Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

the end of his letter. One need not discuss the fact that failure to strengthen a religious conception which one opposed on philosophical grounds does not constitute religious persecution. Nobody is obliged to support a religious conception. It is not permissible to direct one's attention only to excited arguments stating that a religion should not be strengthened and to disregard the conclusions from such considerations.

It is futhermore important in this connection that we received only one copy of this document, a copy which a Protestant minister by the name of Eichholz made out for himself. Whether the reproduction of the contents of Bormann's statement in this document is fully correct has not at all been proved. In any case the document in this form does not represent true evidence.

In Document 089-PS, which may be recognized as being authentic, Bormann takes indeed a very definite stand against the church. It finishes, however, and this is the only fact which should be considered for the verdict, by saying that no National Socialist teacher be reproached for teaching Christian religion and in such a case the original text of the Bible should be used; any new interpretation, comment, or taking apart of the text of the Bible is to be avoided. Therefore, Bormann, despite his previous philosophical attack against the church takes here the legal standpoint that the Christian dogma may be freely propagated. Could a more loyal action ever be expected of such a strong opponent of a doctrine?

The remaining documentary evidence does not reveal any real persecution measures either. The fact that Bormann on Hitler's order prohibited the admission of priests or of members of certain religious associations to the party and that on Hitler's order he forbade priests to be appointed to leading positions in the party in order to prevent dissensions is no religious persecution. The fact that during the war he demanded that the church make the same sacrifices as the other institutions of the State does not represent a criminal measure for religious reasons. That within the closing of many lay institutions which was to take place in order to make a better use of human reserves of the nation he strove for the closing of church institutions too; that within the limitation of the number of copies and number of pages of lay publications he wished that church publications be limited also, does not come under the provisions of Article 6 of the Charter.

[graphic]

It is true that he let himself be guided in this respect among other things also by his anti-clerical attitude. But when otherwise the same measures were taken in Germany against other institutions and other publications, too, measures which as war measures were supposed to be only temporary, one cannot speak of an actual religious persecution. Not even Bormann's participation in originating the persecution of priests has been submitted or proved at all.

It results from all documents that Bormann always adhered to the effective legal stipulations so that he, who was so eagerly intent on complying with Hitler's orders, certainly observed strictly Hitler's decree which directed at the beginning of the war that all measures against the church be discontinued.

Therefore, it may be said in conclusion that this matter, too, cannot be really cleared up despite the numerous documents presented. Documents alone do not suffice to dissipate all doubts on the case. Especially with respect to the importance and weight of Bormann's share in persecution measures against the church it seems necessary to determine Bormann's personal responsibility. Thus, this fact also remains somewhat obscure. A basis for a just determination of the amount of punishment cannot be established.

I shall not take up the time of the High Tribunal by exhibiting further details. I think that the indications I have given are sufficient to show that even the documents presented by the prosecution prove in any case only one thing with certainty, namely, that Bormann in his capacity as chief of the Party Chancellery held "as ordered by the law" an intermediary position in the clerical, secretarial dealings between the head of the Reich and the subordinate agencies and in the dealings among those subordinate agencies.

Anything else is only an assumption which has not been definitely proved, in any case not with that certainty which must seem essential for the sake of justice in order to pass a verdict in absentia and without hearing the defendant, especially with respect to the severity of the punishment. Unfortunately, a legend has been woven around Bormann's personality, his activity, and his survival. But for the sober judgment of jurists, legends are not a valid basis for a sure verdict free from any doubt.

In view of the innovation created by the Charter in the history

of law of all times and all nations in passing a final, irreversible sentence upon an absent defendant, I beg the High Tribunal to make use of its right to carry through such a procedure only after having considered the hitherto existing legal conceptions and especially when examining the case to consider the prerequisites set down in a particularly precise manner by the Russian law.

I, therefore, expressly propose, that the Tribunal decide to suspend the proceedings against the defendant Bormann until he is personally heard and can personally state his case, and that the Tribunal make no use of its right according to Article 12.

[graphic]

PRE-TRIAL INTERROGATIONS*

I. HERMANN WILHELM GOERING **

Testimony of Hermann Goering, taken at Nurnberg,
Germany, on 27 August 1945, by Colonel John H. Amen,
IGD, OUSCC. Also present: Mr. Ralph Albrecht;
OUSCC, T/4 Frederick Schnable, Interpreter.

Refusal to Take Oath Before Testifying

Q. Will you raise your right hand?

A. Before that, I want to get some instructions in law regarding which kind of law I am going to be sworn for. I would like to know whether this is only a hearing, or a regular trial or what it is.

Q. You are being interrogated, and you are being asked to be sworn, in order to tell the truth.

A. If I am accused, I can't be sworn in.

Q. You don't have to be sworn if you don't want to. You have not yet been accused of anything.

A. I am ready to tell you the truth to the best of my knowl edge.

Q. Have you any objection to being sworn then?

A. I have those objections because I don't know what my position is here now.

Q. In other words, you refuse to be sworn?

A. No, but I am ready to speak the truth to the best of my knowledge. There is another reason: I can't control the interpreter and do not know whether he interprets correctly what I say, and I could only confirm an interrogation if I was given a German record which I would sign if it was correct.

Q. Nobody has asked you to put your signature on any document.

A. Well, if that is not so, I am not forced to take an oath. I have

*Other interrogations previously published in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, but not otherwise referred to in this volume are as follows: Blomberg, Werner von: I. Supp. A, p. 1298.

Doenitz, Karl: 3150-PS, Vol. V, p. 911, D-866, Supp. A, p. 988.

Funk, Waltehr: 2828-PS, Vol. V, p. 478; 3544-PS, Vol. VI, p. 217;

3952-PS, Supp. A, p. 682; 3953-PS, Supp. A, p. 683.

Schacht, Hjalmar: 3724-PS, Vol. VI, p. 463; 3725 PS, Vol. VI, p. 464; 3726-PS, Vol. VI, p. 465; 3727-PS, Voy. VI, p. 478; 3728-PS, Vol. VÍ, p. 485; 3729-PS, Vol. VI, p. 501.

Speer, Albert: 3720-PS, Vol. VI, p. 438.

Schwerin von Krosigk, Lutz Graf: 3731-PS, Vol. VI, p. 535.

**See also documents 3593-PS, Vol. VI, p. 298; 3730-PS, Vol. VI, p. 530; TC-90, Vol. VIII, p. 534.

been interrogated before, and I made statements and when I read them afterwards they were exactly the opposite of what I said.

Q. Do I then understand that you refuse to be sworn?

A. Only after I saw what I said I want to give the oath on my statement.

Q. In other words, if you were given a chance to read what you say, you will then swear to it, if it is what you said? A. Yes.

Hossbach's Records of Hitler's War Conferences

Q. Are you acquainted with Hossbach?

A. Yes.

Q. What was his full name?

A. I want to mention at this time that I have been asked by American officers very often for the first names. In Germany it is not usual to use the first names, and I don't even know the first names of my closest collaborators.

Q. What was Hossbach's job?

A. When I first met him, he was chief aide de camps to the Fuehrer. Later he reverted to the General Staff from where he had come. I met him again during the war for a few minutes when he commanded a division. I don't know what happened to him afterwards.

[ocr errors]

Q. Did he enjoy the confidence of the Fuehrer?

:

[graphic]

A. He had the confidence of the Fuehrer during the part of his career in the army but lost it later in connection with the Fritsch case. However, it was always our opinion that Hossbach was never a warm supporter of the Fuehrer.

Q. What were his duties in the year 1937?

A. At that time he was Chief Adjutant of the Fuehrer.

Q. What were his duties in that position?

A. He was Chief Adjutant and as such was responsible for the military office of the Fuehrer and all the other duties that an Adjutant normally performs. As far as I remember, he was also a member of the General Staff at that time being a Personnel Officer for General Staff Clerical Personnel.

Q. Did he act as the recorder of what transpired at various meetings attended by the Fuehrer?

A. Not officially. Not unless the Fuehrer gave him a special order to do so.

Q. Did the Fuehrer from time to time give him official orders to record what transpired at meetings?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »