A The first witness, who was the Mayor Stubenvoll, talked quite independently. He told the court everything that he could say against me during this trial with matters which had no connection whatever with my case. Stubenvoll reproached mo with all my activities in school the youth, and the care, and whatever I had a personal dealings with him--he charged me with all that. But the female witness-
Q One moment, Father please. Who was those mayor that you speak of? Can you describe him?
A The Mayor, Hans Stubenvoll of Vilsek
Q Did he have any political connections that you know of, with regard to the NSDAP, for example?
A Yes. The Mayor Stubenvoll always reported everything to the Kreisleiter, Dr. Kolb in Amberg, my whole activity in the youth organizations, and he also reported my sermon of July 1941 to the Kreisleiter.
Q Father, did this Mayor have any title or official rank in the Party that you know of?
A Yes. He was an Ortsgruppenleiter.
Q Please describe the other witnesses that were called against you.
A Yes. The female witness, Barbara Stubenvoll, who was the wife of the Mayor, gave the impression that the Presiding judge told her and made leading questions to her to give that answer what he wanted to hear and in order to have her only answer what he wished to hear.
Q Father, who did you say put those questions?
A The Presiding Judge.
Q I believe you said that was Rothaug, did you not?
A Yes, that was Dr. Rothaug. During the whole trial there was only one man who spoke; that was Dr. Rothaug.
Q Did you have a defense counsel, Father, at the trial?
A Yes, I had a defense counsel. He was Justizrat Dr. Warmuth of Munich.
Q Did your defense counsel during the trial at any time attempt the secure evidence which was denied to him?
A Well, Yes. I think it was during the interrogation or during the examination of witnesses. He asked for notes which the Mayor Stubenvoll had composed from the testimony of his wife, and the lawyer wanted to have an insight into this notes, but the presiding judge Dr. Rothaug declared, and in a very energetic manner, that that was unnecessary. The only thing the lawyer could do to have a ruling of the court, but on that, the lawyer refrained from doing it because the presiding judge had already showed him in such an energetic manner that that was unnecessary.
Q Father, you have said that the main charge on your indictment was stated to be the malicious statements that you were supposed to have made in your sermon in 1941, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct. Those were the main charges in the indictment.
Q Yes. Now Father, the sermon that you delivered on the occasion in 1941, to which the indictment referred, what text was that sermon?
A Well, the text was the sermon of the 7th Sunday after Pentecost. It is read every year. It is in Chapter VII of Matthew. "Beware of false prophets who talk around in the cloak of lambs but who in their interior are rearing wolves. You will recognize them from their cloaks." That was the beginning of my sermon.
Q Father, was this verse from Matthew the text of the sermon on that day every year?
A Every year we use the same text.
Q Now, Father, of the witnesses that were called against you-- I believe you said there wore four or five, which was it?
A There were four witnesses from Vilseck and the Gestapo Secretary Alt, but during the trial he didn't talk at all.
Q Well, of those four witnesses that did speak at the trial for the prosecution, how many of them heard your sermon of the preceding year, on the 7th Sunday after Whiterundag
A Two witnesses had heard my sermon. It was the wife of the Ortsgruppenleiter and the newspaper distributor Meyer Johann.
Q What did the newspaper distributor say or testify about your sermon?
A During the interrogation by the Gestapo official, he declared that my preaching had been aggressive; he said that my sermon was an incitement.
Q Father, you said that during the Gestapo investigation, he said that your sermon was aggressive and inciting, but that during the trial he denied that. Is that true?
A Yes, during the trial he denied that he had said that the sermon had been an inciting sermon. This expression " Hetzpredigt," inciting sermon, he did not use. That is what he said during the trial.
Q Describe Father, the testimony of the other witness that had heard your sermon; namely, the wife of the Mayor-Ortsgruppenleiter.
A Well, the wife of the Ortsgruppenleiter had only referred, during the trial, to what she had told the Gestapo official, and the other witness, Kuffer, brought forward merely personal matters in order to paint me as a malicious priest.
Q But this last witness, that you speak of, Kuffer had not heard your sermon, had he?
A No, he had not heard my sermon.
Q But the Mayor's wife had, is that correct?
A Yes, the wife of the Ortsgruppenleiter attended the sermon and heard it.
Q Well, Father, at your trial, did the Mayor's wife testify or was the statement she had given the Gestapo only introduced?
A No, the wife of the Mayor only answered questions put to her by the presiding judge. She herself didn't say much.
Q During the trial Father so far as you remember having observed, it, will you please describe Rothaug's conduct and words and statements from the bench.
A Right after my trial, in the cell of my prison, I took some stenographic notes concerning the remarks made by the presiding judge. Dr. Rothaug.
A (continued): And on the strength of those stenographic notes which I have here on my table, I can make the following statement concerning the trial. First of all the Presiding Judge referred to my education and there he became very personal right away, and charged me with the fact that my whole theological education was rather backward, and that it would have been much better if I had studied something else than theology: He said that I only lived the whole development cf National Socialist as a bystander locking from the window; During my trial the Hitler Youth passed the town hall, and at that occasion the Presiding Judge made the remark -- those down there, the Hitler youth, that is the real life. Later on in the course cf the trial, the Presiding Judge very often made ridiculous remarks concerning the Catholic religion, and made malivicus remarks concerning the profession of priest. Some of these remarks I could tell you literally, and they were the following: You Catholics allege that only Catholics will reach heaven, all others will be in hell. That is an assumption which no Catholic will ever make. Then, he said, and this remark was repeated again and again -- not water gives value to man, but rather the blood. And, of course, the water he referred to was the Catholic sacrificial water, or the water on the head, sanctifying water. For the National Socialist ideology has to be given to the child already with the milk cf his mother; and there it appears my parents had failed to educate me in this direction. Those were merely personal remarks.
Q. Father, may I interrupt a moment. Are you saying that the Presiding Judge, Rothaug, made the remarks, such as you have just described, to you from the bench, during the trial.
A. Yes, from the bench, during the trial. These remarks, I may say that after all they were not only meant for me, myself, but for the whole profession cf priesthood.
Q. Father, you have said that in your indictment the main charge was one of malicious statements made during that sermon in 1941, but you also said that during your trial Rothaug said much more about the business of your giving a funeral service to the Pole. Can you give any facts to explain why you say that?
A. Yes. Special Court Judge Rothaug dragged two things mainly into this trial. First of all, the removal of crosses from the schools in the district of Filseck, and then this transporting of the dead Pole from the hospital to the morgue. If I may add something concerning this matter of transferring the dead Pole; there again I can give you some more details.
Q. Yes, Father, I would be very interested in what Rothaug said about your transporting the dead Pole.
A. The whole courtroom was fully occupied. I, as well as the people attending the trial, was quite astonished especially by Rothaug going into the details concerning this Pole matter. He came back again and again on this matter in order to prove to me that I really had made malicious statements; and that I had had malicious and bad intentions, and on this occasion Rothaug shewed a terrible hatred against the Polish people.
Q. Father, excuse me. Do you remember that two days before your trial that a Pole was tried by that same court and sentenced to death by Rothaug?
A. Yes, during the trial Rothaug himself told us that; he said that we had one or two days before sentenced a Polak to death -- Polak being an insinuating way of saying Pole; and this Pole had tried to commit suicide in prison yesterday; and he went on to say and now we have additional troubles with that guy.
Q. Father, did Rothaug say anything else with regard to that Pole that had been tried and sentenced to death two days before?
A. No, why the Pole was condemned was not referred to.
Q. Father, I didn't ask you why the Pole was condemned; I asked you if Rothaug during your trial had anything further to say, either in a serious or joking way about that Polak you described?
A. No, concerning this Polak there was no further word, but concerning tho Poles in general there were some more remarks and Rothaug expressed himself in the following manner: If he had his way, then no Pole would be buried in a German cemetery, and then he went on to make the remark which everybody heard in that court room -- that he would get up from his coffin if near to him there was a Pole being buried.
Rothaug himself had to laugh because of this mean joke, and he went on to say "You have to be able to hate, because according to the Bible, God is a hating God." He probably referred to where God says, "I am a very active God."
Q. Father, you say Rothaug said you have to be able to hate: is that correct?
A. Yes, he said in quite a general way you have to be able to hate too, because according to the Bible, God is a hating God; that was his general remark.
Q. And yet, Father, you were being tried for a malicious utterance; were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Father, do you know who that Pole was that died and for whom you conducted the funeral service; was he a farm laborer, or what was he?
A. As far as I recall, he was in the camp Altneuhaus, but he was not a laborer; he was only in the camp.
Q. But he was in a camp with other Poles?
A. Yes. He was in a camp with other Poles at Altneuhaus near Filseck. There once in a while we had to make a religious service.
Q. Yes, Father. During your trial did Rothaug, from the bench, say to you anything concerning a person named Rosenberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was the Rosenberg to which Rothaug referred; do you know?
A. Yes; Rosenberg at that time was a Reichsleiter, and he was the founder cf the National Socialist ideology, because his book, Mythus of the 20th Century was the basis for the psychological ideas of National Socialism. Blut and Boden, blood and earth, these were the highest values according to him, and, therefore this bock was incompatible with Christianity. Rothaug alleged then that, according to his opinion there had been no argument against this book and it had not teen refuted so far.
He himself said he was reading every evening from this book.
Q. Father, did you ever hear this book discussed, or had you ever read it?
A. I have not read the bock because it was banned for us unless there was a special reason; then, we could get permission from the Bishop to read it. However, just from the argument against the book which had been made by leading theologians, I became familiar with the contents of the book.
Q. Then, Father, perhaps you can say from hearing and entering arguments by other theologians concerning Rosenberg's bock, whether or not it contained philosophies concerning the superiority of one race over another. Did it, or did it not contain such philosophies?
A. Well, I could not give you an exact opinion concerning that matter; during the trial it was not referred to, and this exact content in detail I am not quite familiar with. The main principles as we know from Blut and Boden were based upon the Ten Commandments of God.
Q. Father, do you know what happened to Alfred Rosenberg?
A. Yes, Alfred Rosenberg was sentenced by the American Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, sentenced to death, and the sentence has also been executed; that is what I know from the newspapers.
Q. Father, after your trial was concluded, what sentence did you receive?
I was sentenced on the grounds of malicious attacks to fifteen months of prison, and three months of custody pending trial were counted.
Q. Father, after the ceremony and sermon which you preached on the seventh Sunday after Whitsunday, 1941, how long was it from then until your trial, approximately?
AAbout fifteen months.
Q Tehn, for fifteen months after you preached the sermon for which you were tried as having made malicious utterances, nothing was done to you by the way of trial; is that correct?
A No, during these fifteen months nothing happened.
Q One moment, Father, please. Fifteen months after your sermon, during which nothing was done, you were tried, and part of the case was the funeral sermon you conducted for a Pole, is that correct?
A May I ask you to repeat the question please?
Q Father, fifteen months after your sermon, during your trial, your conduct of a funeral for a Pole was a part of the trial, wasn't it?
A Yes, during the trial.
Q Now, Father, when was this funeral for the Pole that you conducted?
A That was on the third Sunday in the month of May. I think it must be about 17 May, 1942.
Q In other words, Father, the sermon that you preached, on which the main count of your indictment was based, was fifteen months before your trial, and the Polish funeral was two or three months before your trail? Is that correct?
A Well, the funeral of the Polo was in May 1942, and the trial took place in december 1942. That would be about six months.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: There is no further direct examination, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any Defense Counsel desire to cross examine this witness?
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for Defendant Rothaug): I ask to examine the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, for the first time you were arrested on the 1 June 1942, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q You said before that you made the church sponsored transfer of the Pole, and that you were arrested because of that. Was this church sponsored transfer of Poles prohibited?
A It was not prohibited for Poles, but I was charged with only the publication of this fact.
Q I could not quite get that, unfortunately. May I ask you to repeat what you were charged with?
A I was charged with the fact of having published this church sponsored transfer and that I made it public. That was explained as if I had invited and even asked the population to attend the funeral.
Q In other words, you were not charged with having transferred this Polo and sponsored it by the Church, but rather, it was the fact that you had violated the state directives, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q The first point was dealt with only by the Gestapo?
A Yes.
Q In other words, Rothaug had nothing to do with that?
A No, he had nothing to do with that.
Q However, you were charged with other violations of state directives, were you not? Is that correct?
A No, that is not correct. The Ortsgruppenleiter Stubenvoll had informed the Kreisleiter, Dr. Kolb, and he raised the point again because this sentence of two weeks was not enough for him, and that is the way this matter came to the Special Court in Nuernberg, and then it went on.
Q Well did this matter lead to a trial then?
A No. As far as I know-
Q Please go on.
AAs far as I know from my lawyer, this matter was diverted by Berlin, and that is why the second time, on 21 August, I was released again.
Q But then there were other denunciations against you?
A Yes, later on. After I had been released for the first time and and when I was in custody pending trial for the second time, only then was this sermon brought to the knowledge of the Special Court.
Q It seems that you were also denounced by the Ortsgruppenleier for other activity.
A Well, no, I was not denounced. I was only charged with them and reprimanded, but they had nothing to do with the Court.
Q Just a little bit slower please.
AAt Filsegg I only took charge of my duties of care and as a priest.
Q But your activities at school were talked about and other activities which were not compatible with state directives at that time?
A Well, I have to object to that. That was only the opinion of Stubenvoll. Only in his opinion were those activities against the state. I never violated any state directives in that matter. I only stuck to my church directives.
Q However, your youth organization and your school activity, what did they object to it in that natter?
A Well, for instance, that as far as the pupills of the professional school were concerned, I gathered them for education after the lessons. The Ortsgruppenleiter Stubenvoll didn't like that, and then he made quite bad and mean difficulties for me. He threatened that I would be charged. Furthermore, I gathered the adult youth every three or four weeks in order to have discussions and a little lecture. There again Stubenvoll sent informers, inspite of the fact that he had no rights whatsoever to intervene in church matters.
Q You speak of intervening in church matters. Can you confirm that as a result of the centuries old tension between church and state in Germany, there were penalties for the mis-use of the priest's profession which were as old and which had been issued centuries ago?
A I know only the chancel paragraph, and that had existed for quite some time. Otherwise, I don't know anything.
Q Well do you know for instance, the Protizio of common law? You don't know that?
A No.
Q The Protizio.
A No, I don't know that.
Q But you know that the Chancel paragraph was issued during Bismarck's rule; that is, 1871, is that correct?
A Yes. Even during the trial Rothaug made a remark about it to me.
Q Do you know than that the very fact of misusing this sermon brings the fact of misuse of the chancel paragraph
A Yes, that is-
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object to the question for the reason that Councel asked the witness if he knew that the very fact of misusing his sermon, etc. No such fact has been established. I object to its being used in a question in this manner. It is misstating what has heretofore gone into the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection to that question will be sustained, chiefly on account of assumptions of fact.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Now, witness, you have tried, and you have said, that Justizrat Warmuth as your Defense Counsel had asked for notes which had been made by the mayor.
A Yes, he asked for them during the trial.
Q But you also said, witness, that your Defense Counsel did not make a point of it to bring about a ruling of the court.
A Yes, the Defense Counsel made a report on the trial, and he wrote that in it. I have this report here, and it is literally what he s aid.
Q. Now, on the strength of that sermon at that time, you gave as a basis Chapter 7 of the Matthew's Evangelical?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it the fact which was objected to, that this text was made the basis for this sermon?
A. Well, that could not be objected to because I had no power over that. I had to take that text.
Q. Is it correct if I assume that of course the words which you joined to that chapter were objected to?
A. Well, yes. The whole sermon, as I said, was explained by the witness in a way s if I meant by the False Prophets the leading personalities of Germany of that day.
Q. Did you mean them at that time?
A. I spoke quite in a general way, and I left it to the people what they wanted to understand from my sermon.
Q. Well, did you mean the leading personalities? I would like to know that.
A. I spoke in a quite general way on these matters of ideology, and I left it to everybody. If I meant somebody, then, of course, I meant, first of all, Rosenberg, who actually was the man who was involved with the National-Socialist ideology versus religion, by his book.
Q. In other words, the assumption of the Prosecution was correct?
A. It was an assumption and they couldn't prove it.
Q. Well, but today you admitted as being true -
A. I don't want to testify to that.
Q. Can you confirm to me that the Holy Father and the bishops in Germany at that time--as well as today-- prohibited expressly to the priest to take part in politics?
A. To take part in politics in the usual sense--yes. That was not taken part in by us priests, but we had the duty, however, of taking a position to the ideologies of the time in so far as they are in opposition with Christian principles.
Q. Have you perhaps read, by any chance, the publication in the newspapers the other day, according to which today again t here is a very strong, objection because some priests deal with political matters?
A. Well, quite often they have something in the paper there that there is a wish of having the priests refraining from taking a position in any political question; I know that. But you can not deny the church the right that it takes a position basically to various matters and questions of public life. That is not dealing with political matters. And every priest today certainly strives to refrain from entering in political discussions-
MR. WOLLEYHAN: Your Honor, I object to this entire line of questioning insofar as it affects the present time. The present time is not relevant to the line of questions and answers elicited on direct testimony in direct examination.
DR. KOESSL: May it please Your Honors-
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Now, witness, you have admitted that the newspaper distributor Geyer expressly stated that your sermon was very aggressive.
A. Yes, the witness Geyer in the minutes taken by the Gestapo had testified that, and they had written it down.
Q. Also the wife of the Ortsgruppenleiter, according to your own testimony, had testified that in church she had objected to what you said?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the wife of the Ortsgruppenleiter a woman who went to church very often?
A. Yes, relatively she went rather often to church. But one gained the impression-- and also the other people who went to church confirmed this-- that she went to church because she wanted to hoar everything that was said in church.
Q. This woman, did she already go to church before the time when her husband was an Ortsgruppenleiter?
A. Yes, also during that period already, Frau Stubenvoll wont to church regularly.
Q. And. now you assume that this woman suddenly went to church only as an informer?
A. That was the general opinion in the village; it was not only my pinion.
Q. You have admitted that when Rothaug questioned this woman he generally stuck to what she had testified before the Gestapo, that is, as a line for his questioning.
A. Yes.
Q. Furthermore, you said that he asked leading questions?
A. He submitted it to her in a way that she could only answer yes or no in a very easy way. That was the impression the public gained. My family was there partly.
Q. However, this woman had already told all that. How can you say that Rothaug put leading questions to that woman and told her what she was to say?
A. Because in her testimony she was rather uncertain.
Q. Why did she suddenly get uncertain in her answers if she had already told the Gestapo the very same things?
A. Between the questioning by the Gestapo in August and the questioning during the trial in December there was quite a period of time, and Frau Stubenvoll didn't have a good memory of what she had stated at that time. This impression my defense counsel gained also.
Q. In other words, the first statements of this woman were apparently under the impression of your sermons, weren't they?
A. Well, only what she may have stated to the Gestapo. During the trial, from her own knowledge, she didn't speak too much. She only answered.
Q. Did you ever see a witness who does anything else than answer questions?
A. Well, the first witness Stubenvoll-- he just spoke and he told and reported everything he knew against me though he didn't get any questions to that effect at all.
Q. But this man probably, on the strength of the Penal Code of Procedure was summoned to explain what he knew. Can you remember that?
A. I can not remember well whether he was summoned to do just that. He started to s peak against me.
Q. Now, you mentioned the fact that Rothaug had alleged that in your tender youth your parents had forgotten to give you the education of a National Socialist.
A. At that time I was much older, but indirectly this came as a hint concerning my parents, and my brother confirmed that to me, and the young lady who attended the trial: that they said that he oven hinted to my parents just when he spoke of education, of education from the tender youth onward.
Q. Mow, witness, you talk of a Pole who was in a camp.
A. Yes.
Q. Mas that a disciplinary camp?
A. No, that was a camp for the Poles who were not yet lodged with the people there.
Q. In other words, a sort of transient camp for such Poles who had not been assigned to work?
A. Yes. At that time, in 1940, the labor assignment was still rather slow. These were rather locations for them. Whoever wanted to work could go to construction centers and whoever didn't want to..... just stayed in the camp.
Q. In other words, there were Poles who came to Germany as volunteers because they found better conditions there?
A. Well, I couldn't say that.
Q. Now, witness, you also talked to Rosenberg. In other words, you admit that you only knew Rosenberg from the arguments against his theories?
A. Yes, from the books which came into our hands, in order to have sufficient information concerning Rosenberg.
Q. Now, in connection with this sermon that was objected to, Rothaug came to speak of Rosenberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't you say prior to that, yourself, that your sermon was directed against, at that time, Reichsleiter Rosenberg?
A. I said that if I thought f somebody, then it was first of all Rosenberg from whom originated these ideologic bases of National Socialism, and the book of Rosenberg's was prohibited by the church because--and I will quote the literal words--it attacked the basic Christian belief.
Q Anyhow, the sermon which was objected to at that time gave reason to speak of Rosenberg, is that correct?
A Well, the sermon gave reason to talk about Rosenberg, yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: We will suspend at this time for the usual morning recess, fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: May I continue with the cross-examination?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, the entire question of the burial of the Pole was mentioned only because, apparently, it was contained in the files, and there it was used as further evidence of your attitude of opposition to the State?
A. These files, however, had nothing to do with the actual matter charged in the trial.
Q. However, it was further evidence of your entire attitude towards the State at that time?
A. Yes, that is how the presiding judge interpreted it and also expressed it.
Q. How long did the whole trial take?
A. From about 8 o'clock until 1:30 in the afternoon.
DR. KOESSL: I have no further questions. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defense counsel desire to crossexamine this witness?
(No response)
Does the prosecution desire to further examine on re-direct?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One question, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Father, during the sermon in question for which, among other things, you were indicted, did you mention the name of Alfren Rosenberg?
A. No.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to interrogate the witness about the matter of dates. There seems to be a little confusion in my mind, at least, on that subject BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I understand from your testimony that the sermon that you have referred to was preached on the third Sunday in May, 1942. Is that correct?
A. No that is not correct. The sermon was in July, 1941. The exact day I cannot state any more at this time; it was about the 20th of July.
Q. What is the exact date - the approximate date, if you can't give the exact date - of your first arrest?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, it is not coming through the German.
THE PRESIDENT: The switch at the Tribunal's desk is open. I don't know why it is not coming through.
THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, there is something wrong with the sound system.
THE PRESIDENT: Did my first question go through the sound system?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I will repeat the question I asked before.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. The sermon that you preached was apparently on the third Sunday in July of 1941. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Evidently it is not coming through again.
THE INTERPRETER: It is all right now, Your Honor.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I understand that your testimony now is that the sermon referred to in your testimony was preached on the third Sunday in July of the year 1941. Is that correct?
A. I can now tell you the exact date. It was the 20th of July, 1941.
Q. I understand you to say that from the time of the preaching of that sermon a period of fifteen months elapsed during which nothing happened. Is that correct?