1947-04-15, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 15 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.

Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in the court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in court with the exception of the defendant Rose who was excused by the Tribunal yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Rose, who is excused in order to spend the day consulting with his counsel.

The Tribunal desires to announce that when a recess is taken tomorrow at 12:30 o'clock the Tribunal will not reconvene until ten minutes after 10:00 o'clock on Thursday morning. There will be no session of the Tribunal tomorrow afternoon.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. FRANZ BORKENAU — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers):

Q: Witness, I remind you that you are still today under oath. At the conclusion of yesterday afternoon's session you briefly told us when you made Friedrich Hielscher's acquaintance and for what reasons you established a close contact with him. My question is, did you clearly realize Hielscher's attitude toward the National Socialism at that time—that was around 1930?

A: I don't think Hielscher at that time took the Nazis very seriously, as in fact few people did. I think he regarded Hitler as a mountebank, almost as a sort of a harlequin. His whole interest at that time was concentrated upon Italian Fascism, and that was just one of the reasons why I got so interested in and that he was violently hostile to Italian Fascism in all its aspects. That, of course, was exceptional because practically everybody of the right had at least some mild sympathy for Mussolini, and Hielscher made definite an exception on all grounds. First of all, I must say he was very much opposed to big business and to large landed property, and he regarded Italian Fascism as an agent of these social forces. Also he was opposed to the whole atmosphere, to the whole spirit of the thing. I remember if I may just give one incident-I remember on the evening when when the news came through of that miserable failure of that grandiloquent North Polo expedition of General Nobile, and I and one or two of my friends were sitting together with Hielscher and, I believe, one of his friends somewhere-perhaps a beer garden I don't remember exactly — they were just exalted about that failure and about the blow it was to Fascist prestige.

Well, from 1931 onwards Nazism of course started to become important, and we talked about it a few times—we met in 1931—and Hielscher was getting more and more bitter about the prospect of that sort of thing getting important in Germany. Now there is one talk, in fact, the last time we met—I met him again in 1945—the last time I met him before Hitler—they must have been the beginning of September 1332, perhaps it was the end of August: I was with my friend Loewental who is now at Router's. Incidentally, I should say one of the reasons why Hielscher could never have any truck with National Socialism was his definite friendliness with Jews. I myself am a case in point and so is Richard Loewental whom I just mentioned. And as far as I know that I know only indirectly—he had quite a close contact with Martin Bober, a well-known Zionist philosopher.

I could give a number of other instances about that if that should be necessary.

Well, to come back to that talk in 1932. It was just towards the end of the Papen regime, and we discussed of course the prospects of that. He being very definite that that thing could not stand, that that thing would not last, that it had no basis. I remember that we were very eager to get details about his views. He drew out of his cupboard a list of the members of the Harren club which was then the real power behind the scene. We saw that, and he said something like, "Well, now look at that crowd", and, "Do you think that cant last?" Now, starting from that assumption he insisted that he was certain that in the very near future now National Socialism would win. That made a deep impression upon me because I had taken in a public debate which went through political periodicals and so on. I had taken a very definite stand on the opposite side.

I was still convinced at that time, in September 1932, that Nazism would not win, and at that time and in that talk we had a long argument about it. I don't remember the details. I suppose I said what I always said then, and I have already given his main argument; and then the talk turned to the methods to combat national socialism, and that point of the talk is the reason why I offered myself to Dr. Weisgerber as a witness, because in that part of our talk, then, Hielscher developed precisely the methods which were, as I understand it now, carried out by Sievers. Of course, we were all very interested in problems of underground work on the Left as much as on the Right, in view of the possibility of a coming dictatorship; and, in fact, there was at that time, and also later, a strong disagreement between my friend Loewenthal and myself; because I at that time was still believing in a sort of an idea of a mass underground resistance on quasi-democratic lines, even under a dictatorship; and the problem was whether that was possible, whether under a totalitarian regime of the Italian type, which then was the set pattern still, but, of course, under the assumption that a Nazi dictatorship in Germany would be even much more cruel and more thorough than Mussolini's dictatorship, whether under such conditions, some kind of organized underground mass resistance would be the right principle, or whether for quite a long time the main task would be to work from within the core of the Nazi machine. I remember that discussion particularly well, as I say, because that really was not only an argument between Hielscher and us two boys from the Left, but because Loewental and myself had debated that point — I don't know how many times; and new suddenly Hielscher without knowing it, hit our problem directly, so we sat there, not saying much or really saying very little, because it was already an atmosphere where discussing underground techniques on a possibly near future — one wouldn't say more than was necessary and also Hielscher did not mention any names. In fact if he had I think we should have been done with him, because that would have shown an utter lack of seriousness, but he pointed out one thing to us, which was highly interesting then, just as a piece of information.

He pointed out the extreme importance of the SS which was still a relatively small body, after all until the Roehm Putsch of 1934, rather the Roehm massacre, it was the SA which was the most interesting to the public; but Hielscher pointed out he had contacts — he proved to be well informed — he pointed out that the SA was not the important thing but that the SS was the real core, and in that connection he mentioned the importance of Himmler, who then probably, I don't remember, was known to me from an occasional notice in the papers, but certainly was not the personality he grew to be later. Now Hielscher developed a two-pronged idea: the only possible attack upon a compact totalitarian regime was working within the highest attainable stratum of that regime, and he predicted the core of it would be mainly the SS; and then he said quietly: "Well I am pushing as many people as I can as high up as possible in the SS machine," Of course, we didn't discuss the details. I only remember — skeptical as I was about the whole assumption of a Nazi victory — despite that skepticism, I remember my feeling of envy, thinking: "Well, of course, if we on the left had those contacts and could push people up that way, that would be a fine thing, but we haven't."

At the same time I kept my basic reserve on both points, the first on the question of a victory of Nazism and, second, on Hielscher's views about the impossibility of overthrowing such a regime by mass pressure. Now, when in January 1933, Hitler came to power, and the mass movement went smash, and within a year it was easy to see that most of these underground movements attempting to work among the masses also went smash — well, this would of course be a long story, describing all the accumulating evidence about the impossibility of developing any type of mass resistance to a regime of the Nazi type. Then, in retrospect, that talk with Hielscher assumed quite different proportions in my mind.

Q: Now during this very important conversation that you had with Hielscher, the details of which you so well remember, took place in the fall of 1932?

A: It was my last holiday I spent in Berlin.

Q: You were surprised at the very sharp attitude and the very precise method of combatting the danger as Hielscher described it to you?

A: Well, if you mean by "Scharfe Einstellung" — "sharp attitude", Hielscher's hostility to Nazism, that did not surprise me at all, after knowing him four years, that was a matter of course, and that we shouldn't have talked confidentially with him if we hadn't been sure of that; but it made me think a lot at the time, and it impressed me deeply afterwards, that somebody had said with such perfect assurance what was going to come, what he was going to do, and made his measures well in advance; and I may add, that in the light of all disasters of various underground groups, which have cost the lives of several of my close friends, I grew increasingly impressed with that feat of conspiratorial technique, and conspiratorial technique assumes gigantic proportions in the fight against a dictatorship and pushes somewhat back proper political considerations in the democratic sense; and when I learned that practically not a man had been killed of that organization, I thought that was ready the hundred percent maximum of what an underground organization could achieve. Now that, of course, I learned only when I returned to Germany, but I do trace it back — I do trace it back to this correct prognosis and timely preparation of measures.

Q: Doctor, what did you find out about Hielscher and his activities during your voluntary emigration, which you began in 1933?

A: I had of course contact with people who had stayed in Germany and then as underground workers, who could no longer continue, went out to London where I lived, in particular again. Dr. Lowental, who of course knew about Hielscher. And when he came out for the last time, I believe in 1935, I asked him, "So, what about Hielscher?" Of course, not only about him but about dozens of people, but also about Hielscher. "Oh, Hielscher continues not saying much about what he does but saying a lot of what he thinks of Hitler and the Nazis". Then, after the ropes tightened news ceased. Only during the War we had a false rumor that he had escaped to China, and that was the last. And I really thought either he was dead or he was in Chunking; except that after 20th July, after the attempt on Hitler's life, a few of us who knew him once asked, "Well, if he is alive he has certainly been in it." That, of course, was guess work. That was not based on any news. Until I met him again when I returned —

Q: Doctor, after you returned to Germany, did you find that your judgment, respectively views abroad, about Hielscher was confirmed in any way?

I met Hielscher again, or more exactly I ran into him in the office of the Dean of Philosophical Faculty at Marburg. He had thinned so much, he had physically decayed so that I didn't recognize him. Then when he happened to mention his name we nearly fell into each other's arms out of pleasure that we were still alive and from that time onwards, as we now both lived in Marburg, we had numerous and close contacts ranging over every imaginable subject. But, before I really decided to allow a personal intimacy to develop, though I really had little doubt in my mind about the man, I took references, and I found out that the man who knew the most was Professor Reiler in Marburg, theologian, and I really don't know whether the technical head but the leading man of the Una Sancta, evangelical church movement in Germany, and Heiler is a Christian pacifist and through the Confessional Church and through a Church paper he issued he carried out active resistance throughout the regime.

Now Heiler had a long tale about Hielscher, and the two main points were that he, Heiler, had cooperated with Hielscher under the Nazis since Hielscher was in Marburg, that he had helped Hielscher to go to Sweden and take up contacts with the allies, especially English contacts with Bishop of Chichester. That was one thing. So he just testified to the continued underground activities of Hielscher, and secondly, he told me about his arrest after 20th July and about Hielscher's repeated floggings which explained to me his really rather sad and frightening looks, and that, despite this repeated torture had not denounced anybody. Now, If I may say only one thing about Hielscher's development and his political opinions as I found them now: The point which created a continued sharp disagreement between us had disappeared, that was the question of the Prussian tradition. Hielscher who has had an education in a typical Prussian University fraternity was a very strong Prussian when we knew one another before Hitler. Under the experiences of Nazidom Hielscher has become an extreme Federalist of the Pan European version maintained that he sees no use for any kind of Germany as a whole in a wider European framework but that the individual regions of Germany should be directly integrated into some Pan European organization so that not only Prussia but also Germany as a State would be superfluous. That, of course, in his case is founded on very strong views about decentralization in general. He had always been an adversary of large towns and large industries. I don't follow him on that point and his view about political federalization hangs together — belongs to his views about industrial and demographic decentralization. Any any rate the political disagreement which made us look at one another before Hitler as two fellows who could agree on many thing but not on essentials, had partly vanished because he had leaned under Nazism what Prussian traditions and authoritarianism meant in practice and in its effect.

Q: Doctor, after you returned to Germany you saw it confirmed that Hielscher had taken up the fight against the National Socialist regime until the very end without going into any compromise?

A: Yes, I have heard that.

Q: One final question. You got acquainted with Hielscher personally from the time before your immigration and from the time you returned to Germany. Is it now your opinion that this man, this fighter against National Socialism, would stand up for person of whom he is not confined that he was waging that very fight with the same definite attitude and was his follower in this fight against the National Socialist's regime?

A: With respect to that may I say a work to what Hielscher told me about the death of his father, who was, according to what he told me, an old Silesian peasant, and who gave to his son as his dying wish, knowing about Hielscher's underground work, that he should kill as many Nazis as he could get. Also I know that Hielscher out of a feeling of shame of the ignominy which Hitler and Naziism have brought over Germany is filled with thirst, if I may say blood-thirsty, hatred of the Nazis, and the very idea that he could try to shield any of these boys would seem absurd to me from all I could gather over the now nineteen years of our acquaintance. Of course, there was —

Q: Now, if Dr. Hielscher stands up for anyone person he would only choose somebody who has followed him in his fight with full faithfulness.

A: I am sure of that.

Q: Mr. President, I have no further questions.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: Doctor, was this Hielscher Resistance Movement, about which you speak, merely a secret movement which confined itself only or largely to debate, to oral discussion, to perhaps secret dissemination of literature and arguments against the regime, or was it an actual physical, organized movement with leaders, arms, ammunition, and supplies prepared under an organized plan of attack to liquidate the Nazi leaders and to take over the Government?

A: I was never a member of that organization, for reason of basic political differences if no other.

Q: Can you say how many people were members of this Hielscher Resistance Movement?

A: No. I couldn't. No such details were ever given in talks with outsiders, I am quite sure, I can answer one thing, they certainly didn't issue publications.

Q: Even secret publications?

A: That was just the point that those things could not reach anybody effectively and only help the Gestapo, to trace people.

Q: Can you say what happened to the Hielscher movement after Hitler came to power?

A: Well if — may I just come back to your previous question? which I haven't answer completely, if I may so concerning the question whether he had a strict organized group, I think his circle of friends was fairly compact before the Nazis and they developed together, and from all I could gather from his own details, from talks of a number of his friends whom I know now, from Hieler's accounts, they had he, of course, was the man who ran the thing. He had a number of leaders and he had a strictly organized group. Also, I assume the problem of weapons did not arise when you were in the SS — access to weapons was not the problem, and it would have been for a group, from the left. That is was not a question of persuading people I am quite convinced, because on the contrary the difficulty was that you could only move more or less free among people who were persuaded and the task was not persuasion but action-overthrow of the regime.

Q: And you say, however that you know nothing that was actually done in a physical way to overthrow the regime? You say however, that of your own knowledge you know nothing; that was actually done to overthrow the regime — I am talking about in a practical physical way either action or preparations, as distinguished from emotions, or feelings, or debates, or discussions about the matter?

A: Here I can only answer from what I heard since my return but I do not base myself, on what Hielscher told me but on what Heiler told me who is a different opinion and he said, Hielscher had positively approached him directly on the question of killing Hitler.

Q: Let us assume that a man who espoused the principles of this resistance movement could work himself into the high circles of the Nazi Government for the purpose, let us assume, of securing vital information. What information could he impart to the leaders of this so-called resistance movement that could be used by the resistance movement to practical advantage in actually, physically overthrowing and replacing its leaders?

A: I think if such a man were sufficiently high in the ranks of the Nazi movement he could impart every kind of necessary information and nothing well timed and well conceived could be done with such information.

Q: But the organization of the resistance movement, as you actually knew it from your own knowledge, let us assume, that there was within the high ranks of the Wehrmacht, the Government of the SS, a man who had accessibility to all information, what could this Hielscher Resistance Movement had done with it in using it to practical advantage in actually bringing about a reasonably quick liquidation of Nazi leaders or overthrow of the then existing Nazi regime.

A: Starting from the assumption that the immediate aim was killing Hitler —

Q: Starting from the immediate assumption that the immediate aim was to overthrow the government and to replace the government with some type of government that the group felt was more acceptable for the German people.

A: The first step of such an overthrow would be the killing of Himmler and Hitler. Then you would need a man, high up in the ranks, for information on the political and on the technical side. On the technical side you would have to have a man who really know something about the movements of Himmler and Hitler, about the way they were protected, about the people who would haver to eliminated or who were to have been pushed into the presence of the men to have been killed; about potential friends and enemies of such an enterprise; and, I should say, almost even more important—killing is nothing if it is not politically well times, and in order to time it well you had to have a clear idea of the whole political and military situation.

Q: And also you have to be able, upon the death of the victim, to seize the reins of government and to establish a well organized government in accordance with your precepts and principles, is that not true?

A: I think so. — I think so. I think the question of the formation of a government, as far as I can gather now, after my return, was not the prime concern of Hielscher, because it was in different hands. There was the Goerdeler combination which had a government more or less ready but with which Hielscher disagreed because he was opposed to big business and large scale landed property and regarded that government as a government which would be largely dependent on those groups.

Q: How long have you known the defendant Sievers?

A: I did not know Sievers at all.

Q: I see.

A: Nor was any name mentioned to me except the name of Plaas, one of Hielcher's friends, whom I mentioned repeatedly together with him. As I said already, I should not have taken him seriously if he had divulged names and numbers.

Q: Then you are not in a position to know, of your own knowledge, that Sievers was an active member of this resistance movement?

A: No, I could not testify to that.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you any further questions, counsel? I am addressing counsel for Defendant Sievers.

DR. WEISGERBER: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions on the part of defense counsel of this witness? There being none, the Prosecution may cross-examine.

MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused from the stand.

(Witness Borkenau leaves the stand.)

DR. WEISGERBER: I now ask the High Tribunal to permit me to call the witness, Dr. Topf.

THE PRESIDENT: The marshal will summon the witness Erwin Topf.

ERWIN TOPF, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

You will raise your right hand and take the oath, repeating after me:

I swear by God, the Almighty and Ominscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath.)

You may be seated.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. WEISGERBER:

Q: Witness, your name is Dr. Erwin Topf?

A: Yes.

Q: You were born 22 December 1898, at Meiningen?

A: Yes.

Q: Your present residence is Hamburg-Volksdorf, and your profession is editor?

A: Yes.

Q: From 1926 to 1936 you were the editor of the Berliner Tageblatt?

A: Yes.

Q: For what reason did leave that newspaper?

A: Work in the press after 1933 had become increasingly unpleasant from a subjective point of view did not bring me any gain. Every expression of free opinion and very possibility of voicing even an indirect critique was prevented to an increasing extent. It seemed senseless to remain in a position which, after 1933, was considered by me to be important and important for the future. In the case of the Berliner Tageblatt in particular the danger existed that this newspaper would be changed into a National Socialist sheet or that it would be stopped entirely. As a matter of fact, shortly after my departure, the chief editor, Paul Schaeffer, who employed me and who supported me in every way, was dismissed from his position and was later sent to America as a foreign correspondent. A year later the entire publication ceased.

Q: Witness, may I ask you briefly about your political attitude? I mean the political attitude which you held before and after the year 1933?

A: Well, during my time at the university I was influenced by Socialism and in the year of 1923, standing strongly under the impression of the murder of Rathenau, went over to the social democratic party. I had a few friends at Hamburg who persuaded me to do that. I will mention their names; they were Egon Wertheimer, Franzhofen who is now a resident of the United States, a professor there, Haubach, and Mierendorf also belonged to his circle. I did not come into the foreground in the Social Democratic Party but shortly before going to the Berliner Tageblatt, in the fall of 1925, for a few months I worked with the Reichstag [Parliament] fraction of the Social Democratic Party as a scientific assistant. Being a member of that party, caused no difficulty concerning my work in the Berliner Tageblatt —

Q: Witness, I want to interrupt you. If you said "party" before you meant the Social Democratic Party?

A: Yes, that is exactly what I meant. There were no difficulties for me to collaborate with the Weltbuehne.

Q: Witness, when did you make Friedrich Hielscher's acquaintance?

A: I met Hielscher in 1928, through the mediation of a friend, Dr. Salinger, who studied with me.

Q: What did you got to know about his activity and his political attitude before and after the year of 1933?

A: Before 1933 he had to be considered as a man of the political Rights. He constituted a particular type of the Rightist conservative attitude, which was completely new to us. He had certain socialist trends without bringing about a union between the Prussian system and socialism as it was done in the sense of Oswald Spongier.

Q: Witness, the Tribunal is mainly interested in knowing whether Hielscher at that time already had had an opposing attitude towards the NSDAP?

A: During the first years of our acquaintanceship, the NSDAP played no particular role whatsoever. The NSDAP was considered as a harmless shoot of Fascism. I and any friends were interested in seeing Hielscher as a clear and definite opponent of Fascism. When Hitler and his party grow and gradually developed into a danger, it became very apparent that he was a very sharp and definite opponent of that movement. He rejected it very definitely but was also convinced about its danger, and at a very early time realized the dangers which it represented.

Q: During the time after 1933 did you regularly meet Hielscher?

A: If I remember correctly, Hielscher left Berlin shortly after 1933 and went to Meiningen, to my home town. I occasionally met him there occasionally whenever I visited my parents. At any rate I took every opportunity to speak to him and to exchange opinions with him. I estimated him and his judgment highly.

Q: Wasn't there every important conversation between you and Hielscher in the year of 1938?

A: I really do not know to what you are referring.

Q: Did not Hielscher at any time tell you that he had received a research assignment by the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage]?

A: Yes, he told me that. However, I do not believe that was in the year 1938; as far as I remember, that only occurred after the outbreak of the war. I may be mistaken — I am not absolutely certain about the date. When I heard about that research assignment it represented a severe shock to me at first. I was convinced that everyone who was a definite opponent of the Hitler regime should keep away from any close contact with any of Hitler's organizations. During that conversation, however, Hielscher convinced me that he was maintaining his proper inner attitude and that it was only for reasons of expediency that he took over this research assignment, in order to continue his work in a camouflaged way and with the help of his political followers who were also in that organization.

Q: Witness, did Hielscher make any utterances to you with reference to other resistance groups with which he collaborated?

A: Well, we are now turning to a later period of time and are now referring to the years of the war, where I visited him at every opportunity in Berlin. During those conversations I found out that he had a very extensive knowledge of what was going on in the underground movement, which we did not designate that was at that time. Myself, Haubach, Mierendorf, met the circle of Roichwein, Moltke, York, Neuschner, viz, the "Kroisauer" circle and that was spring 1941. Of course I did not tell Hielscher that I was in close contact with these people, because I was not authorized by my friends to discuss these matters with anyone else. But I concluded from conversations I had with Hielscher that he had an approximate knowledge of this group and that beyond that he must have had a very close contact with other circles which I then did not know about and of whose existence I only got to know after the 20th of July, when they were generally known.

Q: Witness, you had mentioned the name of Kroisau circle beforehand, and in this connection you mentioned a number of names. These were personalities who played a considerable part in the resistance movement in Germany at that time?

A: Yes. None of us know exactly how extensive really this resistance movement was. Every one of us know very few persons. All of us realized that there must be a number of opponents of the National Socialist regime who were considering what was to be done and who were preparing some action, but one could realize the entire extent of this action at that time, if I may state my opinion I must say that it was only after the capitulation that I became acquainted that close friends of mine belonged to that group. A good friend of mine, by the name of Krouzberger, at Munich, belonged to the Ministorialrat Mueonz group at the Reich Ministry of Labor. Another friend of mine, Fritz Sengor, who I met in Berlin, of the Frankfurter Zeitung and also belonged to the circle of Leuschner and beyond that was corrected with the people of —

Q: Are you speaking about the same Kreisau circle?

A: No. there were further people involved. Yes, Goerdeler, Mayor of Leipzig, that was the person I was looking for. He was intended to be the leader of the WTB office at that time.

DR. WEISGERBER: And in that connection I may draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Document Sievers Exhibit 15; which I have already submitted, where the most important members of the Kreisau circle are listed. This is Document Book 2, to be found on page 34. It is the second before the last page of that document book, where one can see the names, York, Moltke, Mierendorf, Haubach and Reichwein, which are mentioned by the witness.

Q: Now, witness, it is naturally very difficult for an outsider to gain a picture of this German Resistance Movement. One thing is noticeable, that an extraordinary reticence was maintained when voicing any names which belonged to that movement. Why was that? One could perhaps think that a conspiracy against the National Socialist regime would have to have been part of a broad basis, and that of necessity would have involved that everyone who was a member of that movement would at least know the names of a large number of other members of that movement; and my question is, why such a reticence was displayed, and secondly how were these individual groups organized within the entire Resistance movement of Germany?

A: The tactics employed was that everyone should know as few as possible members of that group by name. That really was a matter of course. There was great danger of anyone knowing too much. One had to consider that it may well have happened that any member would have been forced to testify before a national socialist agency Gestapo. Everyone of us was well aware of the methods used during such interrogation. None of us could be sure of himself to the extent that when a coercion was used, or various chemical means were used such as the "truth" drug, of which existence I gained knowledge in the Reichstag’s fire process, one could not be sure that at such a moment one would not break down physically and psychologically and testify to matters which would incriminate a number of people and cause their death.

As for the second part of your question —

Q: In this connection I want to ask you another question. Is this also the reason why Hielscher mentioned no names towards you of the members of his resistance circle?

A: Certainly. It was a matter of course for me not to ask him for any names. Just as little as I asked Reichwein to give me any names. Perhaps I may mention an example, at that time he mentioned the name Stelzer, and the moment I heard Stelzer, whom I had already known for a long time, I said when he is with you I can work with you too.

Q: Witness, I have submitted a document to the Tribunal where the most important members of the group of Kreisau are mentioned, and the name of Theodor Stelzer is mentioned, who was Landrat of Schleswig-Holstein up until 1933; is that the same one?

A: Yes. He is at present president of the County of SchleswigHolstein.

Q: Witness, in the course of your journalistic activity you gained knowledge of the activity of the various parties in Germany; wasn't it an absolute necessity, prerequisite, to keep the names of the party members secret in the case of associations who were in opposition to the prevailing system of government; very often only first names or nicknames were known?

A: That may be. I really didn't feel our activity as constituting a conspiracy, but I felt at that it was a natural thing for those people who opposed National Socialism to get together, who had decided to be against it at personal risk and to see to it that simultaneously with the collapse of the regime the war would end.

Q: Witness, do you know anything about Hielscher after the 20th of July 1944?

A: When we heard the news of the event on the 21st of July in the morning I naturally had reason to feel that Hielscher would be incriminated in that connection. I endeavored to gain certainty about it, and I therefore wrote to his sister, who was married and residing at Frankfurt on the Main, and whose address,1 got from him when visiting him on an earlier date. I didn't get any news about that until shortly before Christmas 19th, and then I suddenly received a postal card from Hielscher where he wrote that he had embarked on a journey which had lasted three months, and that he had now returned. This made it clear to me without having arranged that as a code, that he had been under arrest for three months, and had now been released. I took the next opportunity to speak to him, which occurred around the middle of January when passing through Berlin riding from the East Front to the Western Front. I had a long and very impressive conversation with him on which occasion he described to me how his arrest had come about after he had visited Stauffenberg at his flat in Bamberg. I also knew Stauffenberg beforehand. He related to me what methods were used when he was interrogated. There was physical mistreatment and his face was beaten. A strong moral pressure was exercised on him. He told me that he very soon realized that they didn't know very much about his activity, so that he once more gained courage to deny everything. He further said that his friends, who were within the party and SS organization, had sent him information into the prison which confirmed him in his attitude, and in his decision to deny everything.

DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I would suggest you take a recess. I shall require approximately ten more minutes for questioning my witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, did I understand you to say that Document Sievers 51 had been offered in evidence?

DR. WEISGERBER: Document Sievers 52 I already submitted as Sievers Exhibit No. 15.

THE PRESIDENT: I misunderstood you. I thought you referred to Document 51, which has not yet been offered in evidence. The Tribunal will recess for a few minutes.

(Thereupon a recess was taken.)