(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.
...as, for instance, church service, church office, institutions, mission, interior and exterior, military church service, and religious services in prison.
Q. That will suffice, these examples. I have to deal with another question, and I have to ask for patience on the part of the Tribunal. You were a religious man. The whole world seems to think that National socialism was an enemy of the church. Did that not worry you, the so-called animosity of National socialism against the church? Please be very brief in answering this question, witness.
A. I object definitely against the contention that the national socialist state was an enemy of the church or religion. All difficulties or conflicts between church and state, or party, are rooted in the state church - that means the still existing connection of church, and state which has not changed, as far as they were not free churches, of course. It is very significant that the free churches had no difficulties whatsoever. In the Ministry, on various occasions I talked with representatives of the Methodist and the Baptist churches, and I asked them whether they had encountered any difficulties - to which they always gave me a negative answer - and this is the decisive point. Because the religious activity in Germany was never limited in Germany, as a representative of a complete religious tolerance, as no representative of Orthodox, Protestant or Catholic religion, I should have found out about it. Limitations came about only ........ BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Did this include the Jewish religion. You say there was complete religious freedom and tolerance. Did this include the Jewish religion?
A. Yes. I don't know that the carrying out of the Mosaic, that is the Jewish cult, was forbidden in Germany. I know nothing about it.
Q. Do you tell us that the Jews were permitted to worship in their synagogues untrammeled and entirely free?
A. Yes, that is what I assume; in the Reich Ministry these matters were not being dealt with. Modifications were only enforced which did not concern religious belief, but only the authority of the state. Measures were only taken and issued against people who left their religious sphere and disturbed the state with their political remarks or actions.
Q. Witness, do you know of what you said before, that the Jews were allowed to worship in their synagogues freely?
A. I said that I am not sure, because these matters were not dealt with in the Reich Ministry of Church Matters. I never heard anything about it that this was not the case.
Q. Is a synagogue regarded as a church? was it regarded as a church in your Ministry of Churches?
A. By the Ministry of Churches or by myself?
Q. By your Ministry, in your work, was the......
A. I said I only had to deal with the Protestant department, and the work of the Ministry extended only to Christian churches and their formations, or similar churches; b ut only Christian churches.
Q. Well, but you made the statement that there was complete religious tolerance in Germany. Now, did you make that statement, and if so, do you still affirm it? I ask you.......was there religious tolerance in Germany during the regime of the National Socialist Party?
A. Yes, as far as I know......yes.
Q. Very well. All right. Now you have affirmed what you said before.
Now I ask you.......were the Jews given religious freedom? Were they allowed to worship in their own church?
A. I don't know from my own knowledge, but I have no reason to doubt it.
Q. Well, then, you would say that so far as you knew, Jews were allowed to worship in the synagogues?
A. Yes, that is what I assume, as long as there was synagogues to worship in.
Q. There Weren't very many after November 10, 1938, were there?
A. I don't know whether they were all destroyed. I don't know.
Q. You do know that many were destroyed, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And does that coincide with religious tolerance, to burn down the churches.....
A. No, I have already pointed out.....
Q. Well, then, why do you say that there was complete religious tolerance?
A. That was not a measure of the National Socialist state.....the burning of the synagogues.
Q. The destruction of the synagogues in November 1938, you now say, was not the result of Party action?
A. Of the state, I said. I said....of the National socialist State. I was in the Reich Ministry.
Q. Well, wasn't the State and the dirty one?
A. On paper. But not in reality.
Q. Was Hitler the State or the Party?
A. Hitler was both.
Q. He was both. All right. What was Himmler. Was he the State or the Party?
A. Well, he used to be only a Party official, but then lie became an official of the State as Chief of the German Police.
Q. Yes. And what was Goering? was he the State or the Party?
A. He was, as far as I can remember, only State. Yes, yes. Only State. I don't know whether he was part of any Party office. As far as I know he was only State. A State official.
Q. So then you tell us that after 1933 up until 1945 there was a definite cleavage between the State and the Party, they were not amalgamated?
A. I did not say cleavage. I only talked about disputes between these two authorities.
Q. Well, let us get back to the original question. You said that there was religious tolerance and you said that the Jews were allowed to worship in the synagogues; and then we call your attention that in November 10th synagogues were destroyed, or a great many of them were.....and then you said that that was not an action of the State, but an action of the Party. Is that correct?
A. Yes. As far as I know.
Q. Well, do you know.... or don't you know?
A. Well, I only know that it was not an action of the State.
Q. So that so far as the State was concerned the Jews were allowed to worship as they chose?
A. I said I cannot know this from my own knowledge because these matters were not being dealt with by the Reich Ministry for Church Matters. An opposite opinion or fact I have never heard.
Q. I don't understand what you mean by an opposite opinion.
A. I mean an order, or a measure whatsoever, which forbids the Jews to worship.
Q. You don't know of any order which forbade Jews to worship in their synagogues?
A. The synagogues, of course, were collecting points, or in private houses.
DR. BERGOLD: May I now tell the Tribunal that at least until the year 1938 the actual worship, the carrying out of worship, was allowed... there were regulations concerning this. At least until the year 1938. I don't remember for certain as from then, as there were so many who emigrated. BY THE PRESIDENT: accordance with their conscience - after 1938?
A (by the witness) I have already said I don't know, but I assume so. Because I never heard that it was forbidden. I cannot remember, I cannot imagine such a prohibition.
Q You can't imagine that there was any prohibition against the Jews with regard to the expression of their religion?
A No. That one could forbid people to carry out their worship -
Q They were allowed complete religious freedom?
AAs for as I know.... I don't knew of all the regulations, but that was the impression that I had.
Q Very well. Was it also your impression that they were allowed complete freedom of movement?
Q Well, if they were limited how could they go to the synagogue? If they were not allowed freedom of movement, how could they travel?
A Freedom of movement.... of course they could go out. There was no law that they could not go out. Freedom of movement - I mean, not only the actual movement in the street, but I mean living conditions.
Q You knew that they were sent to concentration camps, didn't you
A No, I didn't know.
Q You did not know that Jews were sent to concentration camps?
A No, I didn't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Bergold. BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q I think we have exhausted this question, witness. I think the other points are only marginal notes. Did your had relations with the Ministry continue, or was a personal cooperation brought about?
Q Did you feel all right under these circumstances?
Q But you tried to improve the situation?
A Yes. As I knew that the Minister would only be pleased if I left the Ministry I asked the Reich Ministry of the Interior via the Minister to give me the position of county counsellor, "Landrat". This application was refused with the remark that I was not a lawyer. That was in the beginning of 1938.
Q Did you indulge in any Party political activities in Berlin?
Q You were a member of the SS. How did it come about that you joined the SS? the Gestapo from 1935 to 1936 I met a number of SS leaders. One day it was put to me whether I did not want to become an honorary leader in the SS. I considered this offer. And the following thoughts made me decide to accept this offer: Firstly the SS was known at that time as the most ideal, and the most unselfish expression of National Socialism, and was highly respected by the population.
THE PRESIDENT: For my own notes, what year was that, please?
DR. BERGOLD: 1936.
A (witness continuing) Secondly, the detachment from my homo, and being the only theologian under all those lawyers coming from the province this position as honorary leader in the SS appealed to me, and it contributed a certain prestige which I would have among my colleagues. Thirdly a position of honorary leader for civilian officers was then general practice, and did not oblige to anything, as no tasks were connected with it.
With the approval of the Minister, on the 13th of September 1936, I was admitted to the SS with the rank of an Untersturmfuehrer. When did you actually leave the church? ber 1938.
Q Why? political and church reasons.... did not have the same significance to me, but became more and more important. Therefore, it was only an act of sincerity and of belief, that in 1938 - after three years of inner struggle for the truth in the Christmas week - I applied for my release from the Protestant State Church. National Socialism?
A Never. It was not in agreement with my principles of religious tolerance which I claimed for myself as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, we got it..... "Did you ask anybody else to Join"? Is that what your question was?
DR. BERGOLD: Is leave the church.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, to leave the church. Very well.
Q (By the President) Well, then, witness, we understand that you definitely covered all connections with the church on December 28, 1933?
Q Yes. Have you ever regretted having left the church?
A No, never. Concerning this leaving the church, which I discussed with other people, I can say, when somebody came to me and asked me whether I deemed it right that the man who asked this question should leave the church or not, I always talked to him about his personal attitude and about his belief, and told him that he could only follow his Court No. II, Case No. IX.
own religious vocation. Utilitarian ideas would be a crime in this particular case. that you gave up contact or connection with the belief in God you talked about? You said your relationship with God was very close. Did you lose this belief?
A Never. On the contrary, my leaving the church only meant that I would remain faithful to my own conviction which I had formed from childhood. As I pointed out on one occasion, in my opinion a large part of the Protestant population described themselves unjustly as members of the Protestant church, that these people were not actually believing in Christ, but that they believed in God. I realized that here a new organization of religious life had to be created. Such an organization of people who believe in God was in my own conviction not to have a dogma. No priests, and no cult actions, as, for instance, sacraments. Their religious activities would have to consist firstly of constant realizing of one's Connection with God by praying, and through silent contemplation of Jesus by common worship. Secondly, through love in daily life to your fellow beings similar as it was realized in the organization of Quakers.
PRESIDENT: Does a Quaker church exist in Germany? This is a matter of information.
A Yes, but only in a very small form. I believe Piermont is the place where their center is.
Q You approve of the Quaker religion, do you? cause you didn't like the Protestant church, why didn't you join the Quaker church.
A. One does not join and embrace a confession quite as fast as that. It must grow on one. I had my own -
Q. When did you feel that you had fully grown and you liked the Quaker religion?
A. It is not a matter of my actually liking the religion of the Quakers, but I imagined a new development similar to the lines of the Quaker movement.
Q. But now you have told us of your own volition that you liked the way the Quakers conducted themselves, that you approved of their church. Now, do you stand on that?
A. I like them and I sympathize with them. I didn't say I agreed. I sympathized with them .
Q. Oh, you do not approve of their church either?
A. Well, I mean I have no close relations. I did not maintain any close relations with them. I only know that they are a religious congregation and they create a religious community on, their own lines.
Q. You left your church in 1938, and you had seven years to join another church. At that time did you know of the Quaker church?
A. No, I did not consider any of the existing religions, but my plans were different. I wanted to create a new organization.
Q. You wanted to create your own church?
A. Yes, if you want to express it thus. I would never call it church though.
Q. What would you call it?
A. I shall come back to this question.
A. No, no, tell me now. You are going to start a new church, what is the name of this new church?
Q. Community of People of Believers in God.
Q. I will write that down. Community
A. Community of Believers in God. I shall take the liberty togive some further explanation concerning this.