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.
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, I would like at this time to introduce formally two exhibits which were used in the cross-examination of Defendant Nauman. They were given the identification number of 175, which consists of three documents, namely, NO-5444, 5445, and 5446. I wish at this time to formally introduce these three as Prosecution Exhibit 175. If the Tribunal deems it proper, we can introduce it as "a", "b", "c" to maintain the continuity.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would be well, if you did do that.
MR. GLANCY: Yes, sir. Then I offer Document NO-5444as Eshibit 175, Document No. NO-5445, as Prosecution Exhibit 175a, and Document NO-5446, as Prosecution Exhibit 175b. is a note written by the Defendant Nauman to the Defendant Kilingelhofer, which was introduced in the record at page 884. The Document is NO-5450.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will indicate that these exhibits have been introduced.
MR. GLANCY: Thank you, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Bergold. BY DR. BERGOLD (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT BIBERSTEIN):
Q. Witness, what was the assignment of the newly created Reich Ministry for Church Matters?
A. The task of the Ministry was to eliminate the disquiet which had arisen through the fight between the COURT II CASE IX churches by just decisions.
This unrest in matters of church, which prevented building up a social community of the people, tasks which so far had been dealt with partly by the Reich Education Ministry and partly, of course, by the Reich Ministry of Interior. Affairs were to be combined in one hand in order to prevent the working against one another of various Reich agencies. With the creation of this ministry, the Department for Cultural Peace was dissolved in the Staff of the Fuehrer, because also for these matters the Ministry was now competent. The task of the Ministry therefore was a task of creating order. It was, in fact, to confirm the competincies of state and church, which more or less, in spite of a certain independence, were still churches of the State, and to watch that the peace between these departments was not disturbed.
Q. You spoke about the fight between the churches. What do you mean by that, and what were the causes?
A. I shall shortly explain these matters. The fight between the churches is merely a Protestant matter and only confines itself to the Protestant State Churches. There is a brother war between the so-called Confessional Front, the Bekenninis Church, and the German Christians. It has to be stated here that the Confession was a front of belief, but in their origins in the Altona confession they had already held a political attitude against National Socialism. Therefore it was not purely a religious matter, but it had a political attitude. The German Christians came from the side of the National Socialism and wanted to create newly all religious problems and both had heavy encounters. The German Christians made an inexcusable mistake by abusing the Party in 1933, when they waged a church poltical war within the German Protestant Churches.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, as Mr. Hochwald pointed out this morning, insofar as this history applies to the Defendant himself, it is relevant, hut when he merely recites what is happening generally and in which he has not a participant, we do not need to have it in so much detail. It seems to me that with a sentence or two, he can dispose of a certain development.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, it is relevant, because only in this way will you be able to understand what task he was entrusted with within this church struggle. In the Ministry he had to deal with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. BERGOLD (To the witness) Please be a, little more brief.
Q. (By Dr. Bergold) Witness, what you have already said, you could put in a little more concise form.
A. The German Christians were entrusted with the leadership of the German people under the Reich Bishop Mueller and a number of other leading positions. The Confessional Front did not want to put up with this terror and objected against the German Church Movement, the movement which no longer was given any power whatsoever. As a consequence, a great confusion was created in the individual churches of the country. These churches were no longer in the position now to create order and quiet among their own people.
Q. Witness, that is sufficient. What was your field of activities then in the Reich Ministry for Church matters?
A. Reich Minister Korl appointed me a liaison officer at the Secret State Police Office in Berlin.
Q. What was your activity as this liaison officer, as it were? What connection did you have with the Gestapo?
had to carry out a number of police measures against institutions and individuals of the Protestant and Catholic Church in order to enforce their State authority. In my opinion, this was the solution of the conflict. One had to succeed to gain some influence in the Gestapo activity. It was clear to me that the Minister, in order to be able to deal with his task, must have the power to give directives to the State Police in church matters. For this purpose, I drafted a decree which appointed the State Ministers the highest authority in police measures with regard to church matters, Kerl agreed. He signed it and in a chief discussion, he got Frick to counter-sign as the Chief of Police, and with this Kerl had the complete power. The Gestapo, of course, was angry that they had not been asked before. It was my task now to take up all the reports and suggestions which were made in church matters and to report about these matters immediately to the Minister in order to get a decision. Unfortunately, it turned out that Kerl could neither revoke nor could he order any measures. Thus he did not have the courage to impose an amnesty, which was so necessary and to revoke all measures against the church which had beenimposed so far and thus to have shown the readiness of the state through a generous deed. Obviously, Kerl did not feel himself strong enough. He hesitated with his decisions until the Gestapo office eventually proceded to more and more make their decisions over the head of the hesitating Minister.
Q Witness, did you come into difficulties as a result of this? always expressed his anger towards me. That with this attitude no progress in the church affairs was achieved was not surprising, Kerl evidently did not know what he wanted. He protested every now and then, but nothing actually happened. Conditions in the country became worse and worse and thus peace was not created. The Confession Front became a sort of collective basin of a political resistance composed of members from the parties which had been dissolved by the new government from the Nationals to the Communists and the State authority was more and more based on Gestapo measures.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, this discussion is becoming entirely too academic. Now, I know it isn't your fault. The Defendant apparently has prepared this lecture and he is going to give it to us just like, I presume, he preached to his parish when he was a pastor. Why don't you try just to give him questions? He already has his material and I am sure he is alert enough so that he can draw from the material and give you the answers which are pertinent to the issue.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I may remind you that in my opening speech, I spoke about this case as being particularly difficult for the defense for the reason that there is no document in evidence against the Defendant apart from his own affidavit. You will remember that in my opening speech I protested very strongly against the actual making out of this affidavit and you can only judge this man and his case if you know his whole profession and life. Only then can you judge from these statements which he is making about this one incriminating document that it is not correct whether what he says is correct or not. If I only refer to the prosecution documents, then, of course, the case can be dealt with in ten minutes, but in that case you have no possibility of judging this man. Therefore, this case is so different from all the other cases. I may remind the Tribunal that I have represented more than one client, from Milch to Klein. This is certainly a difficult case and you can only judge it if you have a complete knowledge of this man. That is my reason -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it won't help us to decide the case nor will it help you in the defense of the case if he gives a long dissertation on something which is entirely irrelevant. He might be giving us a dissertation on the life of the kangaroo in Australia. That wouldn't help us any.
DR. BERGOLD: No, but he is describing his activities in Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: He is telling about the fight on the Confessional Front, on the Baptismal Front, and on the Gestapo Front and all these fronts which have nothing to do with the issue here. Now, we certainly will allow you every latitude, Dr. Bergold, and it is the policy of the Tribunal to talk on anything at all, except, perhaps, the social life of the penguins in the Antartic Zone. Now, we will draw the line there.
DR. BERGOLD: Certainly, I am of the opinion, Your Honor, that you will not be able to judge this man. His activity, for instance, only in 1942, October 1942 he arrived in Russia. He was there for three months. From this activity of three months you cannot judge him. You can only judge him from his complete activity, if you have a complete picture of it, because with other men who were active in the East for months it is very much easier than here where there is just nothing against him. That is not his own fault; this accusation which is based only on one own affidavit is very strange and I must say it is very strange in this proceedings, especially in a Military Tribunal. He said he wanted to be the originator of the peace -- that he did not succeed.
THE PRESIDENT: You said something is very strange. What do you mean, "very strange"?
DR. BERGOLD: These accusations, the charge which only is supported by his own affidavit and which has no proof, and this affidavit was made under circumstances against which I must protest and I shall prove....
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Bergold, that -
DR. BERGOLD: I think this affidavit was not brought about in a proper way.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, this is the third time that Dr. Bergold starts to make objections against the way the prosecu tion acts in this case.
The prosecution has, on the 7th of November, of 1947, brought a memorandum to the knowledge of the Tribunal pointing out the first two cases. The first case was during the opening speech of Dr. Bergold. The second case was in a written application which Dr. Bergold made on the 15th of October and which was handed to the Prosecution for information. In its memorandum of 7 November 1947, the Prosecution has respectfully requested that Dr. Bergold might be informed that the Prosecution under no circumstances will tolerate such remarks which Dr. Bergold makes end that either he may withdraw these remarks or be prepared to support them. We respectfully request at this time that Dr. Bergold with no delay may either prove his accusations against the Prosecution or may withdraw them and that all these three statements, the statement today, the statement on the 15th of October and the statement in his opening statement may be stricken from the record and the Tribunal take such steps which it considers necessary in the case. I do not think it is necessary to point out that the prosecution has, as a matter of course, done everything which was possible to make a fair trial of the defendants here possible. I do think that we have been doing at least as much as it is usual in other cases and I do think that if Dr. Bergold makes such statements repeatedly, he should be called upon to prove the correctness of his statements.
DR. BERGOLD: I may say that this letter of the 7th of November of the prosecution is not known to me until this very day.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I can only say that certainly the Tribunal has knowledge of this.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold should have knowledge himself and must not be called upon here to respond to a statement of which he is ignorant. The prosecution will see to it that Dr. Bergold gets a copy of the letter referred to.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, in order that the thing may be completely clear and as the accusation made by Dr. Bergold is at least partly in the record of this trial, we would prefer to read at this time the memorandum into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think first It will be letter if Dr. Bergold gets a copy of the letter so that he will be informed as to what the prosecution is saying. It would not he fair to call upon him to make any statement in answer to a memorandum which is only brought to his attention this moment.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Bergold, what we were saying is simply this, that certainly the Tribunal will allow you every latitude in the presentation of your case, but with your experience and your knowledge and your alertness you of course comprehend that what the defendant talks about must be mere or less relevant to the issue involved and the only thin; that we wanted to call to your attention was that on these collateral matters the defendant was going into too much detail. Now that is all.
DR. BERGOLD: I have expressed my opinion why, your Honor, why I took up this particular way of procedure. It was a reason which I thought about a lot.
THE PRESIDENT: I think, Dr. Bergold, we will allow you to present your case in your way. You may proceed. we will not allow the Prosecution to interrupt you. So you may proceed with your case. You will present everything you have in this case and there will be no limitation, and you can even talk about the life of the penguins in the Artic Zone, if you believe that is relevant.
DR. BERGOLD: No, I do not intend to do so. But I shall try to keep my client a little more brief.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, as to these difficulties with the Minister did you remain in office or were you dismissed from it?
A. No, I was dismissed, and the Minister also revoked the decree which he had made at that time and I was put in charge of another department. That was in autumn 1936.
Q. Was that the only reason for the change of your Department?
A. No, there was another reason.
Q. Be more concise. Give us the gist of it. I think you will succeed in being a little briefer.
A. On the occasion of the drafting of a letter which was submitted to me by the minister for my taking over a new department, I took the liberty, as an old National Socialist, to express a basic attitude to the policy of the Ministry. I refused unambiguously the romantic intentions of the Minister concerning his church reformation plans. I could not agree with this way of dealing with these matters, because it was merely the task of church circles or of a religious personality, but not the task of a Reich Minister.
He, the Reich Minister was only to create order in the church and to give the church the possibility of settling their own matters.
Q. That will suffice. What was Kerl's attitude when you suggested these matters to him?
A. He was rather hurt, and he drew my attention to the fact that he did not need my directives. He was the Reich Minister, and I had nothing to do but carry out his orders. He told me that he would have me expelled from the Party, and if I did not ask to be released from the Ministry he would throw me out.
Q. What consequen ce did this dispute have for you? Were you actually thrown out?
A. No, I was not thrown out; but in January 1937 I received a reprimand by the Minister.
Q. Did you do anything about this reprimand?
A. In my emergency situation I applied to Dr. Best of the Gestapo office.......I knew him as a liaison man, in whom I had some confidence; otherwise I knew of nobody in Berlin who could have given me advice. Dr. Best listened to my report about all that happened; he took note of it, and offered me a job as Ministerial Counsel in the Gestapo office. As I had no inclination toward police activity, however, I refused, thanking him.....but I was assured that I could always trust him and could always count on his help. That, he assured me.
Q. What were your assignments in the new department? Were they also of a political nature?
A. No, they were only church matters. The department itself was called "church life". Only, of course, the Pro testant department. In this department I had to deal with all questions concerning practical religious life.