THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, let's put it this way, that there was nothing in the Party Program which conflicted with the Old Testament insofar as it pertained to Jews?
THE WITNESS: No, I don't see any contradiction there.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: I only want to say particularly that according to known at the time of what the NSDAP intended to do.
THE PRESIDENT: You say "What you could have known." Did you know?
THE WITNESS: What I knew at the time. I mean to say, that this formulation of these facts refer to all that the NSDAP had shown to the public about these questions at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: You make a distinction between what the program said, and what actually happened insofar as your knowledge is concerned?
THE WITNESS: I witnessed this personally, but later on things occurred which had nothing to do with the program, and that all we old National Socialists in particular felt very bitter about this.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Bergold.
Q. (By Dr. Bergold) Witness, As for the racial question, did it not include the theory that a master race existed which was superior to the other races?
A. No, considering the racial question as such, it does not express the thought that a master race or inferior races existed. This idea is a distortion of the subsequent propaganda. I always considered all races equal before God, but in the fact that various races exist I saw the will of God that these should continue to exist separately.
THE PRESIDENT: DR. Bergold, I am sorry that I interrupt you, but I think it is best that we clear up a point while it is fresh in the minds of everybody. Now, the witness referred to Point 24 of the Party program and he told the Tribunal that in this Point 24 he saw a guarantee of religion. Now, we would like to read that paragraph, that Point 24, and have the witness tell us how he reconciles this point with the religion which he studied in the Old Testament and of which he has now told us a great deal. I will read it:
"Point 24: We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the State so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party, as such, advocates the standpoint of a positive Christinaity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish materialistic spirit within and around us and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework - common utility precedes individual utility." in this Point 24 which you yourself referred to, that the COURT II CASE IX Party combats the Jewish spirit, how do you reconcile that with your teachings gleaned from the Old Testament?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I am not a student of the Old Testament in the sense that for me the Old Testament is my basic book of religion. But I worked on the Old Testament as a Scholar within the Protestant Lutheran Church, so that it was a purely scholarly interest, and the teachings of the Old Testament were not binding for me, because for a Protestant the personality of Jesus stands above everything, and therefore, in referring to the Old Testament in this connection I cannot consider that correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, do you reconcile that Point 24 with the New Testament and its teachings?
THE WITNESS: I did not understand why the teachings -may I have the question repeated please?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You have told us that you did not accept the Old Testament as your Bible, that for you the Old Testament was merely a subject of scientific study, and that you were not bound by the teachings of the Old Testament. I understood you correctly there, didn't I?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, I ask you whether the Point 24 which you referred to can be reconciled with the teachings in the New Testament?
THE WITNESS: It says expressly that the Party believes in a positive Christianity. This word, contained in the Party program was decisive for a great number of Christians and religious people when joining the Party.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, you would say that it does reconcile itself with the teachings in the New Testament?
THE WITNESS: What do you mean, your Honor? What cannot be reconciled?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you believe in the New Testament?
TEE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you believe in the New Testament and also believe in Point 24 of the Nazi program?
THE WITNESS: Yes, why not?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Now, that Point 24 advocates the combating a certain Jewish spirit within Germany and in that combat you know that synagogues were destroyed. You know that, do you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I know it, but I never approved of it. As a religious person I was very much disgusted that this happened.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but you saw that in the Point it says "We combat a Jewish materialistic spirit"?
THE WITNESS: The materialistic Jewish spirit.
THE PRESIDENT: And that was interpreted by certain groups in Germany to countenance the destruction of Jewish property, including synagogues?
THE WITNESS: Never had anything to do with this. The other is a spiritual argument.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, you did not approve of any action against the Jewish synagogues?
THE WITNESS: Never.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, at the time it was explained to me, and I can only say what I heard at the time and what calmed me very much in 1938. That was the news that the Fuehrer was supposed to have had a fit of rage about it. I say what I heard.
THE PRESIDENT: You must understand, witness, and I think Dr. Bergold understands it, that these questions are put only for the purpose of securing information, to find COURT II CASE IX out what you thought and what you did,
THE WITNESS: Yes, of course, I understand.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q. (By Dr. Bergold) Witness, as a member of the Party what did you do until 1933?
A. When I joined the Party I pointed out my special profession. They respected this and the Gauleiter especially certified and said that I would not have to take part in any political activity, because I did not intend to be particularly active politically or to become a politician even. I never had that idea, and I have never been a politician. At the time, when joining the Party, I was still an individual member because in 1926, in Schleswig-Holstein there was hardly a local group in the country. Later on, after 1929, I conducted field services for the SA, flag dedications and services for the dead and Christmas services. I was always asked for this expreslly. When dedicating flags, I had discussions with Church authorities. I justified my activity by pointing out that these men, when making propaganda, constantly had to expect to be shot or beaten from ambush. At their express request I considered it my duty to give them the consolation of the faith.
Q. You did not have any political office before 1933?
A. No, before 1933 I did not have any kind of political office.
Q. What was your political activity until 1933?
A. From December, 1924 until 1927 I was pastor of a small congregation on the West Coast of Schleswig-Holstein, and from November, 1927 onwards until November, 1933, I was pastor of the large rural congregation, Kaltenkirchen, District of Segeberg.
Q. Witness, what is your attitude to the Church dogma?
Your Honor, I have to discuss this question because later on it will be shown that the defendant left the Church. That is why I have to show his religious development.
A. As I have already mentioned at the beginning, when I was a young man at school I already felt a close contact with God which became stronger owing to the war and my experiences there. This relationship to God was not at all connected with Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, that is, as the second person in the picture of the Trinity. In my theological studies, moreover, I particularly took an interest in studying the old Orient.
nucleus question more and more: what is your attitude towards Jesus of Nazareth as Christ? The dogma says that Christ is God Himself Who, as the Son of God, redeemed humanity by dying on the cross and relieved them of their sins. About this central problem I was never able to find a positive answer in myself. I did not know any belief in Jesus as Christ, but I firmly believed in one God alone as Jesus himself talked about in his speeches.......
THE PRESIDENT: Is this what you were preaching in your church?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I realized this more and ore clearly and also preached about it....
THE PRESIDENT: Then you say that you believed in the New Testament?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You believed in the New Testament and yet you expressed in Church what you have just now told the Tribunal?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A (Cont'd) I consider Jesus a brother like myself and anyone who believes in God and is a child of God. This, attitude, was nothing exceptional or anything in particular. In the Protestant Church there were all kinds of views on religious questions, from the orthodox people down to the pantheism, out already at that time I perceived the idea: whether it could be combined with truth whether with this, my attitude, I could remain in church office.
THE PRESIDENT: You said that views ran the entire gamut from orthodox views to pantheism. Was pantheism taught in some of the Christian churches?
THE WITNESS: Yes, there were a great number in the Protestant Church. The idea of God as such on the one hand was considered in a very strict manner according to the dogma and very orthodox, and on the other hand, it was vaguely dissolved in pantheism.
Q (By Dr. Bergold) Did you belong to any particular group within the Church?
THE PRESIDENT: What was the name of your church?
THE WITNESS: The Protestant Lutheran Church of the Province Schleswig-Holstein. That's a State church.
THE PRESIDENT: And is this what is taught in all Protestant Lutheran churches, what you have just told us?
THE WITNESS: No, that depends on the clergyman. One clergyman had orthodox views and another had pantheistic views, and every one of them preached in his own way. The Protestant church existed in this tension.
Q (By Dr. Bergold) Now let us go back to this religious group. group at the time. I was an individualist and have remained one. However, in that time, like in many other clergymen who had joined the NSDAP before 1933, the wish in me arose to discuss matters. The formation of the National-Socialism Clergymen's Association was not permitted. As an answer, in order to form an orthodox group, the movement, so-called the German Christians was formed which I joined in 1932.
THE PRESIDENT: Did the German Christians believe in Christ as being divine?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you believe in Christ as being divine?
THE WITNESS: No, as I already said....
THE PRESIDENT: Could you preach just what you pleased in your church?
THE WITNESS: Yes, provided it was part of the New Testament. I mean, the person of Christ is always in the center of all these sermons and all these thoughts, but not Christ as a God, as a Christ, as a Messiah, but Christ as a human being, as brother, as leader towards God.
THE PRESIDENT: And do we understand that it is your interpretation of the New Testament that Christ is not considered a divine being?
THE WITNESS: Yes, not only I do this, but a great number of university professors have the same view.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, I am saying the New Testament. You read the New Testament and you conclude from what is contained in the Testament that Christ was not divine?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q (By Dr. Bergold) Witness, talking about an orthodox group, what do you mean by that? With the starting and growing of the NSDAP and with the joining of a great number of clergymen in this Party orthodox religious circles, started to worry whether they would be able to keep up their dogma. In the year 1931 when the SA marched through the streets of Altona the Communists attacked them with weapons and many SA men died. The following Sunday church circles called for a special religious service because of this event. The SA men and Party members followed enthusiastically and joined the church service. They were disappointed in one thing. They were described as partly guilty because, owing to the march, they had asked for this attack. In a solemn manifesto the Clergymen laid down certain directives, the so-called Altona confession. From this, resulted the emergency assocation of clergymen, and finally the so-called confession front. dogma, this organization finally became a fighting front of the religious sphere; ad this organization started to object to National Socialism more and more. This confessional front was opposed by the German Christians.
Q You were a member of the German Christians. What were the aims of these German Christians? The beginning was promising. As the name implies, it was a confessional movement.
Belief had created an interest because of the dogma, that is, the modern problems were to become one with the old traditions, with the aim to make faith alive again among the people.
Q That was the program? German Christians. Unfortunately, all this led people astray because some people were ambitious who were not concerned with belief but with the power position within the church. In 1933 church elections were proclaimed: the Party was misused. The old church governments collapsed and the leading positions were taken by leading German Christians. The election of the Reich Bishop belongs to this. According to the report of a participant it was a power act. After the executive positions had been occupied the interest in the movement of the German Christians was no longer so great. The group disintegrated and was divided into several subunits, such as the Thuringia German Christians, who had serious beliefs, or another group, the Mecklenburg German Christians and many other parts which were of no imporatnce. were concerned with real belief? the Thuringia German Christians, which seems ridiculous to me, I could not join. It consisted of the idea to make Jesus into an Aryan. I consisdered this childish. In Jesus I always saw and still see a human being who, being closely connected with God, the sovereignty and dignity of the human being is considered the will of God. Racial standards do not apply to Him at all. He was a human being who had the Power of God like nobody else. That He was a Jew does not change the truth of His message.
That he was a Jew does not change the truth of his message. from 1933 to 1935? appointed me commissary church dean in Muenster, and later I became dean in Segeberg. As I heard later, my choice for church leader at Segeberg was made at the request of the area leader of the party at Segeberg. On the Tuesday of the following week in 1934 I was called up from Luebeck asking me to come to Luebeck immediately, because of the occupation of the senior position of the bishopric which had become vacant. I travelled to Luebeck by car and in the city house the mayor and a number of senators received me who asked me to become bishop. I accepted the offer. After about six months had passed I was again called to Luebeck by phone where the mayor told me that for my appointment as bishop, according to the regulations of the German Protestant Church I still had to get a certificate, namely, the approval of the party. The Gauleiter had refused this. I was asked to discuss this with him in order to get his approval. I travelled to Kiel to the Gauleiter and he told me that the Kreisleiter, the area leader of the party had refused his approval because I had not asked the Kreisleiter for permission previously to take this office. I had no discipline, and he had to continue refusing. The Gauleiter approved of the Kreisleiter's opinion and, therefore, I could not become bishop of Luebeck. politics because of this?
A Yes. This event moved me very deeply because I could not understand why the political circles would make such difficulties for me.
I was disgusted about the selfish way of acting of the district treatment since I was an old party member and still he treated me like a stupid boy. But in the meantime I had already learned that there often were great differences between the ideas of the party and some of the persons who represented the party. I considered this due to human incompetences of individuals in the NSDAP without however have any misgivings about the Party itself. But it did leave a painful memory. years 1933 until 1935? I was made honorary district training chief in the district of Segeberg. I want to point out that this was a year before this disappointment, I gave lectures to various local groups in the district Segeberg. The peculiarity of my profession showed in my lectures. The ideas of the social people's community were mostly the contents of my lectures, namely, that the farmers and the working people should be one union within the union of the entire people, that the classes be at peace, that work was a noble art, the task of the women among the people and similar practical questions of the organizational setup among the people. active in your profession, this political activity?
A Yes. In the manner in which I carried out this political activity, I already pointed out that the peculiarity of my work as politician destined my work in this. Even if I spoke as a political chief, the people considered me a dean and I was always addressed as "Dean", and, therefore, it was quite natural that the lectures before the local groups of the smallest hamlets were more like a solemn hour than a normal political gathering.
This activity I liked because that way I could visit the villages of my district as dean where I would not have come to merely as a church official. Through this political activity, the basis of my position as a church official became more established. the church, did you not -- why did you want to do this? and for this I had three reasons. When I talked about my attitude toward the dogma I pointed out that I was bothered about the Question whether it could be combined with inner truth and sincerity to remain active in the church service.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, I think it would be clearer if he gave us the three reasons, then if he wishes to amplify any particular reason you can determine that, but for clarification purposes, let him give us 1, 2, 3, the reasons.
A First, there were reasons of belief; secondly, church political reasons; and thirdly, political reasons. Explaining the belief, I was just explaining the question of belief.
and reconcile it with the continuance of work in the church. Beyond that, I realized more fully how strong the religious attitude of the greatest part of the people in the Schleswig-Holstein Church differed from the actual dogma. If truth were set aside here, in my opinion, the greatest part of the Schleswig-Holstein Church people had to separate from the Protestant Lutheran Church and set up a new church organization. But whether the time had come for this already then, I doubt. In any case, in order to clarify all these questions of belief I needed time and perpective. Now, the church political reasons. The general church political differences between the confessional front and the German Christians had shown so many unpleasant events that I was ashamed of being a clergyman. Both groups, were, in their measures, not suitable for church offices. I was deeply disappointed about the power political attempts and the religious sterility of the German Christians. In 1934 I left this group. Among the clergymen of both movements a degrading difference arose, which impedimented their dignity and one could not think that any real belief existed here. I began to doubt the meaning of the message to the people and needed sitance to think about this , the political reasons.
Q. Please be brief.
A. The attitude of the political public to me as a clergyman was good because they esteemed me as a human being but unfortunately the clergymen behaved so stupidly in respect to the party. I am fully convinced that if all clergymen had been fully aware of the responsibility concerning the tasks of the time the party would never have started a conflict with the church and that, secondly, through the influence of the church in the party they might have stopped them from taking the wrong road, so that Germany and Europe wouldhave been saved a great deal of misfortune, perhaps Bolchevism which threatens the world now would not exist any more. Through stupid contradiction in un important things at the wrong time, as in 1933 , the new relations which were formed again in 1939 between the party and the church became looser again.
The party was prejudiced against the church and the church finally rejected them as an organization which conspired against the state. Owing to my personal experience, I cannot say that the church is free of this historical guilt. As a clergyman, I watched this development and liter on in Berlin I realized that to its full extent. I had had to think of this bed development. The attitude of rejection of the party towards the church made itself felt as well, I stood between the church and party who in my opinion both had the wrong attitude. This finally brought me to the decision to leave the church service. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. You said you stood between the church and the party and between those two you chose the party?
A. Yes, I was still in the party, and I was also still in the church, but the official measures I could not approve of in this connection.
Q. Well, did you leave the church?
A. No, not at that time. Only laid down my office.
Q. When did you leave the church?
A. Only in 1933. I shall talk about that later. Owing to my experiences in Berlin in my decision to leave the church service, the tyrannical attitude of the local leader also played a part, who kept me in his district and I tried to get away from him. But later on my existence was threatened by this again. These were three reasons of belief, church political reasons and political reasons which forced me to lay down my office in order to get away from this mixup and the confusion and to be able to understand my own feelings. The decision was very hard for me because during my activity of 10 years I had learned to love my profession. In my opinion there is no more noble profession than to look after the souls and to assist people in need and in happiness.
Q. How did you imagine your future work?
A. I wanted to become a state official and work in the educational department of the state.
a request to the Reich Minister of Education to employ in the above mentioned office. I never received a reply. In July 1935 owing to difficulties, with the German Christian government in Kiel, I had a discussion with the gauleiter. On that occasion I informed him that I intended to become a civil servant. Then I pointed out a notice in the newspaper that Hitler had commissioned Kerrl to deal with church questions we agreed that this would be suitable work for me. The gauleiter promised to talk to Kerrl about my employment in his field, of which the church could only approve. Therefore, in August 1935 I was called into the Reich Ministry for Church Affairs.
Q How long were you in this Reich Ministry for Church Affairs? 1940. negatively against your aims and interfered. Was that in this connection?
A Yes. That is connected with my transfer into state service. It wason 20 April 1936. Reich Minister Kerrl told me that day that he had received a letter from Kiel which included a letter by my former district leadernot to transferme into the state service because I had not shown sufficient discipline towards the NSDAF. The cause for this letter was a religious service which conducted on a Sunday in March 1936 in the church at Segeberg. A great number of people had taken part, even party members. The church and also the district leaders had been informed about this previously. After all, at the time I was still dean of Segeberg, because I hadnot yet finally bean transferred to the state service, I could not understand why the district leader should have written this letter. The ministery informed me that in spite of this he wanted to appoint me Oberregierungsrat, the same rank as a dean in the church, but I had to promise him not to carry out any church actions in the future.
This request was unusual because I retained the rights of the church which could only have been taken away from me in a special legal procedure by the church against me. I gave the promise which he asked for and 20 May 1936 I was appointed Oberregierungsrat in the state service. being a country pastor to an official in the Reich Ministry for Church Affairs? go to the capital and to go to the Reich Ministry in particular as I was to meet men here who were old national-socialists and who held high positions in the Reich and, therefore represented National Socialism. I arrived in Berlin with great expectations. I was disappointed very soon. Here I got to know a kind of people who were not known in the country and who only existed in state offices and ministries. I got to know the painful difference between national socialists and Hitlerites. I shall explain their expressions. National socialists are people who had approved of the national socialist idea as idealists as the supreme basis of their political actions, and who were ambitious to follow unselfishly the ideals and to realize them in their own lives. To the old national socialists it is a matter of course that all party members including Hitler come under this idea. Even if any of them, including Hitler, should violate any of the laws, they should have to leave the party. That is the attitude of the old national socialists which Hitler himself had expressed repeatedly. We as free citizens, were following one idea, namely, the ideal of Reich where all classes were equal and all citizens were free and one man, namely. Hitler only, should guarantee this idea but never as a human being who abused the idea for dictatorship in order to make slaves out of free citizens. This attitude I passed on to my sons because it wasof basic importance to me in the necessary defense against the so-called Hitlerites. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Now, he has told us what a national socialist is. Let him tell us what a Hitlerite is.
A That is coming up now, Your Honor. The Hitlerites are such party members who conducted a personal cult with Hitler, who approved of him and anything he did, whether it was right or wrong, who flattered him in order to be noticed by him and to be awarded by him. The more powerful Hitler became they thought they would be able to get greater power, too, for themselves as his followers. They did not care much about the idea of national socialism any more. Most of them were opportunists, who had joined the party in 1933, opposed to the plans of Hitler. included all those who believed in the principles of the national socialist party and that included Hitler. Now, you have given us the description -phrase included all those who believed in the program of the national socialist party and that included Hitler?
Q Now, you were describing to us the Hitlerites. Now, please tell us whether Hitler himself belonged to the first group or the second group? Did he believe in following himself or did he believe in following the national socialist party?
A That still had to be decided in the following time; according to the experiences I had at the time I could not realize this....... socialists or did he belong to the Hitler group?
Q Hitler belonged to the Hitler group? socialist group?
the national socialist idea for me in its full purity.
Q At one time then Hitler was not a Hitlerite? Hitlerite. In that case he would have to consider himself a god and I do not know in how far he did this.
Q Did you ever consider that?
PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45 (A recess was taken until 1345 hours.