THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
QDo you know anything else about the taking of scientific equipment, collections, and so forth?
AThe only case about which had any knowledge dealt with the removal of Historically valuable Goublin of the Maltese Palais in Prague. These valuable objects were removed by a member of the Foreign Office in Berlin, the chief secretary, and were transporter off. This was done during the night, secretly, and without my knowledge of the knowledge of my office. As soon as I learned of this I tried, with the Foreign Office, to have this material restored immediately. Whether this material was actually restored I do not know. That was in the year '41, and in the meantime I had left Prague. I know nothing about other incidents of this kind. Apart from that, there was a special prohibitiondealing with the transporting of art objects to the Reich, and in this prohibition I dealt with art objects.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:In this connection, I should like to submit an extract from the interrogation of the former Under Secretary of State, Frank, dated the 10th of June, 1945. This is No. 154 of my Document Book No. 5, and I should like to ask the High Tribunal to take judicial notice of this document and of this interrogation. BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
QWhat happened to the objects of art and furniture, which was public property, in the Czernin Palais in Prague which you used as your official residence?
AThis flat wasthe former official residence of the Czech Foreign Minister, and the valuable objects of art and pieces of furniture belonged to the Czech state. Since there was no inventory of any sort of these valuables, before moving in, in the fall of 1938, and calling in the Czech supervisor and Czech art historian, Professor Strecki, I had a very exact inventory taken. One copy of this inventory was left in my office and another one was ******bed with the administration. After I left Prague, in the autumn of '41, through my former caretaker and again in the presence of a representative of the Czechs, I had a record made that the articles which were mentioned in the inventory were actually there.
THE PRESIDENT:I don't think we need details of the inventory, but there is one thing I should like to ask. The translation came through to me that the inventory was made in the fall of 1938. Was that right?
THEWITNESS: 1939. I wanted to mention only that naturally I did not take any of these articles. BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
QAnother point raised by the Czech prosecution deals with the confiscation of the so-called Masaryk houses in various cities and with the destruction of Masaryk monuments and monuments erected to ether personalities famous in Czech history. What do you know about that?
ADuring my official period of activity, some of these Masaryk houses were closed by the police because they were centers of agitation against Germany. The obstruction or the removal of Masaryk or other national monuments, that as one thing which I had specifically prohibited. Aside from that, the putting down of wreaths at the grave of Masaryk at Lanyi, a step which Frank had prohibited, that was something which I expressly permitted and something which actually did take place. Many wreaths were laid down there.
Q It is further asserted by the Prosecution that Czech literature was suppressed and muzzled in an extensive way.
AThe printing and dissemination of Czech anti-German literature was something which, of course, was prohibited. Something else which was prohibited was the dissemination of English and French works. What was something which wasprohibited in the entire Reich during the war.
All of this treatment was undertaken at the direct orders of the Propaganda Ministry. All steps were taken under their direction. However, during my period, of activity, there were many Czech book stores and book publishing concerns who, before and after, published books and disseminated them, works of Czech authors. The selection of Czech books of every type in book stores was essentially larger than the selection of German books to be had.
QCould you speak of the suppression of Czech cultural life, such things as theaters, movies and so forth that are mentioned by the Prosecution has there any talk of that?
AIn reference to the limitation of a cultural autonomy of the Czechs, aside from the university question there was no question or is at all. In practice, there were a large number of Czech plays in Prague, playing all the time, especially the pure Czech opera, and many legitimate theaters were operating constantly. However, there was only one permanent German theater which was active. There was constant production of many Czech plays and opera, and the same thing applies to music. The well known Czech Philharmonic Orchestra at Prague played Czech music.
THE PRESIDENT:We don't need details. The defendant says that theaters and cinema theaters were allowed and there was only one German theater. We don't want any further details about it.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:Very well, Mr. President. I only asked about these matters because they are rather extensively dealt with in the indictment. BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
QAnd how about the film industry, Mr. von Neurath?
AThe same thing applied to the movie industry. It was quite active Q Now, I should like to turn to the so-called suppression of religious freedom, a step of which you are accused by the Czech Prosecution.
The Czech Prosecution report mentions a wave of persecution which innundated the churches, which started immediately when the German troops marched into occupy the country.
Will you please comment on that?
AThere was no planned persecution of the churches, and that is something which is quite out of the question. The population was quite free in carrying through their religion, and I certainly would not have tolerated any restrictions along that line.
The former State Secretary von Burgsdorff has testified to that point here already. In some specific cases, certain religious processions were prohibited by the police, and that may be true even though I personally do not remember anything like that. But that only took place because certain pilgrimages, consisting of many thousands of members, were exploited as political demonstrations and used for that purpose, and on those occasions anti-German speeches were made. As I learned, several instances of that kind did actually take place.
It is true that a series of clerics were arrested at the action at the beginning of the war which we have already mentioned here. These arrests did not take place because there were clerics involved, but because they were active political opponents or people who were politically suspected. In cases of this nature, I was especially interested in having these people released.
My personal connections to the Prague Archbishop were correct and amicable. The Archbishop, Archbishop von Olmitz, specifically thanked me for my intervention on behalf of the Church, and this is a point that I distinctly remember.
I prevented any measure which would have presented the Jews from practicing their religion. Up until the time I left in the autumn of 1941, every synagogue was open.
QIn connection with the last point, I should like to put one more question about the position of Jews in the Protectorate. What can you tell us about the position of Jews there?
A The legal position of the ews had to be coordinated with the position of the Jews in the Reich, on instructions from Berlin.
The directions along thisline had been sent to me already in April of 1939. Through all sorts of inquiries addressed to Berlin, I tried and succeeded in not having the laws go into effect until June of 1939, and I did that so that in that way I could give the Jews the opportunity of preparing themselves for the imminent introduction and establishment of these laws.
The so-called Nurnberg Laws were introduced into the Protectorate. In this way, the Jews were removed from public life and kept from holding leading positions in the economic life. However, arrests on a large did not take place. There were no excesses, except in very few single instances. The camp at Theresienstadt was not erected until long after my time of office, and the erection of concentration camps in the Protectorate was something that I prevented.
QThe Czech Prosecution is accusing you of carrying through measures opposed to the Jews. They are accusing you personally with the fact that first of all, you charged the autonomous Czech Government with the carrying through of the anti-Jewish laws, and that when Minister President Elias refused to do that, you personally took steps.
AAs I have already said, the introduction of the laws concerning Jews came about at Hitler's direct order, and through the competent authorities in Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. von Luedinghausen, why do you want to go over all this again? The defendant has given the evidence that he succeeded in putting off the laws until June 1939, and that then the Nurnberg laws were introduced. He has given us the various qualifications which hr says he made, and then you read him the Czech report and try to get him to go over it all again, it seems to me. It is now 11:45.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:All right, then, I shall desist from asking any further questions and consider the first answer sufficient, and we shall not deal with the matter of confiscation either. BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
QThe Czech Prosecution is fur her accusing you of the dissolution of the organizations of the YMCA and YWCA, and the confiscation of the property in favor of German organizations.
A I must admit that I do not recall those confiscations at all.
If this confiscationand dissolution took place before I left, it must have been a police measure that was involved.
QThe Czech Prosecution furthermentions the destruction of Czech economic life, and the systematic plundering of Czech raw material supplies, and accuses you in that regard. Will you please deal with that matter.
AWith the establishment of the Projectorate, the Czech economy almost automatically was incorporated into the total German economy. Export, for which Czech industries had worked to a considerable degree, was done away with because of the war, and that meant that export transformed itself into export to the Reich.
The Czech heavy industries, specifically the Skod a Works and the Bruenner munitions industry, were taken ad direct war industries through the Plenipotentiary of the Four Year plan, and they were incorporated into German armament.
At the beginning I especially tried to avoid the selling out of the Protectorate, which would have been hard on the population. An effective means for thatwas the maintaining of the tariff boundaries and customs boundaries which existed between Czechoslovakia and Germany. After heated conflicts with the Berlin Economy Department, I succeeded in having the customs and tariff barrier, which was rescinded on the 16th of March, 1939, maintained up until October, 1940, for another year and a half.
I believe I am also accused of the fact that I was responsible for the transporting off of raw materials and matters of that kind, and in that connection I should like to say that the office of the Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan wasthe only decisive office.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:In this connection, I should like to refer to the decree which has already been submitted, the decree dated the 16th of March, 1939, No. 144 of my Document Book No. 5. In this decree, I should like to call special attention to Article 9. BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
QYou are further charged with the fact that the currecny ratio from kronen to marks wasten to one, for in this way the Czechoslovakian state could have been brought up. Are you responsible for the establishing of this ratio?
A No. In this decree of th 16th of March, 1939, which dealt with the general set up in theProtectora --a decree in whose drafting or setting up I was in no way active--it is shut down that the currency rates would be determined by the Reich Government.
As far as I know, the same ratio and rate applied before the incorporation of the Sudetenland into the Reich as well as afterwards. This rate was the customary one at the stock exchange, no an Official rate had to be determined, of course. This decree which I have mentioned established that rate, and it was done by the authorities in Berlin.
Q In this connection I should also like to refer to the decree which was just mentioned, dated 16 March, 1939, which is found under figure 144 of my document book number 5. I should like to call your attention especially to Article 10 which sets forth the ratio as applying to currency in Czechoslovakia and German currency.
That is a matter which, it states, will be determined by the Reich Government.
The Czech report further accuses you of the fact that allegedly railroad ties were taken to the German Reich after the gages had been set right. Do you know anything about this matter?
AI know nothing about this matter and it is something that I consider a mistake. I know only that in the year 1940, between the German Reich Bank and the Czech railroads there were negotiations about the exchange for purposes of borrowing and on remuneration, that there were negotiations to have rolling stock exchanged but the stipulation and the condition in this case would be that this would be rolling stock which could be dispensed with in the protector things that were not needed in the protectorate.
However, these matters were not in my jurisdiction in the protectorate but these orders were subordinate to the Traffic and Communication Ministry in Berlin.
QI should like to refer to Article 8 of the decree which I have just mentioned, a decree which is found under 144 of my document book 5. It is further asserted that the Reich Commissar at the Prague National Bank got payment abroad and confiscated foreign currency and gold.
Did you have anything to do with this rather?
AI had nothing at all to do with these matters. The Reich had a considerable interest in getting a firm foothold in the economic life of the protectorate. However, this was something which applied long before the establishment of the protectorate. Therefore, it was not strange that the large German banks used the opportunity to acquire Czech stocks and securities and in this way the controlling interest in two Czech banks together with their industrial holdings were transferred to German hands in a manner which was quite correct economically.
I believe the Union Bank is mentioned in the Czech report, a bank which was taken over by the Deutche Bank and I know in this case quite coincidentally that the initiative did not originate with the Deutche Bank, the German Bank, but rather from the Union Bank, the Czech Bank.
Neither I nor my agencies tried to foster this development in any way and apart from that, these enterprises had mostly Czech directors and in very few cases were, there German officials incorporated and the largest part of most businesses before and after remained Czech.
QHow about the so-called coercive measures used against Czech agricultu Can you tell us about this? Tell us about your attitude, about the measures you took.
AThis chapter belongs to the pattern of plans of the party and SS with the purpose of Germanizing -- something which we have already mentioned. The instrument of this German settlement policy was to be centered in the Czech Soil Office (Bodenamt), which was a Czech office and which dated back to the time of the Czech agrarian reform period. The Soil Office (Bodenamt) first of all was assigned SS Fuehrer by Himmler.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal does not want to know all the details about this. The Czech report apparently alleges coercion in agriculture. The defendant says it was due, if any, to the party and the SS and he had nothing to do with it.
What is the object of his giving us all these details about the history of agriculture in Czechoslovakia? You must realize the Tribunal -
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:Mr. President, I just wanted to deal with the Bodenamt which became, after many fights, active in a National Socialist way and many new officials were put in. It was my purpost to stress that point.
Mr. President, I should like to remark on one thing. I mentioned yesterday that my examination in chief would perhaps last another hour but yesterday, when I left the session, I found another document book to the Indictment which forced me to deal with same additional questions and for this reason, a reason which I could not predict, I will have to take additional time.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal hasnot taken up the question of time at the moment.
Why do you have to go into -- I do not know what the word is at the moment "amt" -- agriculture?
He said he had nothing to do with it.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:Yes, in a way he was connected with it, Mr. President, in this way, insofar as the agricultural interests -
THE PRESIDENT:If he was connected with it let him explain it. I thought he said the party and the SS had done it.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:Through and via the Soil Office (Bodenamt) and he tried to prevent this. BY DR. VONLUEDINGHAUSEN:
QPerhaps you can tell us briefly about this Mr. von Neurath.
AI believe, according, to the statement of the President, it is almost superfluous to make any further statement. I had no connection with the Bodenamt. I only prevailed and made my influence felt so that a rather unpleasant man who belonged to the SS was removed.
QDuring your time as Reich Protector was there any forced or compulsory transportation of labor to the Reich?
ANo, In this connection I shall try to be brief also.
Compulsory labor did not exist while I was in the protectorate. There was an emergency service order which was given out by the protectorate government. This applied to younger men, men who had to work in the protectorate to do the necessary labor. But the enforced and compulsory sending off of workers into the Reich, that was something which did not take place during my 25 June M LJG 6-1a time.
But many young people volunteered to work in Germany for labor conditions and wages were bettor in the Reich at that time than in the protectorate.
QAnd this is my last question.
How about your resigning from office, your leaving the Reich protectorate office, how did that come about?
AFirst of all I should like to say and tell you why I remained as long as I did. Despite all the things that took place and despite all the difficulties, the reason for my remaining as long as I did was that I was convinced and I am convinced of this today, I was convinced of the fact that I had to stay as long as I could reconcile with my conscience the fact that by remaining I could prevent that this country, which was entrusted to Germany, would be prevented from being turned over to the dominance and rule of the SS. Everything which took place after my departure in '41, the many things that happened to the country, I prevented all of this through my presence there and oven if my activities were limited and my sphere of influence was limited I believe the fact that I remained I thus served not only my own people and my own country out the Czech people as well and even today, under the same circumstances, I would not act any differently.
Apart from this I believed and especially in time of war that I should leave such a tremendously difficult and tremendously important office only in the case of last report. The crow of a ship does not go below dock and twiddle its thumbs while the ship is in danger.
That I could not comply with the wishes of the Czech people one hundred per cent, that everyone will have to understand and appreciate, anyone who at one time or another had been forced to be active politically and not only in theory. I believe because of my remaining and through my perseverance in office I prevented much suffering and much misery, misery and suffering which descended on the Czech people after I left. This opinion of mine was shared by many circles of the Czech population as 25 June M LJG 6-2a I could gather from the many, many letters which were addressed to me from the Czech people.
QAnd how did it come about that you laid down your office?
AOn the 23 September, 1941, I received a telephone call from Hitler asking me to come to headquarters immediately. There he told me that I was being too mild and lenient with the Czechs and that this state of affairs could not continue. He told me that he had decided to introduce rather sharp measures against the Czech resistance movement and for this purpose the notorious Obergruppenfuehrer H eydrich would be sent to Prague. I tried very energetically to dissuade him from this. However, I was not successful. Thereupon I asked for my resignation, since I told him I could never be responsible for any activity of Heydrich's in Prague. Hitler refused my resignation, he turned it down. However, he did grant me one thing, that I could go on leave. I flow to Prague and on the following day I continued on my journey to my home. At the same hour that I left Prague Heydrich arrived.
I then, from my home, wrote to Hitler and again asked for my immediate resignation. In spite of the fact that I did not receive any answer I again put in another request and explained at the same time that under no circumstances would I return to Prague; that I lad dissolved my office and I refused to act in the future and from now on as Reich Protector. Only in October 1943 was I relieved of my office.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:Mr. President, I should like to conclude my examination in chief with a brief quotation from the Czech indictment.
THE PRESIDENT:Your going on leave, was that made public?
THE WITNESS:Yes.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:Yes, I was just going to quote that, Mr. President.
In the text of the Czech Indictment it says:
"And including the second half of September, the underground Czech revolt committees, with the help of BBC, have executed a 25 June M LJG 6-3a successful boycott against the German press.
The German authorities seized the opportunity to aim a tremendous blow at the German population. On the 27th of September, 1941, radio station Prague gave out the following report:
'Reich minister Baron von Neurath, Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia has found it necessary to ask the fuehrer for a long leave in order to restore his impaired health.'" Then in conclusion it says:
"Under these circumstances the Fuehrer agreed with the request of the Reich Protector and charged Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich with the leadership of the office of Reich P rotector of Bohemia and Moravia during the time of the illness of Mr. von Neurath."
Mr. President, in this way I should like to conclude my examination in chief of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT : From September 1941 until October 1943, did you live on your own estates, or what?
THE WITNESS:Yes, Mr. President.
DR. VON LEUDINGHAUSEN:Mr. President, I have concluded my examination in chief.
THE PRESIDENT:The Court will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT:Do any of the defendants' Counsel with to ask any questions? BY DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for defendant vonPapen):
QIs it known to you that immediately after Germany left the League of Rations, Von Papen followed Hitler to Munich to persuade him to remain in the League of Nations?
AYes, that is known to me. In fact, I was the cause of his doing so.
QDid von Papen during the time he was Vice Chancellor in 1933 and 1934 talk against unfriendly acts in the cabinet, in respect to German policy towards Austria, as for instance, the introduction of the 1,000 mark frontier bar? Did he object to it?
AYes, he and other ministers, and, of course, I myself continuously pursued that line.
QDid Hitler talk to you about this, and did he talk about the fact that Papen's attitude in the Austrianproblem was one of the causes for Hitler's giving him the mission in Vienna after the murder of Dollfuss?
AYes, Hitler did speak about this.
QDid Hitler discuss with you the reasons for which he addressed the letter of 26th April 1934 to Papen in which he announced the fact that Papen would to sent to Austria?
AYes, but the way it happened was as follows: When Hitler told me about his intention to send Papen to Vienna, I reminded him that to make it possible for Him to exert any influence, he should first of all, after the events of 30 June, clear up the relationship between himself--Hitler--and Papen, and clear it up publicly. That, I think, was the cause of the letter which has been read out in this Court.
Q In 1937 you paid a visit to the Austrian government, during which there were demonstrations.
Were you and von Papen surprised by those demonstrations, and were they in the sense in which you felt?
AThe demonstrations were completely surprising, especially because of their tremendous size. They certainly did not please me, because they case a shadow on my discussions with Schuschnigg.
QThen, the last question: Before Schleicher's government was formed there was on 2 December 1932 a meeting of the cabinet. The day before Papen had been given orders by Hindenburg to send the Parliament on leave and to form a new government. Is it correct that Papen referred this matter to the Cabinet and that Schleicher, as Minister for the Armed Forces, made a statement to the effect that this would lead to civil war and that the armed forces were too weak to prevent such a civil war?
A Yes, I remember very accurately how these things happened. We were all somewhat surprised about Schleicher's statement.
However, it was so well founded, or so well reasoned about, that one had to assume itas being correct.
DR. KUBUSCHOK:Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Do any other defendant's counsel wish to ask questions?
(No response)
The prosecution?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
QAt the time about which Dr. Kubuschok has just been asking you, in the second half of 1932, did you know that President von Hindenburg, the defendant von Papen, and General von Schleicher were discussing and considering very hard what would be the best method of dealing with the Nazi Party?
ANo. As I have already testified, I had no connection in that respect. I knew absolutely nothing about all these negotiations.
QI want to make it clear, I am not suggesting you were in the negotiations. But didn't you know that the problem as to how to deal with the Nazi Party was exercising the minds of the President, the defendant, von Papen, and General von Schleicher; it was very urgent in their minds?
AYes, I knew that, of course.
QAgain, don't think, defendant, that I am suggesting that you were in the negotiations. You may take it--well, I will make all the suggestions perfectly clear.
You knew that, in the end, the method which commended itself to President von Hindenburg, to the defendant von Papen, and to General von Schleicher was that thereshould be a government with Hitler as Chancellor, but well brigaded by conservative elements, in harness with conservative elements; thatwas the plan that was ultimately resolved on? You knew that much, I suppose, didn't you?
AYes, but the plan was not quite like that. At that time, the time you are talking about, there was only mention of the fact that the necessity existed to bring the Nazi Party into the Government.
A But eventually, when the Nazi Party came in, on 30 January 1933, the plan was that it would be well harnessed to conservative lements.
That was the idea in President von Hindenburg's mind, was it not?
AYes.
QAnd you were one of the conservative and stable elements, if I understand you rightly, isn't that so?
AYes.
QAnd you were one of the conservative and stable elements, if I understand you rightly, isn't that so?
AYes. It has been explained that it was the special wish of the President, von Hindenburg, that I should remain in the government.
QIn order to keep Hitler's government peace-loving and respectable. Is that a fair way of putting it?
AYes, so as to prevent revolutionary movements, headed by Hitler, from exercising their methods toe much within the government.
QDefendant, you have told us that up to this time you had been a diplomatist. When you became a Minister, did you not think that you had some responsibility for keeping the government respectable and peace-loving as a Minister of the Reich?
AYes, but the question is, how much power did I have to see it through?
QI don't want to go into the workings of your mind too much, but I just want to get this clear. You realized, as a foreign minister, and as a well-known figure to all the Chancelleries of Europe, that your presence in the government would be taken throughout Europe as a sign of your approval and your responsibility for what the government did, did you not?
AI doubt that very much. Perhaps one might have hoped so.
QWell now, let's consider it. Is it your case that up to November of 1937 you were perfectly satisfied with the peace-loving intentions and respectability of the government?
AI was convinced of the peaceful intentions of the government. I have already stated that.
QWhat about raspectability? By "respectability" I mean the general standard of decency that is required by any government, under which its people are going to be reasonably happy and contented.
Were you satisfied with that?
AI was by no means satisfied by the methods, particularly as far as the policy in the interior was concerned.
QWell, I would just like to look at that for a moment. Did you know about the "Brown Terror" in March of 1933, some six weeks after the government was formed?
AI only knew of the boycott against the Jews, nothing else.
QDo you remember the affidavit that has been put in evidence here, made by the American Consul, Mr. Geist, document 1759-PS, United States Exhibit 420?
AI shall have to see it.
Q Just let me remind you. It is a long affidavit, and there are only one or two parts I want to put to you.
Mr. Geist gives detailed particulars of the bad treatment, the beating, the assaulting, the insulting, and so on, of Jews as early as March 1933. Did you know about that?
AI know of events; I don't know the affidavit, I haven't seen it. I do knowof the events, however, from complaints made by foreign diplomatic representatives. I repeatedly accosted Hitler with regard to these events, asking him to stop them. I do not know any further details.
QJust leaving that affidavit for the moment, as foreign Minister you did receive, did you not, a synopsis or an account of what was appearing in the foreign press?
AYes, that I did, but whether I got all those things then I do not know.
QJust let me take an example. You had been Ambassador at the Court of St. James from 1930 to 1932, if my recollection is correct, had you not?
AYes.
QAnd you realized -- whether you agreed with what was in them or net -- that the London Times and the Manchester Guardian were newspapers that had a great deal of influence in England, didn't you?
AYes.
QDid you know that in April of 1933 both these newspapers were full of the most terrible stories of the ill treatment of Jews, Social Democrats, and Communists in Germany?
AThat is possible. I cannot remember the date, but these were just the cases which I brought up before Hitler, drawing his attention to how countries abroad were receiving these things.
QWell, I just want to consider the extent to which these papers were making allegations. As early as the 12th of April, 1933, the Manchester Guardian was saying:
"The inquirer by digging only an inch below the surface, which to the casual observer may seem tranquil enough, will, in city after city, village after village, discover such an abundance of barbarism committed by the Brown Shirts that modern analogies fail."
It described them as "instruments of a terror that although wanton is systematic -- wanton in the sense that unlike a revolutionary terror it is imposed by no outward necessity, and systematic in the sense that it is an organic part of the Hitler regime."
Did you know that this, and quotations like this, were appearing in responsible British papers?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is D-911, which is a collection of extracts, and, with Mr. Wurms' affidavit, will be GB-512. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
QDid you know that was the line that was being taken, that it was systematic in the sense of being an organic part of the Hitler regime?
ANo, certainly not in that sense.
QDid you know that the British pap er, the Manchester G uardian, was quoting: "An eminent German conservative, who is in close touch with the Nationalist members of the German Government, and certainly more sympathetic to the right than to the left, has given the number of victims as being as many as 20,000 in April"? Did you know that, that the figure was being put that high?
ANo, nor do I believe it.
QWell, let us see what the German press was saying.
On the 24th of April, 1933, the Times was quoting the Hamburger Fremdenblatt, which, in turn, was invoking official sources and stating that there were 18,000 Communists in prison in the Reich and that the 10,000 prisoners in Prussia included many social intellectuals and others.
Would the Hamburger Fremdenblatt have had a very long career as a newspaper if it misquoted official sources under your government in April 1933, misrepresented the position? It would not, would it?
AThat I don't know, but I do know that a lot of stupid things were committed by meansof figures.
QBut defendant, here is a figure quoted, as far as I know, by a responsible Hamburg paper, as an official figure, and requoted by the London Times, which is the principal paper in England.