We are having difficulty, you see, about one document.
It is the affidavit of Dr. Lehmann, which we submitted in the German, but which was not translated into the English for us because it was said only such documents could be translated which the Prosecution had already accepted. The Prosecution expressed the view that they couldn't define their attitude on that document because it wasn't translated into English.
I have mentioned that in a brief application to the Tribunal, and I hope that the Tribunal will be good enough to deal with it.
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, Lehmann's affidavit is very short -it goes principally to character -- and it really is not objectionable, but I had to point out that it hadn't actually been allowed by the Tribunal in their order.
THE PRESIDENT:If it is accepted in the translation, that is all that is necessary.
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, I entirely agree, and it is all on one page.
THEPRESIDENT:Yes, very well. Let it be translated.
MR. ELWYN JONES:May it please the Tribunal, it may be convenient for me to indicate to the Tribunal at this stage of Raeder's case that with regard to the witness, Lehmann, theProsecution does not now desire to cross examine the witness in view of the documents which are before the Court, and because of the fact that the matters his affidavit dealt with were dealt with yesterday by my learned friend Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, in his cross examination of Raeder, and finally, in view of the passage of time.
THE PRESIDENT:Do any other members if the prosecution want to cross examine Lehmann?
MR. ELWYN JONES:No, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT:Do any of the defendants' counsel want to ask any questions of Lehmann?
Very well, I understand that the witness Lehmann is being kept here and perhaps a message could be given to the Marshal that he needn't remain.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, I just wish to say in the name of theFrench Prosecution that I agree with the translation of the documents which have been prepared for the defense of Sauckel.
I have no objection to the presentation of these documents, but the Court will be able to rule on than when they are presented. We have no objection to the documents being translated and presented.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you think it is necessary or desirable for there to be a special hearing with reference to the admissiblity or can that be done in the course of the defendant Sauckel's case? At the moment I apprehend that the documents have been locked at for the purpose oftranslation. They have now been translated. If you think it necessary that there should be any special hearing before the case beings, as to admissibility, we should like to know. Otherwise, they would be dealt with in the course of Sauckel's case.
MR. HERZOG: I do think, Mr. President, that will be sufficient if the Tribunal wants these documents during the presentation of the case of the defendant.
I do not think it is necessary to have a special hearing.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
KARLSEVERING -- resumed:
DIRECTEXAMINATION --- continued: BY DR. SIEMERS:
QMr. Severing,as far as I have been able to ascertain, you have not quite clearly answered one of my questions. It referred to concentration camps and you said that you had heard of certain cases and that you have heard of individual cases. So that there isn't any misunderstanding, I just rant to ask you in conclusion, did you hear of the mass murders which have been mentioned in this trial, whereby at Auschwitz an average of from two thousand persons a day were killed in gas chambers. Did you have that knowledge before the collapse or did you not know nothing about that either.
AThese mass murders which didn't become known in Germany until the collapse of the Hitler regime, partly through the press and partly through the trial, I knew nothing of them.
Q minister Severing, what could you and your friends in your party do when the Nazis were in power, against the National Socialist terror, which you have mentioned, and did anyone support you in any way in this connection?
AIf I can define your question, the question of what my political friend and I could do after the 30th of January to fight against the Hitler regime, then I must say little. If there was a question of resistance against the Hitler regime, then that resistance wasn't any centrally organized resistance; it was confirmed to an action whereby in certain towns the opponents of the Nazis united to seek out ways and means whereby it night at least by means of propaganda fight against the National Socialist terror but an open resistance wasn't possible; but perhaps I may draw your attention to this at this point: On the 30th of January, I myself, made an attempt which, in my opinion, night have been decisive, to fight against the Hitler regime. In the autumn of 1931, I had a conference with the chief of the army staff, von Hammerstein, during which he told me that the Reichsfuehrer of the armed forces wouldn't allow it; that Hitler would occupy the chair of the Reichspresident.
I remember that conference and on the 30th of January 1933, I had the question put to von Hammerstein, Whether he would be willing to have a talk with me.
I wanted to ask him during that talk whether he was still of the opinion that the armed forces would not only talk against Hitler's regime but would in fact fight against it and in not much time had the reply given to me, that principly he would be prepared to have such a conference with me but that the moment wasn't suitable, so that conference never took place. If you ask no if my political friends made efforts to fight at least with propaganda against this regime and whether they had any support from foreign personalities which one night have regarded as anti-Fascist, then I must oblige you unfortunately not -- to the contrary, with great grief, we auite often noticed that members of the British Labor Party, not officials but private persons, were Hitler's guests and that they returned to England to praise Chancellor Hitler as a friend of peace. I Mention Phillips Newton in that connection, and the Senior Chief of the Labor Party, Flensbury. May I perhaps draw your attention in this connection to the following facts?
THE PRESIDENT:I don't see what this has to do with the attitude of political parties. The attitude of political parties in other countries has nothing to do with any question we have to decide, absolutely nothing.
DR. SIEMERS:I believe that this will do and I have no further questions to this witness, Mr. President.
DR. LATERNSER:Dr. Laternser, Counsel for the General Staff and the OK . BY DR, LATERNSER:
QMinister Severing, during the time you were in office, was there a case when the1100,000-men army which was granted by the Versaille Treaty was exceeded?
A I have no official knowledge of ot but i would assume that this is not the case.
QDo you now whether at the end of 1932, the League of Nations made a promise or actually gave permission that this army of 100,000 mencould be increased to 300,000 men?
AI can't give you any official information on that either but I can give you the following explanation: In 1932, I received a letter from my party friend Dr. Rudolf Breitscheid, who was a number of the League of Nations Delegation and in which he mentioned rumors of that type. This information, he added ---
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Laternser, we don't think that rumors are relevant in the trial. He says he can't give us any official information. He then begins to give us rumors. e don't want to hear rumors.
DR. LATERNSER:Mr. President, the statement the witness is about to make will be something more than a rumor and I think you will probably be able to judge it when he has answered the question completely.
THE PRESIDENT:He is speaking of rumors. If you have any fresh question ask him, you can ask it. BY DR. LATERNSER:
QDid the enlargement, the increase of the army from 100, 00 to 300,000 men, did it ever reach any concrete shape, did it ever go beyond discussion?
AI just told you that Dr. Breitsheid was a member of the League of National Delegation and that his information to me wasn't invented. That information said that an enlargement of the army was proposed but that this enlargement would probably happen at the expense of the police; that is why Dr. Breitscheid informed me of the matter.
DR. LATERNSER:Mr. President, I have no further questions.
DR. KARL HAENSEL:Karl Haensel, counsel for the SS. BY DR. HAENSEL:
QMinister, you have just mentioned that you have no knowledge of the murdering of Jews in Auschwitz before the collapse. Do you have any knowledge any other murders and perpetrations against Jews which you would describe as being criminal?
AI have experienced such cases personally. In 1944, a friend of mine Bielefeld was arrested and transferred to a labor camp at Imden and he was shown on the third day.
Q Do you know who arrested him, which type of authority?
AHe was arrested by the Gestapo at Bielefeld.
QWas that in connection with large-scale action or an individual case?
AIt Seemed to me to be an individual case.
QDo you know of more such individual cases at that time in 1944?
AIn 1944, I did not hear of any individual murders but I heard of transports from Westphalian towns.
QWhich authority, which official body dealt with these transports?
AI can't tell you for certain but I assume the secret state police.
QIs it your opinion that considerable sections of the population would have had knowledge of such occurrences?
AYou mean transports?
QYes.
AThey usually happened quite publicly.
Q and are you of the opinion that the same people night have had knowledge just like the members of the organizations, let us say, for instance, the SS men, or would you say that the ordinary SS man would have had no more knowledge than the population?
AYes, because he knew where these transports were going to.
QBut the way I understood you, I thought that you didn't describe the transports as being carried out by the SS; you said "Gestapo."
AYes, I told you that I assumed that the Gestapo carried out the arrests and the collections of these people but I didn't talk about the transports and I didn't say that I was assured of the certainty of my assumption that it was exclusively done by the Gestapo.
Q What measures, apart from such transports, were there? Was there a local pogrom, for instance?
If I understand you rightly, you didn't hear of that frequently.
ALocal pogroms happened in November 1938.
QDid you, during such measures which we have discussed quite frequently, make observations of your own, or were you at home?
AI was at homes. I only saw the effect of these pogroms afterwards. I saw the destroyed Jewish businesses. I saw the wreckages of the synagogue
QAnd to which organization or group would you attribute the events of November 1938?
AThat would be my own judgment, but I will tellyou quite openly: the SA and the SS.
QAnd why did you just draw that conclusion, that these two groups did it?
ABecause the members of these two groups in Bielefeld -- that is my home town -- were regarded as the originators of the fire of the synagogue.
QBy whom?
AThe population in General. They were named.
QYou knew about the concentration camps. Can you still remember when for the first time -- and it is important that I know at least the year they were talked about?
ANo. I cannot it the moment tell you that. I can only reply to that in connection with the various dates. The first murder in a concentration camp became known to me when I heard that in the concentration camp at Papenburg the former member of the German Reichstag and police president of Altenau was shot. That may have been either 1935 or 1936, I am not sure.
QAnd later did you hear of numerous such cases, or did you have personal knowledge ?
AMy own knowledge, that means that I would be so certain that I could submit it to this Tribunal as material, are those cases which I have mentioned this morning.
QWere you told that concentration camps were Places where the political opponents of the regime were to be accommodated without anything further happening to them except deprivation of their liberty?
AWhether I was told that?
QWere you told that?
ANo. To the contrary, I have heard that concentration camps meant to the population the very incarnation of all the terrible.
QWhat do you mean by "population"? Do you mean those sections of the population who had some official connections to the Party too, small men, members of the Party, the smaller SA and SS men?
AI can't say anything about that, because I dealt exclusively with the opponents of the regime, you see.
QDo you believe that these opponents to whom you talked were united in a front against anything, anyone who would carry the Party emblem?
AOn that question which you are now touching upon you are talking about large sections of the population and their humane feelings. Their humane feelings had already become known.
QBut, you see, my question was this: Wasn't that discussed in the cases of people who were bearing the Party eagle?
AWell, I assume so, but I can't submit that to the Tribunal as a fact
QThese people, did they find themselves under that pressure which you have mentioned?
AThey probably felt that through being members of the Party they were somewhat immune.
QDo you believe that a lot of people became members to come into that more favorable and immune position?
AI believe so, yes.
QI heard that you yourself were a member of the N.S.V.; is that true?
ANo.
QIs it true that you were arrested after the 20th of July 1944?
AI have already answered that question this morning. I was not arrested.
QYou weren't arrested at all?
ANo, with the exception of the case which I have also told you this morning.
Q Did you at any time say that the things which were being done in the social sector in Germany were to a considerable extent the ideal form of government?
AYes, but the way I expressed it was this: What was new wasn't goo, and what was good wasn't new.
QDo you believe that a German, no matter whether a Party member or a member of the SS or not, would have known of the events at Auschwitz of which you yourself didn't have any knowledge? Would he have to have knowledge
AHe wouldn't have had to know. No, I wouldn't go as far as that. I sawhe could have.
QAnd how do you think he could have had that knowledge?
AThrough the members of the transport guards, who weren't always in the concentration camps. They came back.
QBut if they were sworn to secrecy -
AThen they couldn't tell anything.
QDo you know of cases where people were sentenced who had told such stories?
ANo.
QDo you know of the activities of special courts? Have you heard of them?
ANo, at least not in connection with this particular thing.
QBut it was in the papers. There were sentences against people who listened to false statements, or against people who were spreading such rumors Haven't you heard of that? Didn't you read of them?
ANo.
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Steinbauer, for the defendant Seyss-Inquart.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
QWitness, I have only got one question which I want to put to you. You told us this morning that in 1919 you were a member of the National Assembly at Weimar. May I ask you which position that National Assembly had, and in particular that faction of the Social Democrats which you had led, and what their attitude was toward the Austrian Anschluss.
ADuring the time when the National Assembly met at Weimar, I was the Reich and State Commissioner in the Rhineland and Westphalia. I was only rarely present during the negotiations of that assembly. I do not know in detail, therefore, how these matters were formulated or expressed. But one thing I do know, and that is that it was the almost united wish of the National Assembly that a paragraph or article should be included in the Constitution which would carry out the Anschluss of Austria, which would carry out that Anschluss to Germany.
DR. STEINBAUER:I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Does the Prosecution wish to cross examine? BY MR. ELWYN JONES:
QHerr Minister, you have told the Tribunal that in 1928 the defendant Raeder assured you solemnly where would be no further violations of the Treaty of Versailles without the knowledge of the Reich Cabinet. Did Raeder fulfil that assurance?
AI have already stated this morning that in that positive manner I can't answer that. I can only say that violations of the agreement of the 18th of October 1928, as far as the Navy is concerned, are not known to so.
QDid you know, for Instance, of the construction in Cadis in Spain of a 750-ton U-beat under German direction between the years 1927 and 1931?
ANo, no.
MR. ELWYN JONES:My Lard, the authority for that statement of fact is the Document D-854. BY MR. ELWYN JONES:
QAnd, Herr Minister, did you know that after its completion in 1931 that U-boat carried out trial runs under German direction and with German personnel?
A No, I didn't know anything about that, either.
THE PRESIDENT:I think he said he didn't know of any violations. BY MR. ELWYN JONES:
QI am putting to you certain matters, and I suggest to you, Herr Minister, that it may well be that you were being deceived during this time. Do you agree with me about that?
AI wouldn't deny deception, but I can't confirm it either. I can only tell you that I didn't know of the construction of a submarine.
QI want you to look at the document C-156. This is a new extract from Captain Schusler's "Fight of the Navy against Versailles." The entry is on pages 43 and 44 of that book. You will see that the following entry appears on pages 43 and 44.
"In 1930 Bartenbach succeeded in laying the foundations in Finland also for the construction of a U-boat corresponding to the military demands of the German Navy. The Navel Chief of Staff, Admiral Dr. (h.c.) Raeder, decided, as a result of the reports of the Chief of the General Naval Office, Rear Admiral Housiger v. Waldegg, and of Captain Bartenbach, to supply the means required for the construction of the boat in Finland. A 250-ton plan was chosen for this boat, so that the amount of 1 1/2 million Reichsmarks was sufficient for carrying out of the project.
"The fundamental intention was to create a type of boat which would permit the inconspicuous preparation of the largest possible number of units which could be assembled at shortest possible notice."
Now, Herr Minister, did you know that one and a half million Reichsmarks were spent in 1930 in connection with that U-boat construction?
AI have stated this morning that in the Reich Ministry of the Interior I was a minister from 1926 to 1930. I think it is necessary that these dates should be more carefully defined. I left on the 30th of March 1930, and if the era of 1930 is generally mentioned, then it isn't impossible that everything that is mentioned here happened after the 30th of March 1930.
QYou have said that the rearmament that went on when you were connected with the Government of Germany was purely defensive. When did you realize that the Nazi Government's rearmament was not defensive but aggressive? At what date did you come to that conclusion?
A On the 30th of January 1933, thereafter. When Hitler became Reich Chancellor, I was aware that this was war, at the same time considering my political views.
QSo that you realized from the first day of Nazi power that the Nazi Government intended to use force or the threat of force to achieve its political aims; is that right?
AI don't know whether to know and to be convinced is identical. I was convinced of it, and so were my political friends.
QI want to ask you one or two questions about the defendant Papen. Did Papen use force in carrying out the Putsch which brought him to power in July 1932?
A Personally, von Papen didn't exercise such force, but he ordered it.
When on themorning of the 20th of July, 1932, I refused as Chief of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior to surrender the office to the successor who had been nominated by von Papen, I told him that I was not willing to do so. And, so asto give emphasis to my protest, I also stated that I would only give way to face. That force was applied on the evening of the 20th of July in my office. The newly appointed Police President of Berlin appeared, accompanied by two police officers. I asked these gentlemen whether they were sent by the Reichspresident or the Reich Chancellor and had been giventhe power to carry out this execution. When they answered with "yes," I stated that -- so as not to give the order for blood shed -- I would leave my office.
QDid the defendant Papen, when he secured power, purge the police and the government of anti-Nazis?
AThere are numerous indications that the intention existed that the police should be cleared of anti-Nazis and that other men were to be brought into the police, men who suited Papen, who were devoted to von Papen, and, later, the National Socialists.
QI want to ask you one or two questions about the defendant Goering.
The defendant Goering has stated, and the entry on page 5837 of the transcript of the proceedings, that the institution ofprotective custody existed in Germany before the Nazis came into power . Is that true?
AThe institution of protective custody existed, I would say, in theory, and it was in the Police administration Law, in Paragraph 15. As far as I can remember, the application of protective custody never did happen, however, while I was in office. The regulations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Police administration Law did state definitely, however, that if some one was to be taken into protective custody, then the administration was obliged to bring him before a judge within 24 hours.
That is in no way identical with that protective custody which, foryears, was decreed against peaceful members of the State by the Nazi regime.
Q And, of course, there were no concentration camps in pre-Nazi Germany, I take it?
ANever.
QHow many of your political associates and colleagues of the Social Democratic Party were murdered in concentration camps while Goering was still Chief of the Gestapo?
AThe estimate is very di fficult to make. You might say 500, and you might quote 2,000. Reliable information is now being collected My estimate is that at least 1,500 Social Democrats, or members and functionaries of trade unions, or editors, were murdered.
QAnd how many Communist leaders do you think were murdered during Goering's period of power over the Gestapo?
AI would assume that if you include among Communist leaders also the functionaries of trade unions, who called themselves members of the Communist Party, then some similar figure would probably come up.
QDid Goering personally have any knowledge of these murders?
AThat I cannot say. If I were to answer that question, then I have to ask myself what I might have done in a case where it was one of my duties to administer camps in which the fate of tens of thousands was being decided. I am not sure whether this is of any interest to you, but I might give you one or two examples from my own experiences.
In 1925 I had to create a camp for refugees from Poland.
QYou need not trouble to go into that, Herr Minister.
AAt any rate, I would have considered it my foremost task that, in camps which I had installed, there should be inquiries made to find out whether the principles of humanity were being adhered to.
It was not my impression that that was done.
My police officials always had their attention drawn to it that everyone in those camps should be humanly treated. I told them that never should the call again be heard in Germany, "Help against police."
Arr est orders were issued by me against members of the police when I had the impression that defenseless prisoners were ill-treated by members of the Protective Police.
QAs Minister of the Interior, did you become familiar with the organized terror of the SA against the non-Nazi population of Germany during the years after 1921?
AThe observation of the so-called armed organizations, during the years of my office, was one of my most important tasks. The roughest organization of all these turned out to be the SA. They were the rowdy battalions and, with the arrogance with which they sang their songs, they forced themselves into the streets. They clared the streets for themselves where there was no opposition for them.
Another part of their program was rough songs. One of their songs was: "Put the bigshots and the Jews against the wall and fight them."
Wherever the SA could exorcise their terror unhindered, they acted in such a manner. They had indoor battles against people who thought differently. Those weren't the ordinary little fights between political fighters during election fights. That was organized terror.
When the first Jewish boycott occurred in 1933, they stood guard to prevent those members of the population from buying in Jewish shops, when they had been accustomed to buying there. As it may be known to the Tribunal, they carried out the terror of the 8th of November, 1936, and organized it.
Also, in 1930; they damaged numerous Jewish shops in Berlin, perhaps as an introduction for the meeting of the Reichstag which, at that time, as is known, was entered by the National Socialists to the extent of 107 members.
QFinally, I want to ask you one ortwo questions about the defendant Schacht.
When did you first discover Schacht's relations with the Nazi leaders?
AIn 1931 I had information from the Police Administration in Berlin that there had been talks between Mr. Schacht and the leaders of the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Q Did you have any connection with Schacht in 1944?
AIf you are interested, I actually refused to have such connections. Schacht, as far as political matters were concerned--and although I held him in highest esteem as an economic expert--was known to me as quite an uncertain character. Through becoming a member of the Habsburg Party, Schacht betrayed the cause of democracy. That wasn't only an act of ungratefulness, because the Democrats helped him to the post of President of the Reichsbank, but it was a great mistake because he and others, who participated in the Habsburg Front, helped the National Socialists into their positions and made them appear respectable.
Any connections with Schacht with reference to the 20thof July 1944, were, therefore, not acceptable to me.
When, in the autumn of 1943, there were certain attempts made to bring me into a group which was to overthrow the Hitler Government, I said, because of Schacht and other circumstances, I refused to enter.
QWhat was your reason for that?
AI just hinted; there were reasons. My friend Neuster and, among other Social Democrats, Leuchtner, Weber, and Mass, and I, discussed the composition of such a government. Leuchtner informed me that probably a general should become the President of the Reich, and another general the Minister for War. I pointed out that, quite probably, Schacht would have to be given the role of financial or economic dictator because, earlier, Schacht's suitability for such a post was meant to be proved, and his actual or possible con-nections with American business circles were to be investigated.
These connections of Schacht, to use National Socialist words, between plutocracy and militarism, appeared to me against the cause of democracy, and in particular against Social Democrats. That appeared to me so compromising that I was under no circumstances willing to be a member of a cabinet in which Schacht might be financial dictator.
MR. ELWYN JONES:Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Did you wish to re-examine?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SIEMERS:
QMinister Severing, the prosecutor has just talked about the construction of a U-boat in Finland and the construction of a U-boat in Cadis. With regard to the construction of the U-boat in Cadis, he has referred to D-854. I presume that this document is unknown to you.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, Dr. Siemers, the witness said he knew nothing about either of those instances.
DR. SIEMERS:Thank you. BY DR. SIEMERS:
QCan you not remember that between Grand Admiral Raeder and Reichswehrminister Greener--during that discussion--that Finland U-boat was mentioned?
AI do not remember.
QA principle question, please. Is it true that the agreement which was made on the 18th of October, 1928, meant that the Chief of the Naval Command Staff had the duty of informing the Reich Armed Forces Minister and that he, the Reichswehr Minister, in turn, had the duty of informing the other members of the Cabinet?
AAs far as I remember, the agreement or the promise of the two chiefs of the Army Command was that the Cabinet should be kept informed about every question. That was technically possible only in the manner which I have just indicated, that is to say, that the Minister would first of all, be informed.
Then he, in turn, would pass this information on to the Cabinet.
QSo that there was no duty on Raeder's part to currently inform you or report to you or appear before the Cabinet?
AThat would have been quite an unusal measure, and the meeting of the 18th October was unusual; the members of the Cabinet were either only ministers or their representatives.
Q So that technically the matter would be handled through the Reichswehr Minister?
AYes, and politically through the Cabinet.
DR. SIEMERS:Thank you very much. I have no further questions. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK (counsel for defendant von Papen):
QWhat legal regulation was the basis for the removal of yourself from the Ministry of the Interior?
AThe release?
QThe release, yes.
AIt was Article 48.
QWho, based on Article 48, issued emergency decrees?
AIt was done by the Reichspresident, who alone was entitled to do so.
QThe fact that, on the 20th of July, under the circumstances which you have described, you were removed from office -- was that based on the fact that von Papen and Hindenburg, who were giving these orders, had the view that the emergency decree was legal, whereas it was your point of view that a legal basis for the emergency decree did not exist, and that, consequently, you remained in your office?
AI wasof the opinion, which was later confirmed by the Reich Court, that the Reichspresident had the power, through Article 48,to issue decrees for the maintenance of calm and order. If Prussian Ministers, and particularly a police minister, did not give him sufficient guarantee for this peace and order and its maintenance, then he had the right to relieve us of our functions. That was particularly true lf the police, but any other executive measures as well.
He did not have the right, however, to release us or discharge us as ministers.
QIs it known to you that the highest court in Germany, the State Court, on the 25th of October, 1932, made a decision according to which the decree of the Reichspresident of the 20th of July, 1932, was correct under the Constitution in so far as it appointed the Reich Chancellor as Reich Commissioner for Prussia and in so far asit deprived Prussian Ministers of certain powers which the other was to take over himself?
A I have just quoted that order.
QRight. Then one more question: Did von Papen as Reich Commissioner at the time he carried out certain personnel changes bring National Socialists into the police force?
AThat isn't known to me. The political character of the police officials couldn't outwardly be recognized. That was the case with government presidents, police presidents, but not in the case of every protective police official.
(Short interruption due to mechanical difficulties.)
QIs it correct that the post of the president of the police in Berlin was filled by von Papen with the former police president of Melcher, Essen, who even in your time was the police president in a large area?
AThat is correct.
DR. KUBUSCHOK:Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Now, then, the witness can retire and the Tribunal will now adjourn.
How many more witnesses have you got?
DR. SIEMERS:I now have the other witnesses, von Weizsaecker and Admiral Schulte-Moenting. Schulte-Moenting will take a little longer, whereas Weizsaecker as far as I am concerned, will be very short.
THE PRESIDENT:All right.
(A recesswas taken.)
- - -
DR. SIEMERS:If it please the High Tribunal, I should like to call my next witness, Freiherr von Weizsaecker.
ERNST VONWEIZSAECKER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWill you state your full name, please?
AErnst von Weizsaecker.
QWill you repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT:You may sit down.
- - -