Chapter XXVIII: Book 4: , Page 28 of the English book, and just look at Captain (19)

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.