THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
A. Doctor, I have already asked you to give the Tribunal a brief sketch of what is meant by a "German Resistance Movement". Can you describe it in a few sentences?
A. A clear picture of the things which have been built up since the beginning of the War, and which finally led to the action of the 20th of July, cannot be gained yet even today here in Germany. I learned a great deal about the events from the book by Schlabrenderf. Everyone of us who was brought in by me of these groups or who had belonged to it from the beginning could have insight into only a very snail sector. It was not a unified movement. It consisted of a number of people gathered around certain active personages. It was nothing unusual, as happened in my case, for someone to stand at the point where two groups connected, Mielscher on one side, and on the other side the men around Leuschner and Reichwein and the Kreisau circle. All the methods resulted of necessity without a great deal of deliberation. They resulted from the fact that each of us was threatened by the Gestapo and the SD and that absolute secrecy was required.
I understood my duties with in this movement, that I looked among my old friends for people who would be suited later after the fall of the Hitler Regime to take important positions, and, on the other hand, when I met now people, perhaps in the Army, I considered whether they were suitable for later use in such positions. Since I myself was a soldier in the East during most of this time, from the time when I learned about those matters until the 20th of July, I looked out for officers who were, first of all, competent people and, second, decided opponents of the Regime.
Q. Then what is called the German Resistance movement must not be imagined as a complete organization with a well-organized machine which coordinated all the details, and one must not imagine a movement which had large arsenals, secret arsenals, and one must not imagine a movement which distributed handbills among the population. The great danger which threatened the individual from the Gestapo and the SD made all of that impossible. The German Resistance Movement was rather a sun of small resistance groups which were only in loose contact with one another, and perhaps only the leaders knew each other, and they were known only within the circles. Is that true?
A Yes, that is true and I should especially like to emphasize there was not question of any mass propaganda because any attempt at mass propaganda would have immediately betrayed the secret. There was no possibility under the laws of War to appeal to the masses in any way. No organization over all these small groups, which would have organized them existed. There were simply a number of groups which somehow had contact in many cases only from the outside, not from the center. The hope of all these small groups was that at some central military point a power would be founded which would dispose of military forces at the decisive moment to be able to paralyze the SS.
Q Did Hielscher ever tell you that members of his circle prepared any attacks on Hitler or Himmler?
A Hielscher, at a time - it must have been between the fall of 1942.-- No, I am sorry I have to think for a minute -- the fall of 1942 and the fall of 1943 -- before Stalingrad -- reported that an attack was actually being prepared which was to be carried out by a group of officers, and he emphasized that Himmler and Hitler would have to be attacked at the same time, but that in his opinion it was even more important, if one had to choose between the two, to exterminate the man who was the executive, that is, Himmler. Because without Hitler Himmler would be quite capable of carrying on the regime but Hitler would not be able to continue without Himmler is executive power.
Q And did Hielscher tell you that within his circle each plans were being made?
A From what he told me I could not tell whether the specific group which was preparing these plans was under him or whether he had merely obtained knowledge of these plans through friends. I did not ask him this because it didn't seem expedient to me to know too much about a thing in which I could not participate directly.
Q As far as you know was there any definite list drawn up for the people to be appointed to the Government after the overthrow?
AAt that time I did not know that anyone had prepared a prospective list of government officials. Later I learned that people in Goerdeler's groups had worked this matter out in particular detail: but from my own knowledge at that time I can only say that Dr. Hielscher once asked me how I felt about the question waste be appointed to the position of Reich Food and Agricultural Ministry. That was a question which interested me particularly because in my journalistic work I had dealt especially with agricultural matters, and I had written a book on the subject in the Rowohlt Publishing House which was banned in 1933. Hielscher asked me, "What do you think, a group is considering appointing SchlangeSchoeninger Minister for Food and Agriculture." That is not the right word -- appoint -- but we are considering him for the position. "Isn't that a wrong choice, isn't this man a representative of big agrarian interests, would he be able to work in our spirit?" And we discussed this question. I cannot recall discussing any other posts and who was to be appointed to them.
Q Is it odd if someone working in a subordinate position in some resistance group knew nothing about positions to be appointed to certain positions after the overthrow?
A It was a matter of course that the names of the conspirators and persons who might be called upon later were not mentioned. That was the practice in this work.
Q When if I may sum up, on the bases of observation stretching over about 17 years you are convinced that Hielscher was decidedly of the Nazi regime?
Q. On the basis of your knowledge gained during all these years, your knowledge of Hielscher's personality, do you believe that he would help someone if he were not convinced that this person was absolutely opposed to National Socialism?
A. Yes, I know Hielscher and I believe I know him well. He would not take the part of any one of whose integrity he was not convinced, and the concept of integrity in his opinion includes a definite rejection cf everything belonging to the Hitler regime. I might add that I remember a conversation when he told me that one of his former friends who was not in the closer circle of his group had told him that he had to make peace with National Socialism, and how indignant Hielscher was that some one became a desert, same one whom he had admired and respected, and this man had become an object of detestation because he said that one had to make peace with National Socialism.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Doctor, prior to the end of the war, did you know what the Ahnenerbe Society was?
A. I don't believe I understood the question completely. I heard "Did you know what the Ahnenerbe was before the end of the war?" Is that right?
Q. No, that is not right. Do you know what the Ahnenerbe Society was?
A. I heard of it perhaps in 1938 for the first time, and the only concept that I had of it was a central activity of the SS for scientific and intellectual matters, an attempt to monopolize such work for the SS. In my opinion, it corresponded with what the name says, primarily prehistoric research and the history of the German people, and that was more or less in accord with what Hielscher told me about the research assignment which had been given.
Q. Do you know anything about a branch or institute within the Ahnenerbe which concerned itself with military scientific research?
A. No, I heard of that only when this trial had begun.
Q. You know nothing then about the facts which the prosecution insists existed in connection with that military scientific research institute? That is to say, that it was used for the purpose of medical experimentation upon non-German-national concentration camp inmates?
A. No, I learned of these things only when the trial had begun.
Q. I believe that during the course of your interrogation by Dr. Weisgerber you made some mention of the fact that the main point of the various resistance movements was to paralyze the SS and its functions. Did I understand you correctly?
A. The preparation for such an action was actually the central point on which everything depended to be able to overthrow the National Socialist regime.
Q. Why were these activities directed-against the SS in particular?
A. The executive strength of the National Socialist regime rested essentially in the men of the SS who had the important key positions, who disposed of weapons. The SS was unimportant, especially during the war, and in the case of the Wehmacht one could expect that large parts of it very quickly would be willing to cooperate.
Q. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any question of this witness on the part of any defense counsel? There being none, the prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Witness, were you a member of the movement known as the Hielscher Movement?
A. The movement was not known under that name. One can only subsequently speak about the existence of such a group. At the time I knew only that he had a circle of friends with whom he exchanged information and whom he was keeping ready for later use.
Q. No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further question by defense counsel?
The witness may be excused from the stand.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, before I call the witness Hielscher himself I should like to submit a few more documents to the Tribunal. These are documents which deal with Hielscher and his activity, and I consider it expedient at the present time to offer these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to say that these are documents which deal with Hitler and his activities. Is that correct?
DR. WEISGERBER: Hielscher, the witness who is to be called Hielscher.
I offer Document Sievers 32 as Sievers Exhibit 23 on page 80. This is document book 1 on page 80. This is a certificate of the Mayor of Marburg, where Hielscher lives. This is a brief comment on his resistance activity. I merely wish to point out that at the end of this statement there is a reference to Dr. Borkenau, the witness who was examined today, and Professor Friedrich Heiler whom Dr. Borkenau mentioned.
The next document which I offer is Sievers #33, as Sievers exhibit 24. It is on page 82 in Document Book 1. This is an affidavit by Theodor Steltzer now Prime Minister of the Land of Schleswig-Holstein. This is the same Theodor Steltzer whom the witness Dr. Topf mentioned. Steltzer who himself belonged to the Kreisau circle speaks about Hielscher's activity within the framework of the entire resistance movement.
The next document which I wish to offer is Sievers 34 which becomes Exhibit 25. This is in Document Book 1, page 84 and 85. This is an affidavit by the attorney, Franz Liedig, concerning the activity of Friedrich Hielscher. This is the same Liedig who was mentioned in Sievers exhibit # 12 which I already offered earlier who testified there about his contact with Sievers.
The next document is Sievers 36, which I offer as Exhibit Sievers 26. This is in Document Book 1, page 89. This is an affidavit of Dr. Lothar Mischke, about Hielscher's work in the resistance movement. The same subject is discussed in Document Sievers 37 which I offer as Sievers Exhibit 27. This is on page 89-90. Document 36 ... just a minute, excuse me .... Document Sievers 36 on page 89-90, that is Exhibit Sievers 26. The next document is Sievers 37 on pages 91 and 92 of Document Book I, which I offer as Exhibit 27.
Then I offer the affidavit of the university professor, Max Rolfes, as Sievers Exhibit 28, Document 38. This also deals with Hielscher's work in the resistance movement.
As the last document in this connection I offer the affidavit of the university professor. Dr. Friedrich Heiler. This is Document No. 39, which I offer as Sievers Exhibit 29, Document Book I, page 98 and following. This is the same Dr. Friedrich Heiler whom the witness, Dr. Borkenau, mentioned repeatedly today.
I believe it will be unnecessary to read all these documents. I an convinced that the Tribunal will take notice of the contents.
And now, with the approval of the Tribunal, I want to call the witness, Friedrich Hielscher, to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness, Friedrich Hielscher.
FRIEDRICH HIELSCHER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn. 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.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q. Witness, your name is Friedrich Hielscher?
A. Friedrich Hielscher.
Q. You were born on 51 May 1902 in Plauen, and you are now living in Marburg, that is right?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your profession?
A. I am a scholar.
Q. What subjects do you study?
A. History, philosophy, law, folklore.
Q. And since when have you taken an active part in politics?
A. Since 1927.
Q. Did you belong to a definite political ideology?
A. No. I had a group of students with whom I expounded my historical and philosophical theories and ideas.
Q. How did it happen that you became an opponent of the NSDAP so early?
A. From the information available to me I know the personal inferiority of the National Socialist leaders. I could observe that they were constantly lying and that what they really wanted was undesirable.
Q. Did you believe, as early as 1928, that the NSDAP would come to power?
A. No, not in 1928. In 1930, after the first election battle at which the party was victorious, I considered it possible. In 1931 I considered it probable. In 1932 I felt that it was certain.
Q. Did you join any definite political party with the intention of combatting the NSDAP?
A. No. I considered it impossible for any of the 33 German parties, with their bureaucratic methods, to be able to prevent a fascist dictatorsnip, or if it had come into existence, to overthrow it.
Q. What methods did you thing were the right ones?
A. The fascist dictatorsnip is a mass machine in a technical age. Therefore it seemed to us to be out of the question, when confronting such a mass body, to act openly. It seemed impossible to carry out propaganda publicly. We were convinced that the only thing possible was to form very small cadres which would not be recognizable to an outsider and which at the proper time could be imployed for a coupd'etat, that is, for an armed overthrow.
Q. Then that was more or less the method of the Trojan Horse?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you, in your ideas and in your efforts to combat this movement, were you alone or did you have associates?
A. First a selected group of my students were willing to collaborate in this illegal work; second, I knew quite a number of personages of various political backgrounds with whom I agreed that this regime would not last.
Q. That was before 1933?
A. That was around 1933--1932/33.
Q. Now came the 30th of January 1933, the so-called seizure of power, and now your real work began. How and when did you apply your method of the Trojan Horse?
A. This group of my students, who were willing to collaborate, I made into an illegal organization, with dues, secrecy, and other necessary conditions, and I appointed people who were willing and suitable to get into important party positions.
Q. When and how did you meet the Defendant, Wolfram Sievers?
A. As far as I can recall, I met Sievers about 1929, at one of my historical-philosophical lecture trips. He was a boy scout at that time. He spoke up during the discussion and we took a liking to each other.
Q. Did sievers show at that time that he was opposed to the NSDAP?
A. That was a matter of course with the people with whom I had anything to do at all.
Q. And did you consider him suitable to work in your circle?
A. Yes.
Q. In 1929 Sievers joined the SNDAP. Was that done with your knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you advise him to do so or how did it come about? There had to be some special reason, since you were both opponents of this political party.
A. That was the first time, aside from 1923, when the NSDAP was talked about, and it was useful to know what was going on in this growing machine -- were there any people of good will within the machine, what were the leaders doing, what plans were being made, what organization was being set up.
Q. Then first of all you wanted to find out what intentions the NSDAP had?
A. Yes, and specifically in the youth work, because that had to be the most important in the long-run.
Q. Now, in 1931 Sievers resigned from the NSDAP again; did he do that with your knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. On your orders?
A. Yes, one might say. We discussed it, and I considered it the thing to do.
Q. Now, why should he suddenly leave the Party since he had been sent into the Party with the definite purpose of getting information?
A. He had found out what he was to find out, the nature and the make-up, especially of the youth organization. It was just as inferior as we had thought, and even at that time it was so corrupt that without any further plan -- and we had no plan at the time -- without any further plan it was not necessary to have him continue.
Q. Now, in the year 1933, and Sievers, as the Tribunal has already been told, again joined the NSDAP; was this also done on your behalf?
A. Yes, at that time we were already a thoroughly organized organization. We were already asking for volunteers, who were willing and who were capable of working up in the sense of the Trojan Horse. Sievers seemed suitable, and he was willing.
Q. Were you able to get him any position within the Party?
A. No, I was not able to help him to obtain any position, and in the second place I had no intention of telling the individual person whom I trusted, in detail, what they were to do.
Q. Then it was up to the skill of the individual to get into a position from which he would be able to carry out the assignment which you gave him?
A. Yes.
Q. And how did Sievers obtain this position?
A. He got into this with Hermann Wirth in the Ahnenerbe.
Q. Who was Hermann Wirth?
A. Hermann Wirth was a rather crazy student of pre-history, who had excellent material and terrible concepts.
Q. Was Wirth already in contact with the Ahnenerbe at that time?
A. As far as I know he was one of the founders.
Q. Then as you say Sievers got in contact with Wirth, and through Wirth he got into the Ahnenerbe?
A. Yes. He was there from 1935 on as Reich Business Manager.
Q. Now, did you give Sievers any specific assignment in the spirit of your movement?
A. As soon as it was clear that there was a possibility of exploiting Himmler's racial romancing and half education, the assignment developed to gain Himmler's confidence with the aid of the Ahnenerbe, and to get as close to him as possible.
We, that is my group, were among the people who very early recognized the special personal danger of Himmler, and in the second place from the beginning we had been determined that one day we would have to overthrow the Party regime by force, and for that purpose one has to get as close as possible to the most dangerous man.
Q. And what were the duties which Sievers had about the time when he first belonged to the NSDAP, you said he was to get information about the intentions of the youth movement of the NSDAP?
A. This time, of course, he had to get as many details as he could from the office of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, and transmit them to us. We had to protect people. We had to build up camoflauge positions. We had to help the other people and in turn to remain unrecognized.
Q. And how did Sievers carry out these duties?
A. Well, it will be best if I begin with myself. I myself was known and considered undesirable by the Party leadership.
Q. You mean the NSDAP?
A. Yes, yes, of course. The party leaders knew me and considered me undesirable. I had already been under arrest, and had had my house searched. I was watched by the Gestapo, and in order to build up my organization I needed to be able to travel anywhere without arousing suspicion. Consequently, Sievers gave me a fake research assignment, which was to study indo-Germanic culture, customs of the annual festivals.
Q. Sievers said during direct examination that he himself could not issue any research assignments; you said that you received a fake research assignment from him; wasn't this research assignment actually issued by the Curater, Professor Wuest?
A. Yes. If things were going well, and Wuest was in a good mood, or had been drinking with Sievers, it was possible to persuade him to do something, and so he succeeded in persuading Wuest that I was efficient for this research assignment, and so I was given this assignment. And what concerned indo-Germanic customs could be found anywhere.
I was given a false pass as a section chief, though I was not a section chief, and was not a member of the SS nor the Ahnenerbe.
Q. And with this pass you were able easily to get visas to go abroad?
A. Not necessarily. I needed a little more for that purpose, but it was easier.
Q. Then the actual purpose of the assignment of this fake research assignment was that you, who were a suspect might appear in a more harmless light, and would be able to move rather freely and without supervision?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did it become necessary for Sievers to protect you personally; I speak of this, since you said before that Sievers work --- you wanted to explain first how he helped and protected members of your organization, and first of all yourself.
A He protected me when on the 2d of September 1944 I was suspected of participating in the events of the 20th of July. I was arrested and was to be hanged. Sievers used his position with Himmler, risking his own life, because Obersturmbannfuehrer Neuhaus wanted to hang me, and was convinced that Sievers and I had been in conspiracy with Stauffenberg. Sievers, through his skill, managed to have me released for lack of evidence.
Q How long were you under arrest at that time?
A The 2d of September 1944 to the 19th of December, the same year.
Q Is it true that you were once in the next cell to the wellknown Dr. Goerdeler?
A I cannot say. I was in the Lehrter Prison in Berlin. That is near the Lehrter Station. I had Cell No. 225.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, in this connection I offer from Document Book 2, Sievers Exhibit No. 49 -- beg pardon, Sievers Document No. 49, as Exhibit 30, Document Book 2, page 23-24, 25-26 in the English. This is a statement by Theodor Baensch about the incarceration of Dr. Hielscher after the 20th of July 1944. Baensch was a prisoner himself in the prison in Lehrterstrasse in Berlin, and he testified to the fact that Dr. Hielscher was also under arrest there.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 15 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FRIEDRICH HIELSCHER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers):
Q Witness, it seems to me to be desirable for you to give to the Tribunal a very short description of the political phenomenon which we described as the German resistance movement. Could you clarify this phenomenon in a few short sentences?
A In order to understand it one has to imagine the situation in which everybody in the country found himself whenever he wanted to be active in any way. One has to imagine that parents couldn't speak to their children because the child did not know how to lie in such a manner that the attitude of the parents did not become apparent to their teachers. One must imagine that every neighbor was in a position to observe every errand, everyone who spoke out of place was sure to find an enemy who would denounce him. One must imagine that over since 1939 we knew that prisoners in order to make them testify were thrown into a bath of water wit 80 degrees heat and the skin was pooled off their bodies. One must imagine that none of us could be sure that he would be able to keep quiet and what he would testify under torture, or under the pressure of any which was introduced to him. That is to say, it was quite out of the question to get together in large meetings. It was impossible to carry on any open propaganda. In Stockholm I was asked, "Why don't you speak publicly?" Well, it just wasn't possible, it was absurd. Only when one considers that situation one can imagine how one could work against the Party. There were little cells, very tiny groups, where the rank and file man didn't know what the other one was doing, where one group was not allowed to know what the other group was doing.
If one would be discovered it could betray the other. A system of buckheads was necessary, if one buckhead was full the other one had to be water-tight. And this is the only way in which it was possible for a few people, who knew one another before 1935, to get together under avery calculated circumstances. One always had to know under what pretext one had met and what one would say if somebody was suddenly to interrupt. How much could the wife know? What would the wife have to testify in case she was asked had she met a certain number of these men before? If so, how long had she known them? Under what position did she know them? After leaving one would have to arrange what the subject of conversation had been. I think that this is a picture of the atmosphere in which we had to work. At the beginning of the Nazi regime a large part of the circles and groups upon which one relied were eliminated, they had been put into concentration camps, some of them had been killed, one didn't know how these people in the concentration camps were guarded, and it took years before one could once more establish who really was left, who kept quiet, and upon whom one could therefore rely. Only after years one could put his head out of one's camouflaged position, and could find out what one could do and how one could meet one's friends. The next difficulty was that none of the political groups could act unless there was a cooperation of parts of the Armed Forces. Himmler certainly wouldn't have left if one just talked to him, and upon that depended the slowness of the entire work.
Q. Now, I think it would he desirable that you describe to the Tribunal how you cooperated with circles that were of your opinion, how you established contact with them, and to what extent your collaboration was possible with other groups?
A. Our group maintained contact and cooperated with Socialists; I mention Dr. Reichwein, Dr. Topf, who was here before, and Dr. Haubach. Then there was the young conservative group of Graf Friedrich von der Schulenburg, the Catholic circles around the Freiherr Friedrich von Luening, who was one of the most courageous and noble men I ever got to know. There was the group around August Wenig, the military group around Count Stauffenberg, and a number of clergymen.
Q. Was there cooperation between you and these groups which you just mentioned?
A. It would be best to describe how we actually met. I met Freiherr Luening and became acquainted with him in 1940 because he was the commander of a reserve battalion ER-9. He was supposed to help me to recruit a Jewish friend under a false name into this battalion. At that time I was currently active in the questions of what was to be done later, and in that connection I was in contact with August Wenig. It was in the Spring of 1940 when Luening told me, "You know Fritz Schulenburg!" I vaguely remembered having seen him in 1932, 1928. A few hours later August Wenig told me the same thing and both told me that Schulenburg would come at night when darkness had fallen. He told me, "You know who recommended me; well how do we kill the pig?" Thereupon I said, "That is a reasonable basis for conversation; how about the Generals?" Then opinions were exchanged as to what military opinions I saw, what military opinions he saw, and the next question was if the morale of the country was ripe enough. Schulenburg, as a vice president or whatever he was, could not travel around the country very easily, that is, apart from his official trips, while I was getting around the country, and the question came up, "What does the mass of the population think?"
That is just one example. I don't want to tell many such examples and this is how conversations were carried out with a number of these people.