DR. SEIDL: Very well. Then I shall refer to another document against the reading of which there will certainly be no objections, that is because we are dealing here with a document which has already been submitted by the Prosecution. It Is the speech, the address made by the Fuehrer before the Commandersin-Chief of the Armed Forces on the 22nd of August, 1939. It was submitted by the Prosecution of the Soviet Union as PS-789 and as Exhibit Number 29. I quote from page 6 of the German photostat.
"Hitler stated at that time" -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got it in your document book or not, I mean just for convenience?
DR. SEIDL: The document was completely submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean it is not here: I have not got the document before me. It is not in your document book.
DR. SEIDL: No, it is not in the document book because the Court has already ruled that each defendant's counsel has the right to refer to any document which has already been submitted by the Prosecution and I quote:
"I have taken care of the regrouping with respect to Russia. In connection with the trade agreement, we got into a political conversation. Proposal of non-aggression pact. Then, a universal proposal from Russia. I took a special step which led to the fact that Russia has answered yesterday she was ready to conclude the agreement. A personal connection with Stalin has been achieved. Von Ribbentrop will conclude the treaty to day after tomorrow. Now Poland is in the position in which I wanted to see her."
Mr. President, gentlemen: I had the intention to call the witness Bohle who has already been approved by the Tribunal. The defendant Hess, however, has asked me to forego the personal appearance of that witness and concerning the probative matter in reference to which the witness was to be heard, to read an affidavit instead.
I have such an affidavit. I had it prepared and beyond doubt it would facilitate the proceedings and save time if the Tribunal would approve the reading of this affidavit. If however, the Tribunal is of the opinion -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have not had the opportunity of seeing the affidavit. As previously advised, if the witness covers the ground for which he was asked, I should want him for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the witness?
DR. SEIDL: He is here. Bohle how.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean to call him or read his affidavit?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, since the Prosecutor apparently protests against the reading of the affidavit, I would like to call the witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not seen the affidavit, of course, my Lord, so at the moment, as I say, if the affidavit covers the ground that the witness should speak upon, then I shall want to cross examine him.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the Prosecution are agreeable that the affidavit should be put in the witness must be called but if the Prosecution are agreeable to the affidavit being read and then the witness presented for crossexamination, the Tribunal is quite willing that should be done.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not mind that in the least, my Lord. If of course, I am in slight difficulty not knowing what is in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the best course would be for the Tribunal to have a ten minute adjournment now and you could perhaps see what is in the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: It is a pleasure, my Lord.
(a recess was taken)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal did not wish to hurry counsel but we thought we had better get on with other witnesses and this document can be translated and considered and possibly dealt with after the main adjournment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, I have not had the chance of reading the translation. A preliminary view of the convinced my staff that it was not of very great importance and I was going to consider whether the quickest way might be to let the affidavit be read if the Tribunal would then permit me to read three documents which I was going to put in crossexamination to the witness. That might be more convinient than to take the course which your Lordship suggests, of waiting until we have seen the full affidavit and then consider what would be the course to deal with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have perhaps seen part of the document and you can perhaps judge better which would be more convinient course. Whichever you think more convinient.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I am content if Dr. Seidl reads it but it would have to be on the terms that the documents which I was going to put in cross-examination to the witness are read.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks he had better be called.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl ?
DR. SEIDL: If I understand the High Tribunal correctly, it does not wish the affidavit to be read but the testimony of the witness personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as soon as the affidavit has been translated and the Prosecution have had an opportunity of considering it, they can let us know whether they think it will be better to treat the affidavit as the examination of the witness and he must then be produced here for the purpose of cross-examination unless you prefer to examine him orally yourself.
DR. SEIDL: I believe that under the circumstances it would be best to call the witness immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
ERNST WILHELM BOHLE: a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you tell me your name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me:
truth and with hold and add nothing?
(The witness repeated the oath.) BY DR. SEIDL: N.S.D.A.P.?
Q When you were State Secretary of the Foreign Office?
DR. SEIDL: Mr President, Mr Dodd of the American Prosecution made the suggestion in order to save time if it might not be possible to follow the same procedure as in the case of witness Blaha, that is to read the affidavit in the presence of the witness and then hear him in cross-examination. BY DR. SEIDL:
Q You signed an affidavit?
"1. The Foreign Organization of the N.S.D.A.P. was in accordance with some Germans abroad, established on the 1st of May in 1931 at Hamburg. The leader was Strasse and appointed as the leader of the Reichstag a member of the N.S.D.A.P. by the name of Dr Hans Nieland. I myself led the Ausland organization, that is I entered in December 1931 and on the 1st of March 1932, entered the party. On the 8th of May, 1933 Dr. Nieland resigned from his office as leader of the Ausland organization, since he entered into the government of the City of Hamburg and as a German at home was less interested in questions of Germans abroad.
On the basis of my experience abroad and my connections abroad -- I was born in England and raised in South Africa -- I was charged with the leadership of the Ausland Organization.
"Point 2. The purpose of the Ausland Organization was those Germans outside the boundaries of Germany at the taking over of power--members of the Party--to include them in an organizational way. Beyond that, the Germans abroad which really had just very vague motions of the political happenings at home, these Germans were to be kept informed of the ideas and the political programs of the new state.
"Point 3. Only Reichsdeutsche could become members of the Party. The taking in of foreigners or former Germans who had acquired citizenship in another state was strictly prohibited.
"Point 4. Showing a certificate of citizenship there was the basic principle of the attitude of the Party toward the organization; first of all, to follow the laws of the country to which you belong. The internal policy should be carried through by the natives of that country. Do not interfere, do not mix in in any way even in conversations. This principle was of basic importance for the work and the attitude of the Ausland Organization, as far as foreign countries were concerned, from the beginning of its establishment to the end, I personally pointed out in many public speeches, and among other things used the following sentences: "National Socialism will honor foreign folkdom because it loves its own."
"Point 5. My speeches in Porchester Hall in London on the 2nd of October 1937 and at Budapest toward the end of 1938 give a comprehensive picture of the attitude of the Ausland Organization of the NSDAP, so far as foreign countries are concerned.
"Winston Churchill in September of 1937 repeatedly attacked the activity of the Ausland Organization in newspaper articles, and in his famous speech, "Friendship with Germany," which appeared in the London "Evening Standard" the 17th of September 1937 he called this organization incriminating to the connection between Germany and England. In the same article he said that he was ready to converse with me in the most cordial manner about this question. The German Embassy art London told the Foreign Office at that time that a motion by Churchill in Commons regarding the activity of the Ausland Organization was not desirable, but it was desirable to have a conversation between Churchill and myself.
This took place on the day of my speech to the Reich Germans in London, in the flat of Winston Churchill, and lasted more than an hour. I had ample opportunity in this conversation, which was entirely cordial, to inform Churchill of the activity of the Ausland Organization and to dissipate his fears and qualms. Toward the end he accompanied me to my car, and had his picture taken with me, in order, as he said, to show the world that we were parting as friends. There was no investigation or inquiry in Commons. Since that time in no manner did Churchill object to the activity of the Ausland Organization. My speech of the same date, which was published by an English concern in English, in the form of a brochure, was very favorably received. There were excerpts from this speech. 'Mr. Bohle's Plea For A Foreign Understanding', was the title. Churchill wrote me a letter after this conversation in which he voiced his satisfaction with the result of our conversation.
"Point 6. In the proceeding concerning the murder of the leader of the Ausland Organization in Switzerland, Wilhelm Gustlov, the proceeding which took place in Switzerland in 1936 at Koor, the legality of the Ausland Organization was the matter at issue of this legal procedure. The defendant, David Frankfurter, was sentenced to eighteen years imprisonment. And as far as I can tell from memory, the Swiss authorities, who were not friendly to Nazis, had to affirm and confirm that Gustlov and the Landesgruppe of the Ausland Organization had given no reason for concern in any way. And Bundesrat Baumann gave the decisive testimony who, according to my knowledge, was Police Minister and Minister of the Exterior of Switzerland at that time.
"Point 7. I should further like to point out that after the outbreak of the war the Landesgruppen of the Ausland Organization continued to function until the end of the war, and that is especially true of Switzerland, Sweden, and Portugal. At the latest, beginning with 1943, there could have been no action; the Reich could not have taken any action if the Ausland Organization had come into conflict with the internal laws of the countries involved and if the prohibition of this organization would have been the result.
"Point 8. Aside from the indisputable legality of the Ausland Organization, as its leader I affirmed and reaffirmed repeatedly that the Auslandsdeutschen (Germans abroad) would certainly be the last people who would be war mongers or who would be conspirators against peace. From bitter experience they knew that with the outbreak of a war there would be internment for them, persecution, confiscation of money, and destruction of their economic existence would be their lot.
"Point 9. Knowing the situation abroad no one knew better than the Germans abroad, the Auslandsdeutschen, that any activity of any sor t with regard to a fifth column would be sensdess and damaging to the interests of the Reich. The expression "fifth column" is to be traceable back to the Civil War to my knowledge. It is in any case a foreign innovation. When France attacked Madrid with four divisions it was asserted that a fifth column consisting of nationalist elements was within the beleagered city underground and was ready to go to work.
"Point 10. The usage of the term "fifth column" with reference to the Ausland Organization of the NSDAP is entirely without basis. If this assertion were true, it would mean that members of the Ausland Organization in connection with local oppositional elements had been charged in one or more foreign countries or had tried of themselves to undermine this state from within. Any such assertion would be taken out of thin air, would be entirely withoutbasis.
"Point 11. Neither from the former deputy of the Fuehrer, Rudolf Hess, nor from me, as the leader of the Ausland Organization, did members of this organization in any way receive missions or were charged to make the activity in the sense of a fifth column. Even Hitler himself never gave me any directives in that respect. And in conclusion and as a summary I might say that the Ausland Organization at no time as long as I was its leader participated in any activity of a fifth column or developed any such action.
Never did the deputy of the Fuehrer give directives to the Ausland Organization which would have activated it toward such activity. Rudolf Hess, on the contrary, desired most urgently that members of the Ausland Organization would under no circumstances interfere with the internal affairs of that country in which they were living.
"Point 12. Of course, it is known that as well as the members of the then hostile countries, Germans were used in the espionage and intelligence work. This activity had nothing whatever to do with the membership in the Ausland Organization and these groups which were public and legal. And in order not to harm them in any way I always repeatedly demanded that members of the Ausland Organization were not to be used for activities of that sort without previously having the opportunity to relieve them of their membership in the Ausland Organization."
And that is the end of the affidavit of the witness Bohle. I have no questions to ask the witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask the witness any questions?
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendant von Schirach): I would like to put several questions to this witness, Your Honor. BY DR. SAUTER: German Youth, and I am interested in knowing the following points:
Did the Hitler Youth (H.J.) exist in foreign countries or did it exist only in Germany?
Q Please tell me whether the Hitler Youth (H.J.) was the subordinate to the political directives of the competent authorities of the Ausland Organization or is that not right? Hoheitstraeger (bearers of sovereignty) of the party.
members of the Hitler Youth had been used for agent services and espionage service; that they were being trained in foreign countries, not only trained but also used for these purposes. Certain facts are noted here. It is only an assertion. In connection with this it was asserted that the Hitler Youth abroad were being used as paratroopers, had been trained internally and used as paratroopers abroad, and that is the assertion which I am submitted to you, and I ask to have your opinion on this. Whether on the basis of your knowledge as the competent leader of the Ausland Organization such happenings did take place or whether anything like that would be possible at all.
A I would like to say the following in reply: abroad could have been active, could have been misused in this way. I can assert that all the more since I know from the leaders of the Party in the various foreign countries I would have heard everything to the contrary. I know nothing at all about the training of the Hitler Youth as paratroopers or anything similar. I have no knowledge of anything like that. I consider that assertions of that kind have no basis whatsoever. that sort on the basis of the entire organization would certainly have come to your knowledge if things like that had taken place or if they had just been planned; is that correct?
Q Then, witness, I have a last question. In the Tribunal in the course of the proceedings a further assertion was made about the H.J., that is about the Hitler Youth. It was asserted that at Lemberg the following took place: little children as targets. Particulars even in this report are not given, just the assertions stated. I am interested to know--you know, of course, that the Hitler Youth had a membership toward the end of about seven to eight million people.
THE PRESIDENT: With the Ausland organization?
DR. SAUTER: With the Ausland organization, only since in connection with my client the Defendant von Schirach it is charged that the Hitler Youth abroad committed such cruelties and atrocities.
THE PRESIDENT: It wasn't suggested that they did this abroad; it was that they used children as targets abroad.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, it was said at Lemberg, not in Germany. In Lemberg. And that is, of course, for abroad.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean after the war began?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought this witness was speaking about the Ausland organization before the war.
DR. SAUTER: I don't know but the Ausland organization during the war is concerned here. But Mr. President, the witness knows conditions, for he was the head of the Ausland organization and therefore this witness seems to be especially qualified to give us information on these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that we are very far from the point, but you can go on.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, then I would have to call this witness for my client again. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, do you recall the last question I put to you? members of the Hitler Youth abroad, which was under your jurisdiction, committed atrocities of that nature? belong to the Ausland organization, that I wasnever there, and am not in a position to give you any information on that point. Obviously the erroneous opinion seems to exist that the General Government was connected with the Ausland organization and the party, but that is not true. I had no organizational powers there.
DR. SAUTER: I have no further questions.
BY DR. SERVATIUS (attorney for the organization of the political leaders):
political intentions of the Fuehrer, that is, you in your capacity as leader of the Ausland organization? of the foreign political intentions of the Fuehrer. in the position of wanting an understanding with England? Gauleiters emphasize that he wished an understanding with England and that you were to function that way? of the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer did not discuss foreign political matters with me during the twelve years I was in office.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions from other members of Defense Counsel? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY LIEUT. COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: Party in Germany was organized, is that not so? the Party structure in the Reich, which did not apply to foreign countries. For example, the Bureau for Criminal police -
Q Perhaps I can shorten my question: Did you have Hoheitstraegers abroad in the same way that you had them in Germany? is that correct?
Q And under many there were lower ranking Hoheitstraegers? foreign countries well organized and known to the leader in those countries?
A For the large part that would be correct, but it wasn't organized through and through, and it could not be that the leaders of the party would know all the Reichsdeutschen in the countries involved.
Q Did it never occur to you that in the event of your army's invading a country where you had a well organized organization, the organization would be of extreme military value? tion and there were no demands like that made. of Europe were in fact invaded by the German Army your local organizations did nothing to assist them in a military or semi-military capacity?
Q Very well. Now, let me ask you about something else for a moment: You had, had you not, an efficient system of reporting from your Landesgruppenleiters to your head office in Berlin? that you took an especial pride in the speed with which your reports came back?
mentioned that, but I believe I said that in regard to giving a complete political picture.
Q. In fact, your reports did come back with great speed, did they not?
A. I cannot say that. In general it depended on the possibility of bringing these reports to Berlin, and how it applied in particular cases I cannot tell you today. But speed or certain measures for acceleration, I did not have at my disposal.
Q. In fact, you told your interrogator -- and I can refer you to it if necessary -- that on occasions you got back similar information before Himmler or the Foreign Office had got it.
A. We were concerned, with the political reporting system from the Landesgruppenleiters which I transmitted from Berlin to the various parts of the country.
Q. Very well, we will leave the speed out. I have it from you that you had an efficient system of reporting, is that correct?
A. In order to answer that question I would have to know in what report; you mean I am supposed to have had this system of reporting.
Q. That was going to be my next question. I was going to ask you: What in fact did your Landesgruppenleiters report to you?
A. The Landesgruppenleiters reported to me, of themselves, if they had anything of importance which they wanted to report to me, the competent leader.
Q. Did they ever report anything which might have been of military or semi-military value?
A. That might have been true in a few cases, although at present I cannot recall any such special cases.
Q. They were never given any instructions, were they, to report that kind of information?
A. No; in general, no.
Q. How did you get your reports back/ Did you have wireless sets with your organizations in foreign countries?
A. No, we did not have any wireless stations. Reports came through courier in special cases or were brought in by special people to Germany.
Q. After the war statred did your organizations continue in neutral countries?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they never have wireless sets reporting back information?
A. I do not know anything about that, but I do not believe they had them. If they had them I would have had to know about it.
Q. Now, I want to just ask you about one or two documents. Would you look at PS-3258 -- My Lord, that is the Exhibit already in, GB-262; I have copies of the extract for the Tribunal and members of Defense Counsel.
A. Yes.
Q. Where you have before you a copy of some extracts from it. Would you look at the bottom of the first page, last paragraph commencing "In 1938"? Did you have a Landesgruppenleiter in the Netherlands of the name of Batting?
A. Yes.
Q. Just pay attention to me for one moment before you look at that document. Do you know that Butting shared a house at the Hague with the Military Intelligence Office? Do you know that?
A. That I do not know, no.
Q. Now, I want to quote you quite shortly two paragraphs of this document, which is a report published as an official United States publication called "National Socialism Basic Principles, Application by the Nazi Party Foreign Organization and the Use of Germans Abroad for Nazi Ends." I just want you to tell the Tribunal what you think first of this report, which is printed in that bood:
"In 1933 the German legation owned two houses in The Hague. Both were of course the subject of diplomatic immunity and therefore inviolable as concerned search and seizure by the Dutch Police. I shall call the house in which Dr. Butting had his office House No. 2. What went on in House No. 2? It had been remodelled and was divided like a two-family house -- vertically, not horizontally, but between the two halves there was a communicating door. One side of the house was Dr. Butting's. The other half housed the Nazi Military Intelligence agent for Holland."
You say that you do not know anything about that?
A. Butting was Landesgruppenleiter of the Ausland Organization, but this is entirely new to me, and I am hearing about it for the first time new.
Q. Very well. "S. B. (the military intelligence agent) may have had as many as a dozen subordinates working in Holland, all sub-agents of the Canaris bureau. Those were professional spies who knew their trade. But they could not possibly know Holland as intimately as was required by the strategy of the German High Command, as it was revealed following the invasion of May 1940. For this, not a dozen but perhaps several hundred sources of information were necessary. And it is at this point that Butting and the military intelligence come together. Through his German Citizens' Association, Butting had a pair of Nazi eyes, a pair of Nazi ears, in every town and hamlet of the Netherlands. They were the eyes and ears of his monor party officials. Whenever the military intelligence agent needed information concerning a corner of Holland which his people had not yet explored, or was anxious to check information relayed to him by one of his own people, he would go to Butting."
Holland in any way like that?
A. I was told later that he aided him, but in what proportion I do not know, for he had had no missions like that from me.
Q. I understand he had no instructions but he was doing it. Just turn now to the last paragraph of that page, too:
"'I know every stone in Holland', S. B. once boasted. By 'stone' he meant canal, lock, bridge viaduct, culvert, highway, by-road, airport, emergency landing field, and the name and location of Dutch Nazi sympathizers who would help the invading army when the time came. Had Dr. Butting's Party organization not existed under the innocent cover of his Citizens' Association, S. B.'s knowledge of Holland would have been as nothing compared with what it was. Thus the Citizens' Association served a double purpose; it was invaluable for espionage at the same time as it fulfilled its primary function as a fifth column agency." instructions to learn about every canal, lock, bridge, viaduct, railway, and so on?
A. No, I never had any idea of this.
Q. Very well. I want you to be quite clear. I am putting to you that your organization, in the first place, was an espionage system of reporting information of importance back to the Reich, and, in the second place, it was an organization aimed to help and which did help your invading German armies when they overran the frontiers of thei neighboring states. Do you understand those two points?
A. Yes.
Q. Did your organization publish an annual book, your Year Book of the Foreign Organization?
A. Yes
Q. And did that book contain information as to the activities of your organization during the year?
A. Partially, yes.
Q. And I suppose that the Tribunal would be safe in assuming that what was published in that book was accurate information?
A. Yes, one may assume that.
Q. Will you look at the Year Book for 1942. I have copies of the extracts. Would you turn to Page 37 of that book. If you look back one or two pares in the book you will find that that is an article entitled "The Work of the Norway Branch of the Ausland Organization in Norway". Is that written by your Landesgruppenleiter in Norway?
pencil along the side.
Q Will you find the paragraph which starts, "Therefore, soon after the outbreak of the war in September 1939 --" Have you got that ?
"Therefore, soon after the outbreak of war in September 1939, the enlargement and extension --"
Q "-- the enlargement and extension of the German legation in Oslo, of the consulates in Bergen, Drontheim, Stavanger, Kristiansand, Haugesund, Narvik and Kirkenes proved to be of primary importance. This enlargement of the Reich agencies resulted in the local organization of the N.S.D.A.P. in Norway having to increase its field of activity too, in the same proportion in order to support the work of the Reich agencies, particularly with Party members and other Germans who had a thorough knowledge of the country and the language." organization in Norway with people having thorough knowledge of the country and the language? Answer me that before you read on. You need not worry about the rest; we are going to deal with it . Why was it necessary in 1939 to enlarge your organization? in all, and it was definitely known that after the outbreak of the war, the authorities, not only of Germany but those of other states, had expanded and had the names of local assistants, and that did not hold true for Germany alone but for all other nations participating in the war.
Q Yes. I still do not understand why you perfectly harmless organization should have found it necessary to increase its membership with people who had a throrough knowledge of the language and the country.
Why should the Ausland organization have found it necessary? tell us about targets of war in Norway, these activities were carried on by other states also. targets in Norway. Is that your answer? were to be used for German propaganda, for information about the Norwegian people, and I would like to emplasie that was not done only by Germany but by all states which were involved in the war.
Q Very well, let us go on and see what happens next:
"The choice and appointment of these supplementary collaborators was carried out by the local leader of the organization in close collaboration with the representatives of the Reich, Therefore, from the first moment of the outbreak of war a great number of Party members were taken away from their jobs and employed in the service of the nation and the Fatherland. Without any hesitation and without considering their personal interests, their families, their careers or their property, they joined the ranks and devoted themselves body and soul to the new and often dangerous tasks." that an often dangerous task?
leiter is saying members of his organization were undertaking from the very moment war broke out, in September 1939? this at all and I cannot think of any of these dangerous tasks. I cannot conceive of them. I didn't knew this article prior to now and I have the impression that the Landesgruppenleiter had the desire, and it seems plausible, to make his organization more important than it was.
Q But you say you didn't know about this. This appeared in the official year book of your organization. Did you never read what appeared in that back? in this. What about the people who were responsible for publishing that back? Did they never draw your attention to an article of that kind?
Q Just look at the next little paragraph:
"And the successful results of their work, which was done with all secrecy, were revealed when, on the 9th April 1940, German troops landed in Norway and forestalled the planned flank attack of the Allies."
What work was revealed on the 9th of April? What work which had been done with all secrecy was revealed on 9th April, work carried out by members of your organization?
Q I see. Will you look down to the last paragraph if that page? It is the second sentence, at the end of the fifth line. I beg your pardon. You have the book in front of you; I have forgotten. Will you look at page 40 of the bock? In the center of a paragraph the last word of one of the lines starts with "According. According to the task-plan" -- Have you got it? It is page 40.
A (The witness shook his head)
Q To save time, let me read it: