QYou told us a few minutes ago that the first time you learned of the Fuehrer-order was when you received the Indictment. Is this correct?
AHere in Nurnberg.
QNow, please answer this question. The first time you learned of the Fuehrer-order was when you got the Indictment, is that correct?
AI have to think about it - whether the Fuehrer-order as such is mentioned in the Indictment.
QBut you told us a moment ago the first time you learned of the Fuehrer-order is when you got the Indictment- that is what you told us, isn't it.
AYes, here in Nurnberg.
QNo. You said to us that the first time you learned of the Fuehrer order was when you got the Indictment on July 7. Did you say that?
AYes, I said that....
QAll right. Now do you stand on that?
AI said this was an assumption because only from this Indictment could I see what I was charged with and what the Prosecution charged me with.
QDo you stand on the statement that the first time you learned of the Fuehrer-order was when you got the Indictment?
AWell, I don't know whether the word Fuehrer-order is contained in the Indictment and whether the contents of the Fuehrer-order is contained in the Indictment.
QDo you stand on the statement you made a few moments ago that the first time you learned of the Fuehrer-order was when you read the Indictment? Do you stand on that statement? Do you confirm it? You made it a few moments ago.
AI do not mean it like that....
QJust a moment please. I ask if you stand on it. If you don't say "No, I didn't mean that" or "Yes, I did mean it." Now, did you mean it when you said the first time you learned of the Fuehrer-order was when you got the Indictment?
Did you mean it or did you not?
ANo...
QYou did not mean it. All right, well, that's clear. When did you learn of the Fuehrer-order for the first time?
AYour Honor, I do not know whether it was here at the Court or during discussions with my co-defendants. I am not certain of that. It happened here in Nurnberg and I am not sure whether I talked to my codefendants or heard it from the trial.
QWas it after you got the Indictment?
ACertainly, yes, because before that I was not together with my co-defendants.
QSo that now, and that is what I started out to ask you in the first place, the first time you learned of the Fuehrer-order was subsequent to July 7, 1947?
AYes, your Honor.
QWhich defendant told you about the Fuehrer-order?
AI don't know that, your Honor. I believe as far as I remember somebody asked me whether I knew the Fuehrer order and I said that I didn't know what you are talking about. But who asked me I don't remember.
QWhen you said you didn't know what he was talking about then did this defendant tell you what the Fuehrer-order was?
AI am not quite certain whether this question was made after the question was discussed here in the trial or whether it was before this. I don't quite remember, your Honor.
QWitness, when you learned of this Fuehrer-order did it shock you?
AYes.
QWell, then you should remember when you first heard it.
AYour Honor, I was shocked about the entire Indictment and all I learned here in Nurnberg.
QWell, we are talking about the Fuehrer-order. When you first heard of it you were shocked?
AYes.
QNow from whom did you learn of it?
AThis shock I remember quite distinctly. This happened here in Court.
QYes. Then you did not get it from your co-defendants, you got it here in Court?
AYes, one of my co-defendants talked about it.
QSo that the first time you learned of the Fuehrer-order was here in this Courtroom?
AYes,
QNo co-defendant talked about it to you outside of the Courtroom after you had received the Indictment?
ANot after that.
QSo that the first time you heard about the Fuehrer-order was here in this Courtroom?
AIn its full content.
QThe first time you heard about the Fuehrer-order was here in Court, is that what you are telling us or isn't it what you are telling us?
AI did not quite understand.
QYou say that the first time you learned about the Fuehrer-order you were shocked, Now where was this and when was it?
AThat Jews were to be shot even if they were innocent only because of their race, that is what I mean. This....
QAll right. That's what the Tribunal is talking about. Now, when did you first find out that Jews were to be shot merely because of their race, merely because they were Jews, when did you first find that out?
AHere in the trial.
QAnd who was it that said it?
AI believe it was comrade Ohlendorf.
QSo that the first time you learned of it was here in this Courtroom when Ohlendorf was sitting where you are now?
AYes. Of course, I read that Jews were shot but I did not know -that I saw in the Indictment but I did not know that the Fuehrer-order to that effect was the basis of this.
Nov.21-M-IL-3-1-Hoxsie (Int. Juelich)
QDid you hear the opening statement of the Prosecution in the other large courtroom?
AYes, I was present.
QAnd was anything said about the Fuehrer Order in that opening statement?
AI did not read the opening speech after it was published.
QWell, but you heard it being read in court, didn't you?
AIt was read out in the Tribunal here, I don't know whether it is contained in this.
QDo you know whether in that statement any reference was made to the Fuehrer Order?
AI don't know.
QVery well.
AI think it is quite possible.
Q well then, it isn't true that the first time you heard it is when Hr. Ohlendorf mentioned it from this witness stand, is that right
AI don't know.
QWell now, you tell us this thing shocked you a great deal, and when one is shocked one remembers later on when the shock took place. Now, tell us when you first learned of the Fuehrer Order which calls for the execution of Jews and gypsies just merely because they were Jews and gypsies, absolutely innocent, but they had to be liquidated. When did you first find that out, that such a Fuehrer Order had been made way back in 1941? When did you first find that out?
AYour Honor, now that you remind me of this matter by the Prosecution, I remember it again. I didn't think of it at the moment.
QDo you recall now the Prosecution's statement?
AYes, of course I remember now.
QAnd was it mentioned in the Prosecution's statement?
AI presume so because it is based on this, but I am not quite certain. I was particularly impressed by what Ohlendorf said here. This had made a stronger impression on me than the entire indictment and also the opening statement of the Prosecution.
QSo that then the first time you really learned of the Fuehrer Order was when you heard Ohlendorf describe it and talk about it from the witness stand where you are now sitting?
AYes, this was such a strong impression on me because it was made by one of my comrades who spoke of his own experience about these things.
QNow tell us definitely, and then we will drop the subject, when did you first learn of the Fuehrer Order which decreed that Jews had to be killed because of their race? When did you first hear of that Fuehrer Order?
AAs I already said here in Nuernberg, during the trials.
QWhen Ohlendorf mentioned it from the stand, is that when you first learned it?
AYour Honor, if you tell me it was already in the indictment or in the opening statement by the Prosecution, then I must have heard it there already, but what I remember, and what impressed me, was that one of my comrades explained these things so clearly here, and that is what shocked me so.
QThen when you first grasped the significance of the Fuehrer Order was when Ohlendorf described it here in this courtroom?
AYes.
QSo that if you had to say when you first really learned of the Fuehrer Order you would say that it was in October, 1947?
AIt must have been about then, yes. I cannot remember now when Ohlendorf spoke. I cannot remember the month.
QWell, it was last month, wasn't it, in October 1947?
AYes.
DR. BERGOLD:Your Honor, may I add something to this discussion. I know about the other defendants, that my client always kept away from all the others, and in this aim he was also supported by me, because I wanted to have my client to myself. That is an old method of mine.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, when did you first see your client, Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD:I saw him in July, 1947, shortly after he was brought to Nuernberg. He was only brought to Nuernberg a few days before the indictment was served.
THE PRESIDENT:Of course, you didn't know him before he became your client here?
DR. BERGOLD:No, never.
THE PRESIDENT:So you wouldn't know what he had done prior to that of your own knowledge?
DR. BERGOLD:No. I only say that I know of the defendant that he was always very retiring and reserved. His colleagues told me that, and I know from his own talk that he always kept away from his comrades, and I supported him in that attitude and advised him to keep on his own.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, Dr. Bergold, you had many conversations with him before he actually came into court, didn't you?
DR. BERGOLD:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Didn't you yourself ever tell him what he was charged with?
DR. BERGOLD:Your Honor, even I only heard about the Fuehrer Order when the case in chief was presented. I did not see sufficient from the indictment either.
THE PRESIDENT:So you didn't mention the fuehrer Order before he came here into the courtroom either?
DR. BERGOLD:No, no.
THE PRESIDENT:I don't mean to question you, Dr. Bergold, but we are just trying to get at the truth here.
DR. BERGOLD:I understand.
THE PRESIDENT:And do I understand that you didn't know about the Fuehrer Order until you got here in the courtroom?
DR. BERGOLD:Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT:You don't need to answer that, Dr. Bergold. The only reason is you volunteered it, and when a person volunteers he has to stand a little bit of questioning on it.
DR. BERGOLD:Of course, your Honor, of course. I don't know whether I heard about this Fuehrer Order in the IMT trials, I cannot exclude such a possibility, but I confess-
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Bergold, just a moment. Let me tell you, Dr. Bergold, you are an attorney at the bar, and the Tribunal has admiration for you, and I would advise you to say nothing further about this because the whole IMT trial certainly discussed this Fuehrer Order, and I don't want you to be placed in any embarrassing position. Now, you may have not talked about it with your client, but please don't tell us that you did not know about the Fuehrer Order until you came into the courtroom, because we have the decision right here, the IMT decision, which talks about the Fuehrer Order.
DR. BERGOLD:That is right, your Honor, but I am telling you, don't forget one thing. I don't work only here. I am in charge of a lot of cases, and when one case is finished, I usually forget it immediately or else I cannot follow all my duties. I said it might have been in the IMT trials, but at that moment I did not remember it any more, and therefore, I did not talk to him about it, and that is a true statement.
THE PRESIDENT:We take your statement as being the truth, but we did want to, in a friendly way, suggest not to talk about it too much, because you only embarrass yourself, because the decision of the International Military Tribunal certainly makes a reference to this very sad event of the killing of the Jews because of the Fuehrer Order, that they had to be killed because they were Jews.
DR. BERGOLD:That is right. I told you I forgot it. I didn't think of it. One can forget the most terrible things.
THE PRESIDENT:Right.
DR. BERGOLD:The wisdom of life, which I learned from Goethe, his wisdom consisted of the fact that he forgot all terrible things immediately, and may I perhaps remind the Tribunal that when his own son died nobody was to remind him of this because he tried to forget it so that he could continue to live on his high level. Since Goethe has always been my ideal, I have always followed him, to forget terrible things.
THE PRESIDENT:I can assure you that although Goethe was very heroic in his resolve to forget this sadness which entered his life, once it was written on his heart, he never forgot it.
You don't forget deaths like that, Dr. Bergold. All right, let's proceed. BY DR. BERGOLD:
QWitness, after this interesting discussion, please tell us what did you hear about this written procedure?
AThe procedures were sent to the Russian Auxiliary Police who investigated all the criminals and witnesses in writing, and if a crime had been committed, and if somebody had participated in a crime, the arrested person and his files were sent to the subkommando. The prisoners were sent to a prison and all objects were taken from them, which they had with them, as it is the custom in all prisons in legal procedure, in Germany. The objects were kept. Then the investigation started by the men of the kommando, and the judgment was passed, and every now and then, according to the death sentences, the executions were carried out. I want to mention that also prison terms were conferred. After the death sentences had been carried out, the personal property of the person concerned was confiscated by the German state inasfar as it existed, as this is done with usual death penalties based on such crimes.
QDid you know the Hague Convention of land warfare?
ANo. Owing to my entirely different training I never heard about it. I did not even know when I was interned that the Hague Convention of land warfare existed. During my presence here my defense counsel asked me about it, and he found that at first I misunderstood him. I thought he said Court "procedure" and he laughed at me and found that in fact I did not know about this.
QTell me, did you never think about it, that no actual legal procedure with judges and a Tribunal and witnesses took place?
ADuring the war in the occupied territories I never thought about it. In particular as I found everything In that condition, I was not a lawyer, and it was my opinion that all those things had been organized in such a manner as they should be in order to insure proper procedure. My predecessor who had organized this and instituted it was a trained lawyer, and also expressed himself to me to the effect that everything was proper. I had to rely on that.
QNow were the executions carried out, when they were carried out?
AIn the Einsatzkommando VI, I heard of two kinds of executions, one by shooting, and another manner of execution, in particular by the office in Rostov, by means of gas vans. BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWitness, you say you heard of. Didn't you know as a matter of personal knowledge?
AYes. I shall talk about that presently. I only made a general statement that two kinds of executions existed, and I will now give details about these. The shooting was done in a military manner by single shots, by a machine rifle or by a rifle. In Rostov itself they used the gas van. In order to be Informed about this, I had the action of the gas van described to me on the occasion of an execution, and I asked the chief of the detachment in Rostov to show it to me. This seemed to me a procedure which tried to conduct the execution in a manner which made it easier for both, the victim and the executioner. Like the electric chair, the procedure has been invented for humanitarian reasons. I know that in a few states of the United States of America already many years ago executions through gas had been carried out.
QWitness, did you say that the method of execution by gas van was easier on the victim and easier on the executionor, is that what I understood you to say?
AYes, it is more pleasant or easier for both parties.
QMore pleasant for both parties?
AYes.
QThe victim and the executioner?
AIt is easier for both parts.
QThat is that?
AIt is easier for both parts.
QDid you hear Mr. Ohlendorf describe that men of the kommando objected to the use of gas vans because of the impression it made upon them?
AI heard that, but I could not understand that, because my experiences had been to the contrary.
Q well, your view is then that the method of asphyxiation is less difficult?
AIt is not so difficult by means of gas? No. I can say that I saw the bodies, all of whom made a very calm and peaceful impression. I also know that, through carbon dioxide, people who are in a closed garage and work on a car where the motor is running, without noticing it, are suddenly surprised by death. I was of the impression that death in that manner approaches the person in a very gentle manner.
QWell, to that extent then, you do not agree with Ohlendorf's observations. You have a disagreement on that?
AYes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. BY DR. BERGOLD:
QWitness, did you order the manner of execution?
ANo, as I already said, I found these methods and accepted them and thought everything was all right.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, did you order the execution yourself?
THE WITNESS:No.
THE PRESIDENT:Who did order the execution?
THE WITNESS:Those were the subkommando leaders: Q (By Dr. Bergold) What impression did the activity of Einsatzkommando VI have on you, which you described?
AAccording to my theological development I not only thought it highly unpleasant but I thought I could not be expected to do this, that under my charge death sentences were passed and expected to be carried out.
After all,I was not brought up for that kind of task. A pastor has the task to help souls but never to judge. BY THE PRESIDENT:
QDid you ever order an execution?
ANo.
QDid you witness an execution?
AYes, as I just said, in the gas wagon.
ADid you, as a pastor, conduct any religious ceremony prior to the execution?
AI could not do that, your Honor.
QWell, I am asking you if you did or not. Did you?
ANo.
ADid you try to comfort any of the victims religiously before the execution?
AI never saw the persons and didn't talk to them.
QYou didn't see the executees?
AYes, if I witnessed the execution I did. Otherwise I did not.
QWell, when you were present at an execution, did you attempt to comfort those who were executed; did you talk to them along religious lines since you were trained to do a function of that kind?
ANo, that was not my task.
QWell, didn't you, out of the bigness of your heart, out of your religious training and inclination, feel disposed to comfort these individuals who were now to take that long last walk into eternity?
AYour Honor, it would have made a strange impression if I, as representative of the komnando who passed judgment and who carried out the sentence, at the same time approached the people with religious consolation.
I think the people would never have understood that. One could hardly do this at the sane time. The serious necessity of war, and then one tries to console people, in my opinion this is tasteless.
QYou were afraid you might be criticised if you said a word or two of comfort to these individuals on the verge of coming before their supreme Creator. You thought you might be criticised if you did that?
AWell, your Honor, I would have to describe how this was done, when an execution was carried out by a gas van. I have only described my impression so far.
QI perhaps didn't make my question very clear. I said that had you offered a word of solace and comfort to these individuals who in a few moments would be standing before their Supreme Creator, had you done that, you feared that you would be criticised for having done this?
AYes, from that point of view one could say they did not know who I was. They did not know I was a clergyman. hey didn't know that, and possibly they would have considered this irony if I, as a representative of the kommando, would have said such words then.
QDid you ever think -- Do you think it is bad taste at any time to talk about God?
ANo, your Honor.
QWell now, here is a man who is going to be shot; he is going to be killed.
AYes.
QHe is going to pass out of existence. You are the pastor, or were a pastor. You are religiously trained. It didn't occur to you to say a word to this individual that was starting on this long journey?
It didn't occur to you to do that?
AI had no, opportunity to do this. If I describe this to you you may understand it, Your Honor.
QWell now, I am giving you a chance to describe it. You were the kommando leader. Why didn't you have the opportunity to talk to these individuals, just give them a word or two of comfort? Why didn't you have that opportunity?
AI could have got that opportunity any time, yes.
QYes, well, why didn't you do it?
AYour Honor, if somebody had come to me I would not have rejected him, but to force myself on somebody, that is not my way.
QWell, would you be forcing yourself on an individual who is about to be executed, to tell him that he would soon be standing before his God, and to have strength in this final moment? Would it have been so difficult to do that?
AYour Honor, I had to deal with people who, owing to Bolshevist views, had fought against the German troops illegally. It is known that the Bolshevist ideology advocate the movement of the Atheists. There is a word which sounds very harsh, in particular if I say it in this connection. This word is, "One should not throw pearls before swine". I say that is a parable. When using the word of God one should not use it in situations where it does not fit in, in particular if one is innerly convinced that the ground is not prepared for such a message. If I had gained the conviction that in these people there would have been a longing for God, if 1 had heard this somehow from some men who had to do with them -
QDid you think that because they were Bolshevists and had been fighting Germany that they did not have souls?
ANo.
QYou did believe they had souls then, didn't you?
AOf course.
QBut because they were of the attitude which you have expressed, you did not think it was worthwhile to try to save those souls?
AI had to assume that these were Atheists, There are people who do not believe in God, who have turned away from God, and if I tell such a man a word of God, I run the danger that the person will become ironic.
QWell, suppose he did become ironic, that could not be any worse than the fact that he was going to be killed rather soon, Suppose he did become ironic, how did that harm anyone?
AThese things are too sacred to me that I would risk them in such situations.
QYou were a pastor, and wasn't it your duty to try to convert these lost souls?
AYour Honor, I am a religious man, and I have a great lot of tolerance. I do not think it is my duty to convert people. It is my duty to help men if they approach me with wishes and questions, but I always have to know whether the person has an open mind for these things. I do not go to any Atheist and tell him, "You must believe in God", but if he comes to me and says, "I cannot believe in God, what might be the reason, can you help me?" I then would, of course.
QDid you ask each and everyone of these persons about to be executed whether he believed in God?
ANo.
QThen, how did you know that he didn't believe in God?
AI already said that they were people who believed in the Bolshevist ideology who stubbornly followed the orders of their Communist leaders, and therefore attacked us. Their acts were not honest acts, but crimes, of which they themselves were convinced, and about which they knew that death sentence was the punishment for it, and after all, they were unusual cases. Apart from that I don't know whether the people who believed in orthodox religion in Russia shared my opinion, which after all arose from a German heart, whether they could understand it in that form.
THE PRESIDENT:Then because they had committed a crime, you believed they were not worthy of absolution, or of a word of comfort?
THE WITNESS:No, Your Honor, not like that, but -
THE PRESIDENT:Just a minute, let's truncate this discussion. Did you or did you not, being a man of God, and having been a Pastor, and having devoted much of your life to studying religion, and to preaching religion, did you at any time in any of these executions after any religious comfort to any of the executees. Now answer that question yes or no?
THEWITNESS? No.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. Now yesterday you told us that you had established a new religion, and one of the tenets of that new religion was "Love of fellowmen"?
THE WITNESS:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you think that you demonstrated that "Love of fellowmen" by letting these people go to their deaths without a word of comfort along religious lines, considering that you were a Pastor? Did you demonstrate there a "Love of fellowmen"? Answer that question yes or no?
THE WITNESS:I didn't sin against the Commandment of Love, Your Honor.
DR. BERGOLD:Your Honor, if I may intervene in this long discussion and say: Your Honor, the victims did not know that this man was a Pastor, seeing he was wearing an SS or SD uniform, that, therefore, he was an exponent of that authority who condemned them to death and I really believe the defendant that the executees would have considered it strange and would have considered it foul and unworthy if such a man had suddenly come to them, who was the chief of such a commando, and tried to console them In a religious manner. They didn't even know he was a clergyman. I must say I cannot quite understand the discussion because one is to imagine oneself back into that time and imagine the appearance of this man as he approached victims.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Bergold, ordinarily, a discussion of this kind would be entirely irrelevant, but yesterday when we tried to confine the issue to the charges in the Indictment, you said we had to allow your client to give his full discussion on religion, because only in that way could we decide whether he was telling the truth, or not.
Now because of these circumstances it is entirely in order to ascertain whether a man with the religious training, with the religious background, in a situation so solumn as an execution, could not have advanced towards the executees, those about to be killed, and say to them, "You see me in uniform of the SS, but I am a man of God. I was a Pastor", and then to comfort them in any way that he could. How, he said he didn't do that. All right, that ends the discussion, let's proceed.
DR. BERGOLD:I have one more question to put to the defendant. BY DR. BBRGOLD:
QTell me, can you speak Russian?
ANo.
QHow could you have talked to these victims about religion?
AOnly through an interpreter.
QWas an interpreter present during the execution?
ANo.
DR. BERGOLD:Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Was an interpreter present when the men were investigated for the purpose of determining whether they were guilty or not?
AYes, of course, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. You could have taken -
A -- That was their job.
THE PRESIDENT:You could have taken an interpreter to the execution if you desired, could you not?
AI could have done that.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, but you did not?
ANo.