact is worthy of mention—after the visit I spoke with many Gau- and Reichsleiter about the impression they had formed of Dachau. All impressions gained were to the effect that all doubts as to Himmler’s preventive custody measures were definitely dispersed, and everybody said that the internees in the camp were, on the whole, better accommodated than they would have been in a state prison. Such was my impression of Dachau in 1935, and I must say that ever since that visit my mind was far more at ease regarding conditions in the concentration camps. In conclusion, I feel I must add the following:

Up to the moment of the final collapse I firmly believed that we had 20,000 people in the Mauthausen Camp, 10,000 at Oranienburg and Dachau—two more large camps whose existence was known to me and one of which I had visited—and possibly 10,000 more at Buchenwald, near Weimar, a camp I knew by name but which I had never visited. I therefore concluded that we had roughly 50,000 people in the German camps, of which I firmly believed that two-thirds were habitual criminals, convicts, and sexual perverts, and one-third consisted of political prisoners. And I had arrived at this conclusion primarily because I myself have never sent a single soul to the concentration camps and nourished the illusion that others had acted as I did. I could not even imagine, when I heard of it—immediately after the collapse—that hundreds of thousands of people in Germany were considered political offenders.

There is something else to be said on the whole question of the concentration camps. The poet Hans Carossa has deposed an affidavit for me, and this affidavit contains a passage about a publisher whom I had liberated from a concentration camp. I wish to mention this because it is one of many typical cases where one exerted one’s entire influence to have a man freed from a concentration camp, but then he never tells you afterwards how he fared in the camp. In the course of the years, I have received many letters from people having relatives in the concentration camps. By establishing, in Vienna, a fixed day on which audience was granted to anybody from the population who wished to speak to me, I was able to talk to thousands of people from every class and standing.

On one such occasion I was approached by someone who requested me personally to free some friend or relative in a concentration camp. In cases like that I usually wrote a letter to the Reich Security Main Office—at first to Herr Heydrich and later to Herr Kaltenbrunner—and after some time I would be informed that the internee in question had or had not been released, according to the gravity of the charges brought against him. But the internees released never told me their experiences in the camp. One never saw anybody who had been ill-treated in the camps, and that is why I myself, and many others in Germany with me, was never able to visualize conditions in the concentration camps at all.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, this affidavit of the poet Hans Carossa, just mentioned by the defendant, is Document Number Schirach 3(a). I repeat, Schirach 3(a) of the Schirach document book. It is a sworn affidavit by the poet Carossa, and I ask the Tribunal to put the entire contents of the document into the evidence. In the last paragraph, mention is made of the case about which the defendant has just been speaking—that is, the liberation of a publisher named Suhrkamp from a concentration camp.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the page of it?

DR. SAUTER: Page 25 of the document book, Document Number Schirach 3(a)—Hans Carossa. The remainder of this document deals with the humane impression Dr. Carossa received of the defendant, and with Defendant Von Schirach’s solicitude for the victims of political persecution.

Witness, how many concentration camps did you know anything about?

VON SCHIRACH: I have just enumerated them: Oranienburg, Dachau, Buchenwald, and Mauthausen.

DR. SAUTER: Was there a concentration camp in your own Gau?

VON SCHIRACH: No.

DR. SAUTER: In connection with this entire group of questions on the treatment of the Jews, I turn to orders allegedly issued in your presence to the camp commandant of Mauthausen in March 1945. It is Document Number 3870-PS, submitted by the Prosecution. According to this document, Himmler in March 1945 is supposed to have issued a directive to the effect that the Jews from the Southeast Wall were to be sent on foot to Mauthausen. Did you have anything at all to do with this?

VON SCHIRACH: I can tell you exactly from memory what Himmler said at that time.

Himmler came to Vienna towards the middle, or the end of March, to talk to the Commander of Army Group South. On this occasion—the Commander of Army Group South was, of course, not stationed in Vienna, he had ordered all the Reichsstatthalter of the Ostmark up to Vienna and granted them full authority to enforce martial law in the future, since Vienna and some of the other Ostmark Gaue had by that time become almost front-line zones. At this conference Himmler told his adjutant to call Ziereis in, while the papers for full powers were being typed in the next room. That is how I came to meet Ziereis for the second time in my life.

And now Himmler did not, as Marsalek said, tell Ziereis that the Jews were to be marched on foot from the Southeast Wall to Mauthausen, but he did say something else which surprised me enormously. He said:

“I want the Jews now employed in industry to be taken by boat,
or by bus if possible, under the most favorable food conditions
and with medical care, _et cetera_, to Linz or Mauthausen.”

I do not quite remember whether he said they should be taken to Mauthausen, but he also said to Ziereis:

“Please take care of these Jews and treat them well; they are my
most valuable assets.”

From this declaration I assumed, in the very beginning—it was my very first, fleeting impression—that Himmler wished to deceive me in some way or another, and then it became clear to me that with these instructions he was following certain foreign political intentions, in the last moments of the war, in emphasizing the excellent treatment of the Jews.

What Marsalek therefore said about making them go on foot is not correct. As I have already mentioned, Himmler, under all circumstances, wanted the best possible treatment to be given to the Jews. I gained the impression—and later on it was confirmed by other things we heard—that he wished, at the last minute, to somehow redeem himself with this treatment of the Jews.

DR. SAUTER: That was the end of March 1945?

VON SCHIRACH: That was the end of March 1945, on the occasion when authority to apply martial law was granted to the Statthalter of the Ostmark.

DR. SAUTER: Therefore, immediately before the collapse?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: In connection with your activities in Vienna there is also an accusation, Witness, brought against you by the Prosecution, to the effect that you participated in the persecution of the Church. This accusation is supported exclusively as far as I can see by Document Number R-146. I repeat, R-146, which has already been submitted by the Prosecution.

This, Witness, is a letter addressed by the witness, Dr. Lammers, who has been heard before the Tribunal, to the Reich Minister of the Interior, dated 14 March 1941, and further, a circular from Bormann, addressed to all the Gauleiter, dated 20 March 1941.

I should like to hear your comments on both of these letters, especially since Dr. Lammers’ letter speaks of property belonging to enemies of the people and the state, whereas in Bormann’s circular of 20 March 1941 mention is made of the confiscation of Church property—monastic property—_et cetera_. Do you know what led to these letters, and what part did you yourself play in the matter?

VON SCHIRACH: The document written by Dr. Lammers is correct. Bormann’s covering letter referred to Church property; I referred to property belonging to enemies of the people and the State, for that was a technical expression at the time. I should like to mention in this matter that when I came to Vienna in 1940 the confiscation of such property was already in full swing; an argument had arisen on the subject between the Gauleiter and the Reich Minister for Finance. The Reich Minister for Finance wanted the confiscated property taken over by the Reich, while I considered that this property should remain fundamentally the possession of the Gaue.

So far as I can remember, I was involved in this question only through the following confiscations: Prince Schwarzenberg possessed property, the greater part of which lay in the region of the Upper Danube; the smaller part was the famous Vienna Palace. Now this Prince Schwarzenberg had refused, in the presence of some German consul general, or consul abroad, to return to Germany and serve in the Army. Thereupon his property was confiscated. In the interest of the Reich I endeavored to maintain this property for the Vienna Reich Gau and to prevent it from passing over to the Reich. I have no files before me, so I cannot from memory give you any information about other, similar actions.

I am not responsible for confiscations in the other Austrian Gaue. But I may state one thing here—namely, that I put an end to all confiscations throughout the entire Reich. When, through an intermediary, women from an Austrian convent appealed to me for help, I asked my father-in-law to act behind Bormann’s back and explain to Hitler the disastrous political effects which these confiscations would have and to beg him to issue a direct order for their suppression. This was achieved, and when the order was put through, Bormann turned against my father-in-law as well. From then on I never had any further opportunity to bring this question to the Führer’s notice.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you have not, so far, quite explained your attitude toward Dr. Lammers’ letter of 14 March 1941. To refresh your memory I should like to read out the first sentence of that letter. This letter of Lammers’ dated 14 March 1941, Document Number R-146, states, and I quote:

“The Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter Von Schirach, together with
Dr. Jury and Eigruber, has recently complained to the Führer
that the Reich Minister for Finance is still of the opinion that
the seizure of property belonging to enemies of the state and
people should be effected in favor of the Reich, and not in
favor of the Reich Gau.”

Thus runs the quotation.

And because of this incident the Prosecution have accused you of participating in the persecution of the Church in Vienna. I must request you to tell us what you really did do in the matter.

VON SCHIRACH: Well, the Church in Vienna had actually been persecuted under my predecessor, Bürckel, and this can be proved. I mentioned yesterday the demonstrations before the Archbishop’s Palace. But from the day of my arrival in Vienna, anti-Church demonstrations in the nature of a political agitation no longer took place. Immediately upon my arrival I gathered all the political officials and all my other colleagues of the Gau and demanded that they should never, either in writing or by word of mouth, express anything likely to offend the religious sentiments of other people. I believe that this is a fact which was gratefully noted by the entire population of Vienna. From that day on there were no further actions against the Church. Just how much Church property, though, was called in in compliance with the law for special war contributions, a law which likewise applied to other property—I cannot tell you without documentary evidence.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, we can see from this document that you must have spoken on the subject to Hitler personally...

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: ...because it states that the Reichsleiter and Gauleiter Von Schirach complained to Hitler on the subject. You have not said anything to us about that so far.

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I myself, during a visit by Hitler to Vienna where he signed a southeast pact, told him I was of the opinion that the property confiscated belonged to the Gaue and not to the Reich. That was my point of view and one which I believed to be entirely correct.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Indictment further accuses you of having had some kind of connection with the SS, thereby promoting the SS, _et cetera_. Were you yourself ever a member of the SS?

VON SCHIRACH: No.

DR. SAUTER: Did Himmler, the leader of the SS, have any influence over the youth organizations and over the education of the young people?

VON SCHIRACH: No.

DR. SAUTER: Were the replacements in the SS, especially in the SS Leadership Corps, recruited from the HJ, and if so, why?

VON SCHIRACH: The replacements in all the leadership corps in Germany were recruited from the youth. Our youth organization was a state institution. You now are probably referring to an agreement which I had with Himmler on the patrol services?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, that too plays a part in this connection.

VON SCHIRACH: Agreements of that sort...

DR. SAUTER: Just one more moment, Herr Von Schirach. This agreement is entered in the documents of the Prosecution as Number 2396-PS. I repeat 2396-PS, in which a special statement occurs—and I should appreciate your comments on the subject—to the effect that the SS received their replacements from the patrol service of the HJ, allegedly by an agreement of October 1938. Please tell us about it and explain to us what actually was this patrol service.

VON SCHIRACH: The patrol service was one of the special units of the HJ which I forgot to mention yesterday. The patrol service was a youth service for keeping order. It consisted of outstandingly decent lads who had no police duties—I now refer to documentary reports which I procured—but who had to supervise the general behavior of the young people, examine their uniforms, control the visits of the boys to the taverns; and it was their duty to inspect the HJ hostels for cleanliness and neatness, to supervise the hiking expeditions of the young people and the youth hostelries in the country. They stood guard and were on order duty at mass meetings and demonstrations. They watched over encampments and accompanied the convoys. They were employed in the search for youths who were lost. They gave advice to traveling youth, attended to station service, were supposed to protect young people from criminal elements, and, above all, to protect national property—that is, woods, fields, for instance—and to see that they were safe from fires, _et cetera_.

Since Himmler might make trouble for this section of the youth organization, I was interested in having the Police recognize my patrol service; for in my idea of the State youth as a youth state, the Police should not be employed against the youth, but these young people should keep order among themselves. That this principle was a sound one can be judged from the immense decline in juvenile delinquency from 1933 up to the outbreak of the war.

DR. SAUTER: Witness...

VON SCHIRACH: One moment, I have not yet finished. After this agreement...

THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Sauter, we have heard enough about this unit. The whole point of the document was that they were used for recruiting for the SS, wasn’t it? That is the complaint of the Prosecution.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, the patrol service...

THE PRESIDENT: We have heard, at considerable length the description of what they did in the way of the protection of the youth. Surely we have heard enough about that.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, these so-called special units were specially mentioned by the Prosecution as a means for preparation for war—that is, as a means for the military training of the young people. In this connection all these special units were mentioned, and therefore we considered it necessary that the defendant inform you what this patrol service really was. But I can, Mr. President, set this topic aside immediately.

THE PRESIDENT: We have heard what they were at some considerable length.

DR. SAUTER: Very well.

Witness, from which departments did the SS mainly recruit its leader replacements?

VON SCHIRACH: In order to assure its leader replacements, the SS founded its own training schools which were entirely outside my influence. They were the so-called National Socialist Training Institutes.

DR. SAUTER: In connection with the SS, the Prosecution, Witness, mentioned a further agreement between you and Reichsführer SS Himmler, an agreement of December 1938, submitted as Document Number 2567-PS, the so-called “Landdienst” of the HJ. Why was this agreement concluded with the Reichsführer SS?

VON SCHIRACH: It is very hard to give a brief answer. The Reichsführer SS was a farmer with an agronomical degree. In his student days he had belonged to the so-called “Artaman Movement,” whose program it was to prevent the flight from the land, and he was particularly keen to collaborate within the SS with the farm labor service groups of the HJ who were doing the same work as the “Artaman” groups in the past.

In conclusion, I should like to say about the “Landdienst” and the patrol service, that no coercion was ever brought to bear on the young people to enter the SS. Any lad from the patrol service was, of course, free to become a member of the SA or of the NSKK—and frequently did so—or else become a political leader just like any other boy from the farm labor service or the Hitler Youth.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Indictment states, _inter alia_, that a directive was addressed to the political leaders demanding that the Hitler Youth Leaders—that is, the leaders subordinate to you—be employed on their staffs. What can you say to that?

VON SCHIRACH: I can only say in reply that this is one of many attempts by the Party Chancellery to bring the Youth Leadership into the political leadership. The practical result of the directive was that a number of youth leaders were given insignificant duties as adjutants. They complained to me, and I withdrew them from these posts. It is a historical fact that in Germany there was no real flow of people from the youth organization into the political leadership. I can personally name those youth leaders who came into the political leadership, there were so few of them.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Soviet Prosecution have submitted a document, Document Number USSR-6, which is a report from the Lemberg Commission. Herein the following fact is mentioned. A French woman, Ida Vasseau, the head of an asylum for old people in Lemberg, testified in writing—I am only quoting the gist of the affidavit—that ghetto children were handed over as presents to the Hitler Youth and that these children were then used as living targets by the HJ for their drill practice. In all the time that you were active in the Reich Youth Leadership, did you ever hear of such misdemeanors or excesses?

VON SCHIRACH: No. We are dealing here with the first and, so far, the only accusation of crimes committed by the HJ which has been brought to my notice. There were no HJ commandos, either in the East or in the West, capable of committing such crimes. I consider the statements in this affidavit as absolutely untrue, and that is all I can say on the matter.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, in the course of his examination your fellow-Defendant, Dr. Schacht, mentioned that a suggestion had been made in his time to Mr. Eden, to divest the SS, the SA, and the HJ of their military character if the other powers would consent to disarm. What do you know of such proposals or negotiations?

VON SCHIRACH: I know of no such offer, as far as the Hitler Youth is concerned. I consider it entirely out of the question that any such offer could have been received by Mr. Eden regarding the HJ; for Hitler himself did not consider the HJ as a military or even a semimilitary organization. The disarming of the HJ could factually never have taken place since the only weapon carried by the Hitler Youth was the camping knife, the equivalent of a Boy Scout’s bowie knife of the Jungvolk Pimpfe (boys of 10-14 years of age).

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Prosecution further charge that you, in 1933, concluded an agreement with the VDA—an abbreviation for the “Verein für das Deutschtum im Ausland.” Is that true? And what was your intention in concluding this agreement?

VON SCHIRACH: That is true. I do not wish to express an opinion on the aims and objects of the VDA. I believe that counsel for the Defendant Frick has already done so. I refer to these statements and merely state that it was my perfectly natural wish to incorporate in the HJ the numerically powerful group of lads belonging to the VDA. The majority of these youths, moreover, had graduated from the public schools, and it was my second intention to place some of my collaborators on the board of the VDA so as to be currently informed about the young people abroad.

DR. SAUTER: The Prosecution further accuse you of having founded the so-called Adolf Hitler Schools where the training of young leaders for the National Socialist State and for the Party was carried out. What have you to say to this accusation?

VON SCHIRACH: There is a lot that I could say about that accusation, but I shall limit myself to essential remarks only.

The Adolf Hitler Schools were founded as scholastic units of the HJ. They were founded with the means which Dr. Ley placed at my disposal when I told him of my plans for the training I had envisaged. These schools were not intended to train leaders for the Party exclusively but served to prepare the youth for all the professions. I myself often talked to these boys on their graduation and I always told them “You can choose any profession you like. Your training in this school carries no obligation, either moral or otherwise, to become a political leader.” _De facto_, relatively few political leaders emerged from the Adolf Hitler Schools. Very many of the boys became doctors, officials, _et cetera_. I cannot quote any figures from memory, but the communications I have received from the young people, including statements from teachers in the Adolf Hitler Schools, show their attitude towards this point of the Indictment. And I should like to ask that at least 50 to 60 of these numerous affidavits, which confirm all that I have said, be submitted in support of my declarations.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, one more question on a different topic. Did you ever receive any so-called endowment funds, or anything of that kind, from Hitler or from other sources?

VON SCHIRACH: No, I never received any endowment funds.

DR. SAUTER: Did you ever receive gifts in kind, such as valuable paintings or other costly gifts?

VON SCHIRACH: The only thing Hitler ever gave me was his photograph on the occasion of my thirtieth birthday.

DR. SAUTER: His photograph—presumably with a few words of dedication?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Now I have a few final, very brief questions to ask you—they refer to the last days of your activities in Vienna. You have already mentioned, in connection with Himmler’s visit to Vienna at the end of March 1945, that you had at that time received from Himmler the so-called authority for the proclamation of martial law. If I have understood you correctly, you, in your function of Reich Defense Commissioner, were authorized to convene a drumhead court martial?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, and that made me lord of life and death.

DR. SAUTER: As far as I know, this drumhead court martial was only supposed to pass death sentences?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Did you ever convene this drumhead court martial in Vienna, and did you appoint the members?

VON SCHIRACH: I appointed the members of the court martial. An outstanding lawyer was the president. I never convened the drumhead court martial and I never once imposed a death sentence. If I remember rightly, the military court martial of the local military commandant passed four death sentences on four military traitors. My court martial never met and never passed a death sentence.

DR. SAUTER: Had you any connection with the military drumhead court martial?

VON SCHIRACH: No. The Vienna commandant was, of course, president of that particular court, and I was the head of court martial “Schirach.”

DR. SAUTER: You said you had a distinguished lawyer as your president?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: What was his profession?

VON SCHIRACH: I think he was president of a district court, of something of the kind. I cannot quite remember; I have forgotten.

DR. SAUTER: So he was an official Viennese judge?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Did you give the order, in Vienna, to have certain vitally important factories either blown up or destroyed as so often happened in other Gaue, as for instance, here in Nuremberg?

VON SCHIRACH: No. It has escaped my knowledge, that much I must admit, how far crippling and destructive measures were executed in the military and armament sectors, pursuant to direct instructions from the Reich Government. For instance, the dynamiting of bridges was a military precaution. The order could never have emanated from me. Hitler reserved for himself the right to issue the orders for blowing up the bridges over the Danube. The Chief of Army Group South, Generaloberst Rendulic, prior to giving the order for blowing up these bridges, had to consult the Führer’s headquarters by telephone.

DR. SAUTER: When did you yourself leave Vienna?

VON SCHIRACH: I left Gau Vienna after the withdrawal of the last troops from the city and after the command post of the 2d corps of the 6th SS Panzer Army had been moved to the region of the Lower Danube.

DR. SAUTER: When was that?

VON SCHIRACH: That was—sorry, I cannot remember the date offhand. It was toward the end of the battle for Vienna.

DR. SAUTER: And now I have one last question to ask you. You know that the order went out from the Party Leadership and from circles of the Reich Chancellery to stage a “Werewolf” movement for fighting the advancing troops. What was your attitude towards this movement?

VON SCHIRACH: I prohibited any Werewolf organization in my Gau, but to avoid misunderstandings I must tell you that there was a youth battalion, a Volkssturm battalion, which bore the name of “Werewolf,” but there was no Werewolf unit. I invariably refused, both for the young people and the adults, permission to participate in any form of combat contrary to the decrees of international law.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the defendants’ counsel want to ask any questions?

DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Witness, what was the attitude of Rosenberg, as the Führer’s Plenipotentiary for the Ideological Education of the Party, toward the Reich Youth Leadership?

VON SCHIRACH: I believe that the Chief of the Department for Ideological Education in the Reich Youth Leadership had to attend, on an average, two, perhaps three, meetings per annum, also attended by educational leaders from other Party organizations. These meetings took place under the chairmanship of Reichsleiter Rosenberg. On these occasions, as I have been told by the chief of the department, Rosenberg was wont to lay down general instructions and directives and ask for reports on the educational work of the individual organizations.

DR. THOMA: Did Rosenberg select specific subjects to be lectured on at these meetings?

VON SCHIRACH: That I do not know for certain. At these meetings of the Youth Leadership representatives, at which Rosenberg spoke once a year, he usually selected educational themes, themes dealing with character training. He would, for instance, speak about solitude and comradeship and, as far as I remember, about personality, honor, _et cetera_.

DR. THOMA: Did Rosenberg at these meetings mention the Jewish problem and the confessional question?

VON SCHIRACH: During these Youth Leadership sessions he never made any speeches against the Jews, nor did he, as far as I can remember, ever touch on the subject of the confession—at least, not in my presence. I usually heard him speak on subjects such as I have just enumerated.

DR. THOMA: Witness, did you read Rosenberg’s _Myth of the Twentieth Century_? And if so, when?

VON SCHIRACH: No, I began to read it, but I did not read the whole book.

DR. THOMA: Did this Rosenberg’s _Myth_ make any impression on the young people or did other leaders have experiences similar to your own?

VON SCHIRACH: The youth leaders certainly did not read the _Myth of the Twentieth Century_.

DR. THOMA: I have no more questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defendant’s counsel want to ask questions? Or perhaps we had better adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have already stated in connection with Sauckel’s directive regarding employment of labor that you were flooded with such directives. Were these directives carried out?

VON SCHIRACH: As far as my own information goes, I can confirm that. I had the impression that the functionaries of the labor employment administration felt that they had to keep strictly to Sauckel’s orders, and in those industrial plants which I visited I was able to ascertain that the requirements stated in the directives were in fact fulfilled.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did Sauckel himself take steps to insure that these things were carried out?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I remember that Sauckel once came to Vienna—I think in 1943—and that on that occasion he addressed all his labor employment functionaries and repeated orally everything which he had stated in his directives. He spoke of the foreign workers in particular, demanding just treatment for them; and I remember that on this occasion he even spoke of putting them on the same footing as German workers.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have a few more questions about the political leaders. How were political leaders on the Gauleiter level informed? Did the Gauleiter have individual interviews with the Führer, especially in connection with the Gauleiter assemblies?

VON SCHIRACH: No. After the Gauleiter assemblies the Führer always held forth in a comparatively large circle just as he did in his speeches. Interviews in the real sense of the word did not exist. He always made speeches. Fixed dates on which Gauleiter could have interviews with Hitler almost ceased to exist once the war had begun.

DR. SERVATIUS: Could not a Gauleiter approach Hitler personally and ask for an interview?

VON SCHIRACH: He could ask for an interview, but he did not get it; he received an answer from Bormann, usually in the form of a telegram. That happened to me very frequently, because I made such requests; one was asked to submit in writing the points one wanted to discuss, after which one either received an answer or did not receive one.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, a letter has been submitted here as Document D-728, signed or initialed by Gauleiter Sprenger. You were here when it was submitted and you know the document. I have two questions concerning it.

Do you know anything about a list, which was to be compiled, containing the names of those suffering from heart and lung diseases, who were to be removed from the population?

VON SCHIRACH: No, I know nothing about that.

DR. SERVATIUS: Or that you were to make suggestions for this to the Führer?

VON SCHIRACH: No.

DR. SERVATIUS: In my opinion that document also contains an error which has already been mentioned here, namely, the word “Herr” as a form of address. This letter was addressed to the “Herren Ortsgrüppenleiter,” and repeated mention is made of the “Herren Kreisleiter and Ortsgrüppenleiter” in the text. I ask you now if the expression “Herr” was customary in Party language?

VON SCHIRACH: No, I have never known a Party document with the exception of this one, which I consider a fraud, in which the term “Herr” was used.

DR. SERVATIUS: You are therefore of the opinion that that designation proves in itself that the document is false?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.

DR. STEINBAUER: Herr Von Schirach, your predecessor as Gauleiter was Josef Bürckel. What sort of relations existed between Bürckel and Seyss-Inquart?

VON SCHIRACH: I can only repeat what was generally known in the Party about relations between them. They were extremely bad, and all of us had the impression that from the very beginning Bürckel worked hard to push Seyss-Inquart out.

DR. STEINBAUER: Which one of the two really had the power in his hands?

VON SCHIRACH: Bürckel, undoubtedly.

DR. STEINBAUER: Who, in your opinion and according to the actual information you obtained from the files, is responsible for the persecution of Jews in Vienna?

VON SCHIRACH: Hitler.

DR. STEINBAUER: All right. You say Hitler; but Hitler was not in Vienna. Who carried out these orders in Vienna?

VON SCHIRACH: In my opinion, these orders were carried out—even during Bürckel’s and Seyss-Inquart’s time—by the same man who has already been mentioned here once today and who, in the meantime, has been condemned to death in Vienna—Dr. Brunner.

DR. STEINBAUER: Good. Are you aware that Seyss-Inquart repeatedly protested to Bürckel about excessively severe measures and quarreled with Bürckel on account of that?

VON SCHIRACH: I cannot say anything about that. I do not know.

DR. STEINBAUER: My client has been accused in a document of presenting to Adolf Hitler tapestries, among them Gobelins, formerly in the Emperor’s possession. Do you know anything about that?

VON SCHIRACH: I know this: In the large collection of Gobelins in Vienna, there were two sets depicting Alexander’s victory. The inferior series was loaned by Reich Governor Seyss-Inquart to the Reich Chancellery, where it hung in the lobby.

DR. STEINBAUER: So it was a loan and not a definite gift, which would have entailed a loss for Vienna?

VON SCHIRACH: In the catalog of the Gobelin collection this set was marked as a loan.

DR. STEINBAUER: Are you aware that other Gobelins were put at the disposal of the Reich—that is to say, at Adolf Hitler’s disposal—by Seyss-Inquart?

VON SCHIRACH: No, I was not aware of it.

DR. STEINBAUER: But maybe you know who did take away other such Gobelins and tapestries?

VON SCHIRACH: I assume that you allude to Bürckel.

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes.

VON SCHIRACH: I do not know for certain whether Bürckel took Gobelins. When I took up my appointment in Vienna, I found that Bürckel had taken from the imperial furniture depot a number of pieces of furniture including, I believe, some carpets, not for his personal use but for a Viennese house which he intended to establish in Gau Saarpfalz as a sort of clubhouse.

I therefore approached the competent office in Berlin—I do not know whether it was the Reich Finance Ministry or the Reich Ministry of Culture—and when I was not successful there, I approached Hitler himself. In the end I succeeded in having Bürckel ordered to return these objects to Vienna at once; I cannot say with certainty whether these objects were in fact returned. I know that he received injunctions to return them and I assume that these objects were really returned later.

DR. STEINBAUER: All right. You know from statements which I have made to your defense counsel that we Austrians always hated Bürckel intensely for a number of very good reasons and that in fairness it must be admitted that many things, including, for instance, the city’s food supplies, improved after you took over. For this reason it seems to me all the more important to clear up completely the most serious charge against you. You have been made responsible in your capacity of Reich Defense Commissioner for the destruction of the most valuable monuments in Vienna. I ask you: On 2 April, when your deputy Scharizer and Engineer Blaschke, the National Socialist mayor, wanted to declare Vienna an open city as the Red Army approached, did you oppose them and give orders that Vienna must be defended to the last? Or who gave that order?

VON SCHIRACH: Neither Blaschke nor Scharizer expressed the view that Vienna should be declared an open city. There was...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, the Tribunal understands you are appearing for the Defendant Seyss-Inquart?

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, because this is a War Crime and in the light of conspiracy he is responsible for everything and the main charge made against Herr Von Schirach must be clarified—that is, we must find out who actually gave this order which did so much harm.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, but you just said that you were not asking the questions in defense of Seyss-Inquart, but in defense of Von Schirach. I do not think that the Tribunal really ought to have the defense of Von Schirach prolonged by questions by other counsel. We have already had his defense for a considerable time presented by Dr. Sauter.

DR. STEINBAUER: Then I shall not put this question.

Do you also remember what attitude Seyss-Inquart adopted on Church matters when dealing with Bürckel?

VON SCHIRACH: I know only that Dr. Seyss-Inquart, generally speaking, was considered a man with Church ties. That this brought him into conflict with Bürckel is quite obvious to me. I cannot go into details.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?

MR. DODD: Mr. Witness, we understood you this morning to make a statement in the nature of a confession with respect to, at least, the persecution of the Jews; and while that part of it that you gave was perhaps bravely enough said, I think there is much of it that you neglected to say, perhaps through oversight.

Now, I wish you would tell the Tribunal whether or not it is a fact that your responsibility for young people in Germany under the National Socialists was fundamentally concerned with making really good National Socialists out of them, in the sense of making them fanatical political followers.

VON SCHIRACH: I considered it my task as educator to bring up the young people to be good citizens of the National Socialist State.

MR. DODD: And ardent followers and believers in Hitler and his political policies?

VON SCHIRACH: I believe I already said this morning that I educated our youth to follow Hitler. I do not deny that.

MR. DODD: All right. And while you said to us that you did not have the first responsibility for the educational system, I am sure you would not deny that for all of the other activities with which young people may be concerned you did have first responsibility?

VON SCHIRACH: Out-of-school education was my responsibility.

MR. DODD: And, of course, in the schools the only people who taught these young people were those who were politically reliable in keeping with Hitler’s opinions and beliefs and the teachings of National Socialism?

VON SCHIRACH: The teaching staffs of German schools were definitely not homogeneous bodies. A large part of the teaching body belonged to a generation which had not been educated on National Socialist lines and did not adhere to National Socialism. The young teachers had been educated on National Socialist principles.

MR. DODD: Well, in any event, you are not saying, certainly, that young people under the public educational system of Germany were not, at all times, under the guidance of those who were politically reliable, certainly after the first year or two of the administration of Hitler and his followers, are you?

VON SCHIRACH: Would you please repeat the question? I did not quite understand.

MR. DODD: What I am trying to say to you is that there is not any doubt in your mind or in ours that the public school system of Germany was supervised, for the most part at least, by people who were politically sound insofar as National Socialism is concerned.

VON SCHIRACH: I should not care to say that. Educational administration in Germany was supervised by Reich Minister Rust, who—and this is a fact—for reasons of ill health took very little interest in his official duties. Many thousands of older men were employed in connection with educational administration. They had received their appointments long before the days of the National Socialist State and had retained them throughout.

MR. DODD: I do not care whether they were old or young or how long they had been in office. They all took an oath to Hitler, did they not?

VON SCHIRACH: That is correct; inasmuch as they were civil servants, they all took their oath as such.

MR. DODD: Rosenberg had a very considerable influence on young people in Germany, did he not?

VON SCHIRACH: I do not believe that. I think you are estimating my Codefendant Rosenberg’s influence on youth quite wrongly—meaning that you are overestimating it. Rosenberg certainly had some influence on many people who were interested in philosophical problems and were in a position to understand his works. But I must dispute the extent of the influence which you are ascribing to him.

MR. DODD: You publicly said on one occasion that the way of Rosenberg was the way of the Hitler Youth, did you not?

VON SCHIRACH: That was, I believe, in 1934...

MR. DODD: Never mind when it was. Did you say it or not?

VON SCHIRACH: I did say it.

MR. DODD: When was it?

VON SCHIRACH: That was in Berlin, at a youth function there. But later I myself led youth along an entirely different path.

MR. DODD: Well, we will get around to that a little later. But in any event, on this occasion in Berlin, when you had a large group of your youth leaders present, you were doing your best, at least, to have them understand that the way of Rosenberg was the way that they should follow?

VON SCHIRACH: But those were the same youth leaders who later received different instructions from me.

MR. DODD: Well, I dare say that may be so. We will get around to those different instructions; but on this occasion and at that time, insofar as you were concerned, you wanted them to understand that they were to follow Rosenberg’s way, didn’t you?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, but this way only affected one quite definite point, which was under discussion at that time, namely, the question of denominational youth organizations. Rosenberg and I agreed on this point, whereas we differed on many others; and it was to this point that the statement referred.

MR. DODD: Rosenberg’s way certainly wasn’t the way of young people remaining faithful to their religious obligations or teachings, was it?

VON SCHIRACH: I would not like to say that.

MR. DODD: What do you mean? You don’t know?

VON SCHIRACH: I can say in so many words that I have never heard Rosenberg make any statement to the effect that young people should be disloyal to their religious convictions.

MR. DODD: Well, I don’t know that he ever said it that way either; but I think you do know perfectly well, as many other people who were outside of Germany through all of these years, that Rosenberg was a violent opponent of organized religious institutions. You don’t deny that, do you?

VON SCHIRACH: I certainly do not deny that in principle, but I do not think that it can be expressed in these terms. Rosenberg in no way tried to influence youth to withdraw from religious societies.

MR. DODD: And later on, actually—aren’t you willing to now say that later on, and perhaps at that time, in a secret and indirect sort of way you played Rosenberg’s game by arranging youth affairs at hours when Church ceremonies were going on?

VON SCHIRACH: I deny absolutely that I worked against the Church in such a way. In the years 1933-34, I was concerned mainly with the denominational youth organizations. I explained that here yesterday.

MR. DODD: I know. You garbled them up, and they all had to join your organization sooner or later. But I am not talking about that now. What I am trying to say is—and I think you must agree—that for a considerable period of time you made it really impossible for young people of certain religious belief to attend their Church services, because you scheduled your youth affairs at which attendance was compulsory.

VON SCHIRACH: No, that is not correct.

MR. DODD: You say that is not so? Didn’t the Catholic bishops publicly object to this very sort of thing, and don’t you know it as well as I do?

VON SCHIRACH: I cannot recall that.

MR. DODD: You do not recall any Catholic clerics objecting to the fact that you were scheduling your youth affairs on Sunday mornings when their clerics were holding services?

VON SCHIRACH: In the course of time, as I explained yesterday, many clergymen either approached me personally or complained in public that they were hampered in their spiritual ministration by the youth service and the forms which it took; and that is why I adjusted matters in the way shown by the document which my counsel submitted to the Court yesterday.

MR. DODD: Well, I don’t think that is altogether an answer; and perhaps I can help your memory by recalling for you that your organization specifically provided that these young people, who were attending church on Sunday, could not go in uniform; and that was a very purposeful thing, wasn’t it, because they could not get out of church and get to their youth attendance places at all if they had to go home and change their clothes.

VON SCHIRACH: But in many parishes the Church authorities forbade young people wearing uniform to enter the church.

MR. DODD: Well, I am not going to argue about it with you. Your answer is that you don’t recall any frequent and strong criticism and objection from churchmen about this particular Sunday morning program. Is that the way you want to leave it?

VON SCHIRACH: I certainly do not mean that. There were periods of great tension, periods of heated argument, just as there was a stormy period in youth organization generally. Later, all these things were satisfactorily settled and put in order.