Q I know you have. So that if von Straempel has sworn that that is a fact, your testimony is that he was not telling the truth.
Is that correct?
A That is correct. I am of the opinion that von Straempel, if he was first secretary, didn't and couldn't know anything of that matter and gave testimony about something of which he knew nothing. At any rate, whatever he said was not true. prohibiting members of the German Embassy and Consulates to continue relations or connections with the Bund? to resign from the Bund but as far as I know, that occurred years before 1935 or 1936, and it originates with the deputy of the Fuehrer on my request.
DR. SEIDL: This question has nothing to do with the theme on which the witness is being interrogated and no question was directed towards him in his direct examination that has any connection with this question; namely, the activity of the German--American Bund, nor do I believe that this form of interrogation is designed to test the credibility of the witness. The reasons for which he was called as a witness have nothing to do with this series of questions.
COLONEL AMEN: It seems to me to have a very direct bearing on whether or not this organization was engaged in espionage work abroad and within the United States.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, In the opinion of the Tribunal, the questions are perfectly proper. BY COLONEL AMEN: of the Nazi Party nevertheless continued to support the Bund? the interrogation of Straempel and ask you whether these statements conform with your knowledge of the facts:
"Q Did the foreign section of the Party continue was issued?
"A I am sure that Mr. Drege, Consul in New York Party, did continue to have relations with Bund officials."
Does that conform with your recollection of the facts?
A No. In my opinion, that does not correspond to the facts-whether the Consul Drege had connections against my command, I cannot judge, but there was the specific order that he should have nothing to do with the Bund, because from the very beginning I objected strenuously to the activities of the Bund and was supported in my objections by the deputy of the Fuehrer.
Q You were acquainted with Drege, were you not? organization was concerned? various members that we had in the United States.
Q He was what was known as a confidential agent, was he not?
Q And as a matter of fact, you called him a "confidential agent" in your interrogation, did you not?
A No. I called him a "Vertrauensmann". The translation was "confidence man".
Q Well, I will accept that correction. He was a confidence man for your organization in the United States. Correct? organization in the United States? Correct? were located?
A One was General Consul Wiedemann in San Francisco. Then Dr. Gissling in Los Angeles. Then Consul von Spiegel, I believe, in New Orleans or maybe Boston.
I believe that is all.
which were forwarded to you through Drege. Is that not a fact?
A No, they made no reports to me. I cannot recall that I ever received any reports from Wiedemann or Spiegel. That wasn't their job either.
Q Drege made the reports to you, did he not? me personally. collected by those other confidential agents? Isn't that correct?
A I don't know. I don't know about these reports and I can't say whether there was anything to report. We had no Party organization in the United States. We had one but it was dissolved by Rudolf Hess in 1933.
Q So you say: but you nevertheless had an individual in Germany, whose duty it was to read and pass upon these reports from Drege as they came in. Is that not a fact? as I know and we had very little to do in the United States with the party and nevertheless such connections that we had, had to be investigated so their political rights can be protected. Such an organization was forbidden and did not actually exist. tivities of your organization nevertheless continued. Now, is it not a fact that there was an individual in your organization in Germany who received these reports from the United States regularly.
Q I beg your pardon:
A My collaborator, Mr. Grote.
Q Correct. Why didn't you tell me that before when I asked you about the individual who read these reports from the United States as they came in?
Q Well, I will withdraw that question. After Grote received these reports from the United States regularly, to whom did he report the substance of those reports?
nothing of interest and he, himself, was not in a position to do anything about them. Mr. Grote had an honorary position with us because of his advanced age and took over the branch of the office because it was of no importance at all in the Ausland organization. those reports?
Q You don't know whether or not they were important and you don't know whether or not they contained information relative to espionage matters. Is that correct? have submitted them to me. Is that correct? tion of von Straempel:
"These relationships seem to have violated the order you mentioned before.
Did he report these viola tions to the foreign office?
"A Yes, several times. In reports I drafted for mental.
I stated that the continued support of the Bund "Q What action was taken in Berlin to halt the activities of which you complained?
"A I know of no such action." Does that conform to your knowledge of the facts?
A I know nothing about these reports by Herr Straempel. This is the first time that I heard of any protests from the ambassador in Washington regarding non-permissible relations with the Bund.
Q You know who Thomsen was, do you not?
Q And you. knew that from time to time various officials of the Bund came over here and had conferences with representatives of your organization and of the Fuehrer, do you not? visit me and they had no conferences of any sort with me.
Q I didn't say with you. I said with representatives of your office; perhaps your friend, Mr. Grote?
A That is possible but I can't say precisely because he made no reports to me on this matter and he was not in a position to have discussed any official mattes, because Grote knew very well that we repudiated altogether the activities of the Volksbund in America. which was done in your organization. Correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Do either of the other Chief Prosecutors wish to cross examine? Then, Dr. Seidl, you can re-examine if you wish.
BY DR. SEIDL: saying there was no secret radio station in Germany in a position to receive secret communications. I ask you now: Did you have a sending station in Germany?
Q Did the Ausland Organization have such a transmitter?
A I consider that out of the question. If there had been, I would have known of it. I never saw one.
Q Is it correct that no radio communications took place in code? superior. Deputy of the Fuehrer concern himself with the details of the work of the Ausland Organization? details up to me because I had his complete confidence. The general orders were of the tenor that he repeated to me again and again that I should guard against everything that would be to the detriment of foreign relations through the Ausland organization.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. SEIDL: My Lord Justices, before I go on to my next witness, the witness Stroelin, I should like to make the following application to the Tribunal: in the same way as it was with the witness Bohle? Gauss was allowed as witness for another defendant. The defense counsel for this other defendant renounced calling this witness. The matter is the same as in the question of Bohle, that it would be better, in my opinion, to hear the witness Gauss now, and during his interrogation to present him with his sworn statement as was done here before.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the affidavit been translated yet and submitted in the various languages to the chief prosecutors?
DR. SEIDL: I don't know whether the translation is complete. At any rate, this noon I turned the affidavit over to the translating department.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me, Sir David or Colonel Pokrovsky?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I haven't seen this affidavit, and, my Lord, with regard to the last one, we got it hurriedly translated into English, but it was only by the kindness of my Soviet colleagues who allowed the matter to go on without a Russian translation and left it to my delegation to deal with that the matter went on. Otherwise, my Soviet colleagues would have asked the Tribunal to have it put back. last minute without having given us a chance of seeing them.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps Colonel Pokrovsky could tell me whether he has seen this affidavit or had it translated yet.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Members of the Tribunal, I fully share the viewpoint of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. It seems to me absolutely unacceptable to have this document presented to the Tribunal now. this affidavit. The Soviet delegation is in the same position. Besides, I would like to remind you that the question of this witness has already been discussed and it was fully decided, and it seems to me there is no foundation for further discussion of this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal considers that the course which must be taken is that that affidavit must be translated and submitted to the Tribunal for their consideration, for this witness was allowed to the defendant Ribbentrop, I think, and then he withdrew his application for the witness. You haven't applied for the witness Gauss, and I would point out to you and to the other counsel for the defendants that it is very inconvenient that documents of this sort, after all the question of witnesses and documents has been thoroughly gone into by the Tribunal, should be presented at the last moment and without any translation whatever. But we won't go into it now, and it must be translated and submitted to the Tribunal in the three languages.
DR. SEIDL: Perhaps I could make one short remark to the last point you made. It has always been my point of view so far that on application for submission of evidence would not be necessary in the case of a witness who has already been allowed by the Court for another defendant. That is certainly the case as far as Gauss is concerned. I consequently felt no need to make a formal application because I had the opportunity anyway to interrogate the witness in cross examination. deputy said last Saturday, he will forego calling the witness Gauss, and now I, in my turn, call Ambassador Dr. Gauss as witness regarding the data he set down in his sworn affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know what you mean by saying you call him. You can apply to call him if you like, but you don't call him until you apply.
DR. SEIDL: That's what I mean.
THE PRESIDENT: When we have seen this document, we will determine the question.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness who was approved by the Court for the defendant Hess is the witness Karl Stroelin. In order to save time I have prepared an affidavit for this witness, and I ask the Tribunal to tell me whether I can treat this witness in the same way as we handled Bohle, or whether the Prosecution is agreeable to having only the affidavit presented.
THE PRESIDENT: Have they seen the affidavit?
DR. SEIDL: I gave the affidavit to the Prosecution this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have an English translation of the affidavit. There are one or two questions the Prosecution wants to put to the witness, so I suggest that the most convenient course would be if Dr. Seidl did as he did with the last witness, to read the affidavit, and then after the affidavit is road, the few questions that the Prosecution desires to be put can be put to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I must report to the Tribunal and to you, Mr. President, that as far as this document is concerned, the defense counsel once again violated your order. That is, the Soviet Prosecution received this affidavit just a very short time ago, about one or two hours ago, and it wasn't received by us in Russian but in English. Therefore, I only had the opportunity of familiarizing myself very slightly withit, and I ask to have the presentation of this document postponed until the time when the order of the Tribunal is complied with, in other words, not until we have received our document in Russian.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Colonel Pokrovsky, in the interest of the time of the Tribunal, wouldn't it be better to get on with it now? Sir David has apparently seen the affidavit and read it in English, and if he is satisfied upon that, wouldn't it be better to go on with that rather than to postpone it?
You see, Dr. Seidl has actually been allowed this witness, so that it is only a question of time, doing it by way of an affidavit when he can call him, and he can then ask him questions.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I repeat once again that I have familiarized myself with it very slightly. If I understand correctly, there is no particular interest of the Soviet delegation in this affidavit. It is really of interest to the British delegation more than it is to us, and if Sir David considers -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing): Colonel Pokrovsky, you see the witness was allowed to Dr. Seidl. Therefore, Dr. Seidl could have put him on the witness box and could have asked him questions, and the only reason for doing it by way of an affidavit is to get the matter more clear and more quick. So if we were to order that this affidavit was not to be used, we should then have Dr. Seidl asking the witness questions, and probably, I am afraid, taking up rather longer then it would to read the affidavit, and you wouldn't object to that.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Perhaps the Tribunal could find it possible to ask to have Dr. Seidl ask the witness questions which are already answered in the affidavit. It seems to me that would give the opportunity to reconcile this contradiction we have now presented in this argument. I understand then correctly, are mostly of a historical character connected with the organization of the Institute in Stuttgart in 1917.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I have not read the affidavit yet so I am afraid I am not in a position to present the questions which you wish me to present.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: All right, I will withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Call your witness then now.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, I will call the witness.
KARL STROELIN, called as a witness, testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What is your name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: truth and withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down if you wish.
DIRECT EXAMINATION: BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, you were last Lord Mayor of Stuttgart, is that correct? Auslandsinstitut? you.
"1. The German Auslandsinstitut was founded in Stuttgart in the year 1917. The fact that Stuttgart was chosen as the seat of this Institute is connected with the fact that a particularly high percentage of emigrants have always come from Swabia.
Thus it was that it was precisely in Stuttgart that there arose a need to found an institute for the purpose of keeping up a patriotic connection between the old homeland and the new. The German Auslandsinstitut was to serve this purpose. It had the following tasks:
"(a) Scientific research into Germanism in the world.
"(b) To keep up cultural connections with the emigrants.
"(c) The education of the home country about Germanism abroad and about foreign countries.
"For scientific research the German Auslandsinstitut had a library of over one hundred thousand volumes on folklore and a newspaper archive for Germanism abroad. For this reason nearly all newspapers in the German language published abroad and a large number of newspapers in foreign languages were kept and utilized. In one filing room an extensive collection of pictures was organized.
"As the interest of Germans abroad in the homeland increased, family research took on even greater proportions.
"Apart from its collecting and registering activities, the German Auslandsinstitut carried out no advisory or representative activities. For a long time the main subject for advice was the question of emigration. This had, as a pre-condition that the German Auslandsinstitut was informed regarding the possibility of employment and the conditions of life in the individual areas for emigration.
"The material of the German Auslandsinstitut was placed at the disposal of the various authorities and organizations on demand. The German Auslandsinstitut work of presentation consisted eventually in organizing expositions. The central point of this activity was the Museum of Germanism abroad in Stuttgart, It was to be at the same time a monument to German achievements abroad.
"The scientific work of the German Auslandsinstitut found its expression particularly in the books, magazines, and calendars of a native character published by it. Relations with the Germans abroad were kept up by the dispatch of such printed material. The guiding thought of the German Auslandsinstitut in its relations with the Germans abroad was that these Germans abroad were to be the connecting links between nations so as to deepen the mutual understanding and wish for collaboration.
They were to be the bearers of friendship between their old and their new home.
"As President of the German Auslandsinstitut, I particularly stressed this thought in my address in Madison Square Garden in New York City in October 1936 on the occasion of 'German Day'. The German Auslandsinstitut had, moreover, no installations or representatives abroad; corresponding members acred as links.
A direct or individual caring for Germans abroad was not the task of the German Auslandsinstitut. The welfare of German national abroad was undertaken by the Ausland organization of the N.S.D.A.P.. Relations with the racial Germans were maintained by the 'Volksbund fur das Deutschtum im Ausland' (Peoples Union For People of German Blood Abroad).
"The German Auslandsinstitut never carried on any activities which could be called 'fifth column' activities. No suggestion of this kind was submitted to me or to the Institute by anybody.
"The Deputy of the Fuehrer, Rudolf Hess, did not exert any influence on the activities of the Institute. He issued no directives or instructions of any kind which could have caused the Institute to undertake any activity in the way of 'fifth column' work."
Witness, are these statements correct?
DR. SEIDLE: I have at the moment no further questions to direct to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask any questions of this witness?
DR. von LUEDINGHAUSEN: (Defense counsel for defendant von Neurath): May it please the Tribunal, I should like to ask the witness a few questions. BY DR. von LUEDINGHAUSEN:
Q From when to when were you Lord Mayor of Stuttgart?
Q And for how long do you know von Neurath; what was he then and what was his position?
A I know von Neurath from the time of the First World War. He was at that time, at the end of the First WorldWar, chief of the cabinet of the Koenig of Wuerthemberg. In my capacity as Lord Mayor I met von Neurath frequently. In 1938 von Neurath became an honorary citizen of Stuttgart.
Czechoslovakia? neighborhood of Stuttgart and here I had closer and steady connections with him. in general?
A Von Neurath is from an old Swabian family. His father was Oberstkammerherr of Wuerthemberg. His grandfather and his great grandfather were ministers. character, a disciplined personality, always ready to help, extraordinarily humane, very conscientious. opportunity to speak about politics with him and particularly about his attitude toward politics and foreign policy? only in general terms, As Reich Foreign Minister he was convinced that Germany would succeed inpeaceful ways to get that place in the world which it deserved. He repudiated any other way. It was his effort to build up trusting relationships with other European nations and to strengthen these relations, particularly with England. It was precisely in this field that he did everything that was possible. it was particularly emphasized how extraordinarily popular von Neurath was in London at that time. I recall that we also discussed the sentence that Henderson wrote, namely, that he admired von Neurath's devotion to peace and to better relations with England. It was also his concern to cultivate better relations with the United States. I recall that he, after my trip to America, spoke to me on the subject and that it was good that I had emphasized in my address friendship with the United States.
I also remember how von Neurath criticized the tone of Hitler's address which in the year 1939 was given by Hitler as an answer to Roosevelt's message He said at that time that international tension was only increased by that speech of Hitler's. active participant.
Then later he spoke again and again of the tragedy that was implicit in the fact that despite all efforts, the relations between England and Germany were characterized by no lasting reciprocal confidence. He pointed out how tragic that was for Germany and for the world. he desired an understanding and peaceful settlement and from all his statement I became convinced that he would never have pursued a policy that might possibly lead to war. of Stuttgart? birthday. This appointment expressed not only Stuttgart's but also Swabia's appreciation of the efforts that he had made toward international peace and toward the betterment of international politics. It also expressed our respect for his honest and pure character.
gave assurances to foreign governments or to their representatives that Germany had no military intentions toward these states, but that these assurances were simply given for the sake of appearances in order to lull these states into a false sense of security, because von Neurath knew then and approved of the fact that Hitler did have aggressive intentions toward these states. From your knowledge of his personality do you hold von Neurath capable of such infamy? as foreign Minister? foreign ministry at the moment of his resignation. He described to me how this resignation came about. Until the end of the year 1937 von Neurath was convinced that Hitler was altogether in sympathy with the foreign policies that he was pursuing. Hitler as well as himself had not wanted to let matters come to the point of war. Now altogether unexpectedly Hitler at the end of 1937 changed his attitude. Hitler suddenly struck a different note, and it was impossible to know from this note whether it was meant seriously or not. Von Neurath then had a personal conversation with Hitler and attempted to dissuade him of this different altitude, but he had the impression that he had lost his influence over Hitler, and that induced him to submit his resignation. appointed the President of the Secret Cabinet. Do you know what his activity was in this capacity? alter his resignation, but this Secret Cabinet did not meet nor did the Reich Cabinet moot. The Secret Cabinet was to be called by Hitler personally, and Hitler never called it. Von Neurath believed later that he had been appointed president in order to conceal from foreign countries that the foreign minister had no more influence on the policy of the Reich as a whole.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Leudinghausen, I don't see how this witness can know whether the Secret Cabinet Council was ever called. In any event we have already heard it from Goering, and presumably we shall hear it again from the defendant von Neurath, in which case it is grossly cumulative.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Sure enough.
TIE PRESIDENT: I don't think we should waste the time of the Tribunal with it. BY DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: toward the Nazi Party?
A Von Neurath's attitude toward the Party was critical, and first he was simply waiting to see what would develop. His relations with the Party were bad. The Party realised the attitude that von Neurath was no National Socialist. Christian churches, namely, the Evangelical and the Catholic? toward the church. He particularly supported efforts to maintain religious freedom. He exercised his influence to see to it that seminaries that were closed were opened again. Here too I was with von Neurath and church minister Kerrl, and spoke with him about the policy toward the church. Church minister Kerrl was making efforts to represent positive Christianity, but he did not succeed in this because in his activity he was sabotaged, particularly by Himmler and Bormann. to him about his activities as Reich Protector? Bohemia and Moravia very unwillingly. He had refused it twice, but he finally came to believe that he must mate this sacrifice. He believed precisely that there he could bring about some reconciliation. He had considerable difficulties with Himmler and Frank , who objected to his efforts to have a better treatment of the Czechs, and made objections to Hitler on this subject. When I visited von Neurath there I was asked to visit President Hacha, and he emphasized to me how happy he was that von Neurath had been sent to Bohemia and Moravia, since he had high confidence in him and hoped for good things of him. The reason for his being called back -- von Neurath told me--was that he was too mild for the Fuehrer in his treatment of the Czechs, and that the Fuehrer subsequently preferred to have a trusted SS man in that position.
Q Who was then to be appointed?
Q Was that von Neurath's reason for resigning? (honorary Gruppenfuehrer of the SS). How did he achieve this position? having been asked whether he wanted to be or not. Hitler told him the reason for this was that Mussolini was to pay a visit and he wanted von Neurath in his entourage with a uniform on, and since von Neurath had no uniform he named him an honorary member of the SS. Von Neurath said he did not have the intention of following out Himmler's policy. Hitler told him that that was hot necessary, it was only important that he should wear a uniform.
Q What was von Neurath's attitude toward war? railroad station. He was very depressed. He called the war a terrible misfortune, a gambling with the whole existence of the people. He said that all his work from 1923 to 1938 had thereby been destroyed.
During the war von Neurath saw the Fuehrer occasionally. On each such occasion he had an opportunity to represent to the Fuehrer the thought of peace.
THE PRESIDENT: How can the witness say this: he wasn't present at these meetings? How can the witness tell us what the defendant von Neurath said to the Fuehrer?
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: That is what the defendant told him. That was told the witness by the defendant directly.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be all extremely cumulative.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I don't believe so. I think that all would be necessary and that the defendant could corroborate this.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Luedinghausen, the Tribunal imagine that the defendant von Neurath will give this evidence himself, and the Tribunal does not wish to hear evidence from witnesses that was cold to them.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Very well, I shall forego further questions in that direction. I should like to ask only one more question. BY DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: end to the war that Hitler was leading?
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: There are matters about which the witness knows person ally.
THE WITNESS: Von Neurath, after his return from Prague, spoke to me several times about these matters. He made efforts particularly to bring about a meeting of the Reich Cabinet, but this did not succeed since Hitler regarded this Reich Cabinet as a group of defeatists. In his efforts to bring about the end of the war von Neurath tried to bring about a change of ministers and to promote someone else for the Reich Chancellorship. Also that was of no avail. In the year 1943-
THE PRESIDENT: This is the same thing over again -- nothing about what von Neurath did but all about what von Neurath said to this witness.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: That is coming, Mr. President; these are only preliminary remarks of the important matters to come. - THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said you had one last question?
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: That is coming. These questions lead up to-
THE WITNESS: After these efforts on von Neurath's part came to nought, and he saw that nothing was of any avail, and that Hitler was intrasigent, von Neurath at the beginning of 1944 came to the conviction that the salvation of Germany before complete destruction of Germany could only be brought about by the destruction of Hitler. He made one last effort to speak to Hitler and tried to persuade him to conclude the war. I was commissioned to speak to Fieldmarshal Rommel about this. The Fieldmarshal was very popular in Germany and abroad, and it was von Neurath's point of view that Rommel was such a person as could replace Hitler. Then in march of 1944 I went to Fieldmarshal Rommel and spoke to him about these matters. Rommel was just as critical of the situation as I was, so that I could speak to him perfectly openly. It was also his point of view that if the war could hot be won militarily and could simply lead to a senseless destruction and to unnecessary-
THE PRESIDENT: We really don't want all this conversation between this witness and Rommel. We don't want it. We won't hear the conversation between this witness and Rommel.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I don't want to hear these matters discussed by the witness either.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you stop him then?
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I don't want to hear it from the defendant himself, but from those persons who were in the service of the defendant in order to bring about these steps. That in my opinion is of more weight than if the defendant makes these statements himself.
THE PRESIDENT: When we come to the defendant then we will not hear him on these subjects.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: On these last matters, no. The matter will be finished in just a few words. BY DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN:
A Rommel then, on von Neurath's commission, wrote a letter to Hitler saying that because of the military situation there was no possibility of winning the war, and Rommel suggested to Hitler that he start peace negotiations.