he "showed off" and in an ironical way he announced the death sentence on Gottfried after the judges had returned to the courtroom.
Q. Now, Mr. Filbig, how long was it after Oeschey announced this death sentence for Gottfried, until Gottfried was executed?
A. That took about twenty to twentyfive minutes after the announcement of the sentence; the entire court were present at the execution.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q One more question, Mr. Filbig. Can you describe what the Volkssturm was during April of 1945, in general? Can you tell us who they were; what they looked like?
A The Volkssturm, in my opinion, was used in order to save what could still be saved at the last moment for the German Reich, but everybody could see that everything was lost and there was nothing left to be saved. I could mention an example, if I am permitted to.
Q Yes, please.
A They wanted to get me into the Volkssturm. But since....
Q One moment, Mr. Filbig. You say they wanted to get you in the Volkssturm?
A Yes.
Q How old are you, Mr. Filbig?
A I am 53 years old now.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is all; thank you very much.
No further questions on direct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does defense counsel desire to cross-examine this witness?
Before defense counsel begin, there are one or two matters that I should like to inquire about so that I will better understand.
The witness has said that the session of the court was at a quarter of five, but he did not say whether that was in the morning or evening. Which was it?
THE WITNESS: In the evening; in the evening at a quarter to five. That was the session of the Civil Court Martial.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q How long did that session of the court last before time final sentence?
A That session took about forty to forty-five minutes.
Q You used the expression or the figure 30. Did I understand you correctly?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Excuse me, Your Honor. To what do you refer Court No. III, Case No. 3.by the figure 30?
THE PRESIDENT: I understood that expression. I may have been in error, but I understood him to say something about the figure 30.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In what connection, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: At the end of the trial. Evidently I was in error.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, could you be referring to the last question I asked the witness which, namely, was his age, which I believe he said was 53?
THE PRESIDENT: No, it was in the early part of his examination that caught those words, but evidently I was mistaken about the expression.
DR. SCHUBERT (Counsel for the defendant Oeschey): May it please the Tribunal, may I start the cross-examination?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Mr. Filbig.
A Yes?
Q You have mentioned the persons who attended that session.
A Yes.
Q That was the presiding judge, the two associate judges, and the prosecutor.
A Yes.
Q Can you remember who was the certifying official in that session?
A That I cannot say; no, that I cannot remember. Of those present, I can only remember the ones I have mentioned.
Q Was that case Gottfried the only one which was scheduled for that day?
A Yes, the case Gottfried, and two others who were co-defend Court No. III, Case No. 3.ants were dealt with in that session.
I don't know of any other session that took place on that same day.
Q If I understand you correctly, Gottfried was not the only defendant, but there were two other defendants?
A Two other defendants, yes, during that trial.
Q Did you bring these other defendants into the courtroom too?
A Yes.
Q In other words, you brought three defendants to the courtroom?
A Yes; there was another one with me.
Q Can you tell us the names of the two co-defendants?
A Yes, that was Sergeant Leichter, and the third name--the third name I cannot remember.
Q Mr. Filbig, you read from some notes before, during your direct examination. Did you write them down at the time, during the session?
A No, I made some notes afterwards.
Q What you have read to us--were those the notes that you took?
A Yes, the notes that I took after that civilian court martial.
Q Witness, have you been interrogated by the prosecution here, and was anything written down as a result of that interrogation?
A Something was written; the statements that I made.
Q And what you have read here before?
A No, that is not it, no.
Q You said before, witness, that the defendant Oeschey had sentenced Gottfried for treason. Was that precisely the expression which was used in the sentence, in the opinion? Or can you tell us whether it might have been "Landesverrat"?
A That is very difficult for me to remember, whether it was "Landesverrat" or "Verrat", treason of high treason.
Q Can you still remember whether Gottfried was sentenced Court No. III, Case No. 3.primarily because he had made statements to the American troops, that he had given them information about preparations for defense which had been made, about strength and armament of the troops, and of the Volkssturm?
A Gottfried stated again and again, when he was asked -
Q (Interposing) One moment. Was that put to Gottfried, and did he confess it?
A No. He stated again and again it was only in order to save what could be saved; he stated it in the trials he was captured as a Volkssturm man by the Americans. He wanted to find out there what was going on and probably he was taken prisoner there.
Q Gottfried denied, therefore, that he had betrayed military secrets?
A Yes.
Q That is to say, during the trial he was reproached for betrayal of that kind? Otherwise there would have been no reason to deny it.
A Yes. Well, the matter was like this. He was reproached for having done it, for having told the Americans what had been going on; and he said "No, no, I am innocent." He was also asked how it happened that he came to the Americans. He said all of a sudden he was surrounded and captured.
Q Herr Filbig, were there witnesses there?
A Yes.
Q There were witnesses there? What kind of witnesses were there?
A What do you mean by witnesses?
Q Witnesses at the trial.
A Witnesses at the trial?
Q Yes. Who were the witnesses?
A Witnesses? Witnesses? I haven't mentioned any witnesses.
Q But you said just now that there were witnesses present.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A No. He always maintained that he was innocent--Gottfried did. There were only present the judges--I have not spoken about witnesses. The two others who had been arrested together with him, of course, were present during the trial.
Q Had the two other defendants also been American prisoners temporarily?
A No, the two others who were brought in with him were not in American captivity, only Gottfried.
Q Do you know whether the two co-defendants testified against Gottfried?
A That I could not say; they stated time and again that it only came that far because Gottfried had made such and such statements to them.
Q And what happened to the two co-defendants?
A They were acquitted.
Q Acquitted? What had they been charged with?
A The two defendants had been charged with the same thing Gottfried was charged with, if I remember correctly. Why the two codefendants were acquitted I don't know.
Q In other words, If I understand you correctly, the three of them were charged with the same thing, or about the same thing?
A The same thing; that is why all three of them had been arrested.
Q And all three of them said they were innocent?
AAll three of them testified that they were innocent.
Q And the outcome was that one of them was sentenced to death for high treason, as you say, and the two others were acquitted?
A Yes.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes. Gottfried was sentenced to death, and the two others were acquitted.
DR. SCHUBERT: Thank you.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to ask the witness a question or two at this time.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q It has been suggested that the figure 30 that I caught from the translator might have been that there were 30 tanks. Is that correct?
A Yes, that is what I meant by the figure, the tanks, about 30. He had seen about 30 tanks; that is what Gottfried mentioned.
Q One more question. How many judges were there on this Tribunal sitting with Oeschey?
A During that trial there were the Gauinspector Haberkern, the presiding judge, the senior prosecutor, Dr. Schroeder, a major from the armed forces, the Wehrmacht, and then Oberregierungsrat Paulus. That was the superintendent of prisons at Nurnberg at that time.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, may I put one more question?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Would you characterize this court martial under the name we sometimes hear, drumhead court martial?
THE WITNESS: No, it was only a trial of the civilian court martial. That is what I was told. The question is, however, what you understand by a court martial, what I do not know, I was told it was Standgericht, and that is about the same thing as a Schnellgericht. That is a speedy court.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you want to ask mother question?
DR. SCHUBERT: One question.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Herr Filbig, you also mentioned that the entire court was present during the execution.
A Yes.
Q Were you present?
A I stood aside when the sentence was executed.
Q Where was that?
A That was in the courtyard of the cell prison at Nuremberg.
Q When you stood aside, was it possible for you to watch the entire procedure?
A Yes, I could even show you where I stood, and I could show you precisely, where the execution took place.
Q Can you be absolutely sure that all participants of the trial, that is, the presiding judge Oeschey as well as Haberkern, the associate judge, and the major of the armed forces, that all three of these were present at the execution?
A Yes.
Q Did you see the three of them?
A Yes, the entire court, also Oberregierungsrat Paulus, were present. He brought them there where the execution took place.
DR. SCHUBERT: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further redirect?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Just one question , Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Mr. Filbig, you have stated that this trial of Gottfried occured on the 15th of April, 1945, is that correct?
A Yes, that was the last Sunday before the Americans occupied Nuremberg, because on Monday noon there was a tank alarm and it was the Sunday, the 15th of April, 1945.
Q Now, Mr. Filbig, do you remember how long it was after this Sunday on which Gottfried was tried and executed until American troops were in Nuremberg? How long was it after?
AAmerican troops entered Nuremberg, that is, the suburbs of Nuremberg, on Tuesday or Wednesday, and there was fighting going on in the Bucherstrasse.
Q Now, Mr. Filbig, by "Tuesday or Wednesday" do you mean the Tuesday or Wednesday following the Sunday that Gottfried was executed?
A Yes, that was the Tuesday and Wednesday immediately after.
Q Thank you.
A You're welcome.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution calls the witness Hodges. Your Honors, this witness will testify in the English language.
THOMAS K. HODGES, a witness, took the stand and testified as fellows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this case will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness would you please tell the Court your full name and your obvious army rank?
A Thomas K. Hodges, 1st Lieutenant, Infantry, Army of the United States.
Q Lt. Hodges, at any time during the recent war in Europe were you in Germany as a member of the United States Army?
A Yes, I was.
Q Do you remember where you were in February of 1945?
A Yes. In February the American troops fought to the west bank of the Rhino River, and the Rhine was finally crossed at Remagen, which is just south of Bonn, on the 8th of March. But during February the fighting was on the left bank of the Rhine.
Q Lieutenant, so we can get a little clearer picture of just how you knew where the fighting was going on, would you please describe for the Court the nature of your official duties while you were in Germany in 1945?
A I was a combat intelligence officer with duties that kept me in connection not only with the German soldiers and civilians but also with the tactical situation as reflected in intelligence reports at at headquarters.
Q On the 16th of February, 1945, what was the situation on or near the Rhine River? Do you remember with any particularity?
A Yes, I would --I should say that we were ten miles west of Cologne with very heavy fighting, with tanks in lead and backed by infantry, with a jeavy fighting as I ever saw at any time during the war.
Q Now on April 2, 1945, do you remember how close to Nuremberg the nearest Allied troops had advanced on the 2nd of April, 1945?
A The nearest troops on 2 April were just about to capture the town of Crailsheim, which is, oh, I should say 50 to 60 miles from Nuremberg.
Q On 5 April, three days later, were the Allied troops still advancing in this direction?
A Yes, the advance during the early part of April was extremely rapid. It was a two-pronged advance.
Q By "advance", Lieutenant, do you mean Allied advance in this direction toward Nuremberg?
A It could be described that way. It so happens, however, that one prong of the advance was going due eastward toward Czechoslovakia and the other was going southeastward toward the Austrian border, and that one could come through Nuremberg.
Q On the 5th of April 1943 -- I seem to have forgotten, would you recount again approximately how many miles from Nuernberg the Allied troops were?
A I should say fifty miles.
Q Fifty miles?
A Perhaps five miles either way.
Q Now, ten days later, namely on the 15th of April, how close to Nuremberg were the Allied troops?
A I remember that quite well, because on the 13th the americans troops were within artillery range of Nuremberg, fifteen miles.
Q On that day, namely the 13th of April, 1945, can you remember where you were?
A Yes.
Q Where were you?
A I was just north of Erlangen.
Q Would you say, speaking from what you observed on that day, namely the 13th of April, would you say that Nuremberg was within artillery range of the Allied troops?
A Oh, yes
Q It was ?
A Yes.
Q Now, Lieutenant, what day was Nuremberg officially declared fallen in the dispatches?
A It was on the 20th of April, and the reason I remember that so well is that was Hitler's birthday.
Q Now, in your opinion, having seen what went on here in the city of Nuremberg, how much of the city was actually occupied before the 20th of April, if any?
A Well, Fuerth, where--I entered this area by coming through the town of Fuerth, and on the 17th and 18th I was in Fuerth, and the fighting had passed on beyond me.
Q That was on the 17th?
A That is correct, yes.
Q If at the time you were in Furth and Nurnberg in 1945, during the period you're describing now, if someone had told you that a man was executed three days before the American arrived, what date would you place on that execution?
A Before they arrived in Nurnberg?
Q Yes. Remember that it was a civilian speaking.
A I would say about the 17th.
Q About the 17th of April 1945, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q No further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel wish to cross examine this witness?
DR. GRUBE: I ask to be permitted to put several questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: On behalf of which defendants?
DR. GRUBE: For the defendant Lautz. But I want to say that the matter itself has nothing to do with the defendant Lautz; however, at the time when Nurnberg was occupied. I was in Nurnberg myself and therefore I should like to put several questions in connection with the occupation of Nurnberg.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, since defense counsel's own admission his client is not involved here, I question why the cross-examination is being conducted.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, I believe the question is justified because as is well known, all defendants are charged with conspiracy. Each one of the defendants, therefore, must be interested to see that the case of any other defendant should be clarified beyond all doubt.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand then, Dr. Grube, that you concede that the charge of conspiracy would lie in this prosecution?
DR. GRUBE: The prosecution has said, in the written and verbal statements, that all defendants are occused of conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT: I am quite well aware of the allegations of the indictment, but my question is not that. You understand my question.
do you not?
DR. GRUBE: No, apparently I didn't understand the question.
THB PRESIDENT: I ask you whether you concede that under the jurisdiction of this court, conspiracy will lie against the defendants in this case?
DR. GRUBE: Yes. The charge has been brought; whether that is correct, that is of course another question. But the defendants are, in fact, charged with conspiracy.
THB PRESIDENT: Apparently, you don't understand my question. I am asking what you concede in that respect from legal standpoint? You are an aid to the Court here and I am entitled to an answer to that question.
DR. GRUBE: No, Mr. President. I do not concede that a conspiracy exists or that from a judicial point the possibility exists to sentence for conspiracy. But I have to meet the point of view of the prosecution. If the prosecution states that there is a conspiracy, to be sure, I have to be permitted to put questions in favor of the other defendants, which contribute towards helping them.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with your examination.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Witness, can you remember that on the 16th of April, already on noon of that day, the American troops were standing in Erlenstegen, a suburb of Nurnberg.
A I do not remember that myself. I was not in that part of Nurnberg.
Q Could you perhaps remember that during the night, from the 16th to the 17th of April, the entire railroad dam which runs through Erlenstegen had already been occupied by American troops and tanks?
A I can't discuss with any authority anything that happened in Erlenstegen because I simply was not there. I don't know.
Q Perhaps it is known to you that the morning of the 17th of April, the southern suburbs of Nurnberg were already taken by American troops and that on the evening of the 17th of April, Nurnberg was almost completely surrounded and that, in such a way, that only the road to Schwabach was still open?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, this has been a lecture, not an examination. The witness has said none of these things. I object to the question.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see why you should object.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object to it for purposes of expedition; on no other grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: Let him ask the question and let it be answered. It certainly will not help him and it certainly will help you.
THE WITNESS: I must repeat that I don't know.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Is it known to you that already on the 18th of April, the entire southern half of Nurnberg, that is south of the Pegnitz, was completely taken by American troops?
A I know that from the 15th until the 20th, fighting was going on in and around Nurnberg. I know that artillery was being fired into Nurnberg on those five days, and I know that Nurnberg fell officially on the 20th. Aside from that, I cannot make myself any clearer.
Q What day of the week was the 20th.
A I believe it was Thursday, but I am not certain. I am not sure of that.
Q Thank you.
DR. KOESSL: For the defendant Oeschey, in substitution of Dr. Schubert. I'd like to put only one question.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Lieutenant, in your training as an officer, were you ever told that the penalty for treason depends on the proximity of the enemy and the situation in which your own troops find themselves at the time?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see how this witness, who makes no claim of being an expert on legal matters, should be required to answer that question, as to the proper interpretation of high treason.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, the court martials were of a military type, even the civilian court martials, and in Germany, all military court matters were also taught to officers in the course of their training.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, just for the purposes of the record. I object to gratuitous proof of this nature with respect to the Standgericht -- the court martial with the military. I object to that statement, Your Honor; the proof is to the contrary.
DR. KOESSL: But the civilian court martials were only established where immediate threat by the enemy existed and the Volkssturm was part of the fighting forces.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I do beg the Court to put this back on a normal channel; either have testimony or edit this now; not lectures.
THE PRESIDENT: If the witness is able to answer the question, he may answer.
A. I am afraid I will have to ask for the question to be repeated; I am not sure what I have been asked.
In the course of your training as an officer, were you ever taught that the amount of penalty for high treason -- for treason -- defended upon the distance of the fighting troops, and on the conditions, that is, the chance for vistory or the impossibility?
A. No, I never had been taught anything like that.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any farther cross examination? Apparently not. The witness may be excused.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: To tie in a few dates that were just testified to, I am wondering if the Tribunal will refer to several exhibits that are already in evidence, merely by way of making the record complete.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be proper.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On the 16th of February, 1945 the law authorizing these civilian courts martials was published; that is found on page 11 of Document Book II. On the 5th of April, 1945, the Montgelas case was decided.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you spell that name?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: M-o-n-t-g-e-l-a-s. That is found in Document Book III-C, Document NG-513, Exhibit 150.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number was that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One hundred fifty, Your Honor. Three days before that, on the 2nd of April, 1945, the Nurnberg Civilian Courts Martial was organized by Gauleiter Holz, with the defendant Oeschey as Presiding Judge, which is found in Exhibit 148, Document Book III-C, Document NG-550.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the exhibit number of that?
MR. WOLLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor, that is Exhibit 148. On the 15th of April, 1945, the Gottfried case, which was described on the stand this morning, was decided; that is already in evidence, in Document Book 111-B Supplement, Exhibit 494, Document NG-952.
Your Honors, may we ask the Court to rise for the morning recess at this time; we will be able to proceed in about fifteen minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: This is the usual time for the recess, so the motion will be granted.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHUBERT (for defendant Oeschey: May it please the Court , I have just found out that when I was not present, a witness was examined who concerned the defendant Oeschey. I would like to make the remark that I had not heard about this witness being called, since an announcement about the questioning of the witness did not appear not has it appeared so far on the notice board of the Defense. I will, however, not object to the testimony of the witness because the witness was announced 24 hours in advance . According to what was told me about the examination, and the testimony of the witness by my colleagues, the testimony of this witness seamed to be of miror importance. I only want to explain for what reason, I, the Defense Counsel, who was actually concerned was not present during the examination of this witness.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Your Honors, please, the prosecution is very sorry; that is again, is one of these things. But we complied with the rule by sending the notice to the Defense Center last week, more than 24 hours in advance, and if it was not put on the board it was one of those inadvertent things that happens in the Defense Center. As I recall, that notice went down probably Thursday afternoon.
The Prosecution would now like to offer prosecution document No. NG907. This is the trial of certain members of the order of the Catholic Sisterhood which operated the Untermarchtal convent. It was tried before the Special Court, Stuttgart, at Untermarchtal, with the defendant Cuhorst presiding. The verdict; Sister Felicia was given two years imprisonment; The charge was the violation of the rationing provisions.
Sister Fintana, one year and six months; Mother Euphenia, four months in prison. Various other members of the Sisterhood were acquitted. The Buergermeister, Anton Stitzelberger, of Untermarchtal, was given three years in prison.
The Prosecution assumes that there are adequate copies of this document available for the members of the Bench. Are there copies for the Interpreters?
(No response)
I have some German copies here for the Interpreters.
(The copies were delivered to the Interpreters.)
THE PRESIDENT: In what document book do you suggest placing these?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: They should be put in supplement 3-B, Your Honor.
And, here are copies for the German and English Court Reporters.
We are a little late in the proceedings for me to make too many complaints, but we had these documents sent down to the Secretary General, and I am getting a little worn out with having to carry them into the Court for the Interpreters, and everybody. I hope some one down there on the ball some time before we start the defense case.
I may say that this exhibit will be followed by document NG 706 which contains certain affidavits which are revealing with reference to the conduct of this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Please raise your voice, it is not coming through distinctly.
JUDGE BRAND: That is exhibit 497, is it?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: It will be 497, Your Honor.
DR. DOETZER: (for defendant Cuhorst): May it please the Court, that document which the prosecution has submitted or introduced consists of the certified copy of a sentence of the Special Court of Stuttgart at which the defendant Cuhorst was the presiding judge, and of another not certified copy of a clemency plea of the lawyer Wever which is supposed to have been addressed to the Oberstaatsanwalt at the District Court at Stuttgart.