For this reason Rommel fell into disfavour, and for this reason von Neurath's efforts to end the war through Rommel came to nought.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN:And then the 20th of July came along and everything was done. I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken).
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other defendants' counsel want to ask questions of this witness?
LT.COL.GRIFFITH-JONES: May the witness be handed GB-262. My Lord, that is the same document of which an extract has already been handed up to the Tribunal while I was cross-examining the last witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES:
QWitness, I want to be quite clear as to what you say about the Deutsches Auslandinstitut. Do you say that that institute had no connection with either Hess or the Ausland Organization?
AThe Auslandinstitut had no connection with Hess and with the Ausland Organization had its meeting and rallies at Stuttgart.
QSo that the fact that the Ausland Organization and the Deutsches Auslandinstitut both had their meeting at Stuttgart is the only connection between the two organizations; is that so?
AThe Ausland Organization to ma knowledge did not take up the time of the other in factual matters for it had its own collection of material. The Ausland Organization was, as far as I know, established in the year '32.
QNow, I don't want to stop you, but if you can answer my question "yes" or "no" it will save us all a great deal of time. I will repeat my question in case you are not quite clear about it. Do you say that the fact that both those organizations held their meeting in Stuttgart is the only connection between the two? Now you can answer that "yes" or "no".
AI cannot answer this question with one "yes" or "no". I must say that the connecting link was the fact that Stuttgart was the city of foreign Germans and was the representative city of Germans abroad, that is because of its historical background and allied field.
QDo you read English?
AJust some.
QWill you look at page 461 of the book that you have? At the botton of page 461 you will see reproduced a copy of an article from the "Stuttgarter Neues Tagblatt" of the 21st of September 1933.
The Tribunal will find the extract on page 4 of the translation.
That article describes the annual meeting of your institution after its reorganization in 1933 after the Nazi Party came to power. I just want to read four short extracts from that article 2 and ask you for your comments.
"The chairman of the Deutsches Auslandinstitut, Dr Stroelin, opened the celebration."
That is yourself presumably, is that so?
AYes.
Q "He greeted amongst those present, in particular, Ministerpresident and minister of Religion in Wuerthemberg, Morgenthaler as representative of the supervisory authorities, General Maushofer of Munich as representative of Rudolf Hess, who has been entrusted by the Fuehrer with the supreme direction of all matters concerning Germans in foreign countries."
Did you say that?
AI cannot remember having said that. Haushofer was for me the representative of the V.D.A., and I cannot conceive how he might have been the deputy of Hess at this occasion.
QDo you think the Tribunal is safe in taking it that the "Stuttgarter Neues Tagblatt" on the day after that celebration would accurately report what you said in your opening address?
You didn't look at the rest of it for the moment. It is not likely that that article is untrue or incorrect, is it?
ANo, the article is probably correct, but I was not clear on this point that Haushofer at that time was the deputy of Hess for Hess had no connection with the Auslandinstitut.
QIt appears that you are saying there, and you are saying it in a speech, that Haushofer is representing Hess and that Hess has been charged by the Fuehrer with the supreme command of all matters concerning Germans in Foreign countries. Do you understand what you are saying there?
A Yes, it may have beenput that way at that time, but practically we never arrived at the point that I received a directive of any kind from Rudolf Hess.
QYour institution could correctly be said to concern itself in matters concerning Germans in foreign countries, could it not?
AI did not understand the question.
QDid your institution, the Deutsches Auslandsinstitut, concern itself in matters concerning Germans in foreign countries?
AYes, of course.
QThen I shall leave that. Will you look down the page and omit the next -
AI would like to clarify this point. It was the first time that I made a speech for the AI and the speech was formulated in accordance with the personalities who were to be greeted. I cannot remember that Haushofer was functioning in that capacity and would like to reiterate that I as honorary president know nothing about this, that Hess gave directives for the Auslandsinstitut.
QYou may know nothing about it and you may not, but you were the new chairman of the Deutsches Auslandsinstitut, were you not?
ANo, I was not the chairman. The chairman was a special leader. In my capacity as Lord Mayor I was active in a side-activity. I was the president of the institute and it is impossible to say whom and how I greeted these personalities at the time.
QPlease confine yourself to answering the particular question I put to you: Were you or weren't you the chairmen of the Deutsches Auslansinstitut on the 20th of September, 1933?
AYes, I was appointed at that time.
QYou had just been appointed because you were a good Nazi and the Nazi Party had come to power and were reorganizing this institution?
AI was appointed because I was Lord Mayor of Stuttgart and because Stuttgart which was called the city of foreign Germans had very close connections with Germans abroad because of tradition.
QWell, now, we will go on. Will you please omit the next short paragraph and look at the paragraph which starts off, "Deputy Gauleiter Schmidt representing Dr. Goebbels stated the local party leadership"--
AWhat page is that on, please?
QIt is on the same page.
APage 61?
QI beg your pardon. It is on page 62. We turned over the page. Page 62. And it is the third paragraph in the centre of the page.
AYes, I found the please.
Q "Gauleiter Schmidt representing Goebbels stated the local party leadership Gauleiter is prepared to cooperate through thick and thin with the new officers of the DAI." Hess, you know, was in charge of the party leadership, wasn't he -- the Gauleiter? We will go on: "National Socialism will dmand the blood community of all Germans as its historic right." Will you look -- now, we will leave that -- at page 463 -
AMay I make a remark in connection with this, please?
QYes.
AThe Deputy Gauleiter, Schmidt, was here purely in his capacity as a Deputy of the Gauleiter, but he was not the Deputy of Rudolf Hess.
QNo. But the point I am putting is that the Gauleiter came which under Hess was going to cooperate with your institution through thick and thin. You appreciate that?
AThat was taken for granted.
QWill you look at page 463? It is the second paragraph. In his address the new director of the DAI, Dr. Sakin, stated, "We have followed with deep pain the inner disunity of the German people. Now, since all that has been overcome, since we see that all the German volk" -- that's the Volksdeutsche -- "are standing in one line, we are filled with a feeling of pride for our German mother--country, a feeling of happiness that Germany is united. The feeling of adherence to the German people gives us a happy consciousness. In the course of centuries this or that position has been lost. We must prevent any more from being lost. It gives us a feeling of pride and self-consciousness that we are the bridges for German lebensraum."
Was that in effect what the purpose of the Deutsches Auslandingstitut was?
AThe quotation here considered the Germans abroad were bridges for German lebensraum but this German lebensraun also applied to the German in Hungary and Roumania, and it is true when he said there, "bridges" to this lebensraum, he referred to the space in which Germans were living, and that was always the position and the attitude of the Germans, to have bridges to the space in which these Germans were living.
No, have you ever read a book by Dr. Emil Erich, or passed it, entitled "The Ausland Organization der N.S.D.A.P."? You need not look at that. Have you ever read that bock?
AI do not think so.
QDo you know that Dr. Emil Erich was the personal adviser to Bohle?
AI believe he was adjutant of Bohles
QWill you look at page 305 of the book in front of you -- my Lord, this passage appears on page 5 of the document the Tribunal have -- and that is a reproduction of Dr. Emil Erich's book. Would you look at the second paragraph on page 305, half-way down that paragraph, starting "On the 27th of August, 1936, the Fuehrer designated Stuttgart as the city of foreign Germans and the Gauleiter of the foreign organization assumed the protection of this beautiful city, which also housed within its walls the German Foreign Institute, which works in hearty cooperation with the Ausland organization."
Would I be right in saying that throughout the whole history from 1933 onwards, the Deutsches Auslandsinstitut was working in the heartiest cooperation with the Ausland organization?
AIt is not correct. As far as practical or scientific work was concerned, yes, but no otter connection. There was a collaboration, as I have already mentioned, but foreign Germans had their meetings in Stuttgart and that was the collaboration between the two of them. There was no other connection and it was not necessary.
QWill you look at page 127 of this bock? I want you to tell me, looking at the last paragraph, whether that is an accurate report, "All persons who in the future " -- I beg your pardon this is a confidential report on the special schooling work conducted by the DAI for the foreign workers. You did in fact, did you not, assist the foreign organization in training their Landesgruppenleiters and other leaders abroad?
AMay I ask who signed this article, or report?
QNo, I can't tell you who signed that report. I asked you a question. Did the Deutsches Auslandinstitut assist in training leaders for the Ausland organization abroad?
AI am not informed on that point.
QNow, just turn over the page, to page 128, second paragraph, which I will read to you quite shortly. "The Auslandsinstitut plays a part in determining the curriculum for the training camps as well as serving as an intermediary between the party authorities who run these camps and the Germans from abroad who attend them."
You still say that that report is -
AMay I ask the date of this report?
QI told you it is a report -
AI have no knowledge of this report.
QWell, now, I just want to ask you one or two very short questions on the evidence that you have given about the Defendant von Neurath. You have told us that he was a man of peace, with an excellent, kind character. Do you know that on the 5th of November, 1937, he attended a meeting at which Hitler addressed the leaders of his armed forces? Did you ever hear of that meeting, on the 5th of November, 1937?
ANo, I have no knowledge of this meeting, but it was not until I was told in prison here -
QPerhaps I could tell you quite shortly what took place: Hitler said at that meeting, amongst other things, that the only way out of the German difficulties was to secure greater living space, and he said that problem could only be solved by force. Now, having said that, he then went on to say that he had decided to attack Austria and Czechoslovakia. You never heard of that meeting?
ANo, I have never heard of this meeting, and later on -But -
AMay I finish my sentence? I just said now that von Neurath suggested to me that he had serious differences of opinion with Hitler. That was toward the end of 1937.
It was only later that I realized that he must have meant the conference with Hitler and the expressions which Hitler uttered on the 5th of November; that this campaign actually took place I heard during my imprisonment and from the article in the paper Q I'll come to all that in a moment.
I just went you to get a picture of what happened at this meeting, and I quote four lines from the minutes of that meeting:
"Hitler believed that England and France had already silently written off Czechoslovakia and that they had got used to the idea that that question would one day be cleared up by Germany."
Hitler then went on to say that the embodiment of Czechoslovakia and Austria would constitute a conquest of food for five or six million people and that he visualized the compulsory immigration of two million people from Czechoslovakia.
Now, that is what took place at that conference. Do you know that some four months later--on 12 March 1938--Von Neurath was giving an assurance to M. Masaryk, and among other things he assured him on behalf of Herr Hitler that Germany still considered herself bound by the German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention of 1925? Do you know that he said that?
AI do not recall it.
QCon you understand, now that I have told you that that is a fact, can you understand anybody who had been at that conference and had heard what Hitler had said on 5 November giving an assurance to Czechoslovakia four months later in terms of that kind? Can you understand any honest man doing that?
AI can not judge the situation which applied at that time. I did not know from whom Von Neurath received his orders.
QI am not asking you to judge at that time. I am asking you now what is your opinion of a man who can do that sort of thing. I want you to tell the Tribunal.
AI can not give you a reply for I can not have a comprehensive picture of that situation.
DR.LUEDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for the defendant von Neurath):
Mr. President, I must object to these questions. It is not possible for this witness to be confronted with a question of this sort without being informed of the complete picture. The fact is, and it is correct, that in the speech of 5 November 1937, Hitler for the first time developed plans which were contrary to the peace policy of Von Neurath, and Von Neurath considered himself induced -- I believe in December or early in January - to speck with Hitler about this at length and to tell him of the impossibility of the situation he had in mind and to dissuade him from it.
Then from Hitler's reply it followed that Hitler in the future would insist on this policy, and he asked for his resignation.
On 4 February 1938 Von Neurath was permitted to resign.
He departed from active politics.
On 11 or 12 March, the marching into Austria took place, and Von Neurath had not known about it up until that day.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Luedinghausen, the question was put about 5 March 1938, whether a man who had heard of the conference of the 5th of November 1937 could have given the assurance of 5 March.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN:Yes, sir, I can also clarify that statement if I can have a word. The question was considered with Ambassador Mastny whether at that time or in connection with the marching into Austria any military action against Czechoslovakia was intended, and this question Von Neurath answered correctly and as a decent man.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you not understand that when the light cones on, you are talking too fast?
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN:Yes, Your Honor. I just said that we have to take the situation into consideration at which this statement was made.
First, Hitler, in his speech of 5 November, spoke of the distant future, years later.
Then on 12 March when he marched into Austria-
THE PRESIDENT:We do not want to have all this argument. The question was what was the witness' opinion of a man who had done that.
That was all the question that was asked, and that question is put to creditability.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN:Mr. President, I beg your pardon; that question can not be answered by a man unless he knows the complete context.
The question was put by Mastny whether the marching into Austria would predispose any military measures against Czechoslovakia and Von Neurath answered that question.
He did not want to give any assurances or replies for years hence.
The Ambassador was concerned with action in connection with the marching of the German troops into Austria and whether any military actions against Czechoslovakia were intended, and according to the information which my client had, he could with a clear conscience answer the question in the given situation with a No, and this question is admissible only if the witness is informed about the things that I have just stated.
We are not concerned with hearing, "No, never will Germany march into Czechoslovakia"; we are concerned with only the question of Mastny, whether in connection with the marching into Austria a similar measure was planned against Czechoslovakia, and that question he could answer the way he did, and the question which is now being put by the British prosecution, in my opinion, is not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal thinks the question properly admissible.
Well, we will not pursue the matter. I ask you just this one further question, so that I make myself quite clear. You said in your evidence, as I wrote it down, that that defendant von Neurath, was well thought of, dignified and of noble character. Having heard what I have told you, are you still prepared to tell the Tribunal that he is well thought of, dignified, and of noble character. Is that your opinion now? I just want to get the value of your evidence, do you see. After what you have been told, is that your opinion?
A.It is my opinion before as well as after that von Neurath is a decent and dignified character. I can not judge under what circumstances he acted at the time and what views were determining for his statements.
AYou say that he was in favor of peace and did all he could to avoid war. Do you call a deceit of that kind doing everything possible to avoid war? Is that what your idea of a peaceful policy is -- giving assurances four months after you know perfectly well that Germany's intention is to overrun this country? Is that what you call doing everything to avoid war?
AI would like to clarify again that this question can not be judged by me at all in all its ramifications so that I can not really have an opinion or judge at at this time, but things obviously can not be as simple as they have just been pictured herenow.
Q Let me turn to another aspect in his case. We have been told, as you have just beard at great length, that he disapproved of Hitler's policyand resigned.
Do you know that, having resigned, he was appointed Reichs Protector of Bohemia-Moravia in March 1939. Do you know that?
AYes.
QThat was after the remainder of Czechoslovakia had been overrun, occupied?
AI said previously that von Neurath told me that he took this appointment reluctantly. He had refused to take it twice, but then he believed that he had to make a sacrifice, and as the State President Hacha has told me, the use of von Neurath's person was expedient, for von Neurath's activity, as Hacha told me, undoubtedly worked as a balancing factor and, as I already said, he was called away from this because he was too mild.
QNow, you have already said it, and we have heard it and we have remembered it, so it is quite unnecessary to say it again. Do try to answer my question shortly. Let me ask you this question. Have you ever thought that the reason for that appointment might have been as a reward for assistance in the occupation of Austria and Czech Slovakia that had followed so shortly before?
ANow, I never thought of that. If I may add, I would like to add that I read in the book by Henderson a different version--that von Neurath had been put into that place so that his international prestige could be discredited, and I would like to add that other possibilities might come into play here.
ADo You remember that you described him as a disciplined, humane and conscientious man?
AYes.
QWill you look at that poster.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES:My Lord, I regret that I have not got a copy of this for the Tribunal. It is a very short matter. It has been introduced in the Czechoslovakia report on the German occupation. I will give your Lordship the number: USSR 60.
QDo you see that this is signed by the defendant von Neurath, the humane and conscientious man?
AYes.
I can see that the high schools of Czechoslovakia were closed for a period of three years, and that nine people were shot.
This announcement does not say, as far as I can see, just why this took place and I cannot judge about this announcement. Just what announcements von Neurath did make I cannot judge. This announcement doesn't tell me, if I don't know, the reasons or motives why the announcement was issued. That high schools were closed and that nine people were shot-- that must have had its basic reason, I am sure.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN:Mr. President, may I add the following? I would like to say this in order to save time.
On the question of Czechoslovakia and this announcement we are refering to, which I know the, in connection with von Neurath's case, in the proceeding I will have an opportunity to bring the proof that this announcement did not originate with von Neurath. This witness was not at Prague and can only repeat things which he did not know of his own experience but about which von Neurath told him. I believe that this question is not appropo and is taking up necessary time, for I would have to object to clarify the situation and show it as it was.
I cannot put questions which are positively wrong, that is, which are based on wrong facts, things which were actually different. I will prove that von Neurath at the time when this announcement was drafted and put up was not at Prague and was not advised of what was going on during his absence. Therefore I believe that this question should not be treated today, should not be dealt with, since the witness cannot know anything about it from his own experience and knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT:Of course if this poster was put up when von Neurath was not at Prague, and he gave no authority for it, that would clear him with reference to this poster; but what is being put to this witness is, Assuming that this poster were put up by von Neurath, is it right to describe him as a humane? That is all the cross-examination means.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN:But, Mr. President, the witness does not know about this poster, and he cannot answer the question correctly if he doesn't know all the ramifications.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness was examined at great length by you to show he was a humane man and had a very good character.
Under such circumstances it is up to the Prosecution to put to the witness circumstances which would indicate that he was not of that humane character. That is all that is being done.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN:But this witness can just say "I don't know," or if it is correct, we can all of us do that. The witness does not need to do that.
THE PRESIDENT:The witness can say, "If this is correct it is inconsistent with what I knew of von Neurath".
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN:Yes, but then he cannot say that either, for the simple reason that he doesn't know the circumstances under which this poster was put up. I cannot see the consequences of this question, for if the question, is put that way, every decent individual would say that it was inhumane; but it has no connection with facts that the witness will judge things which did not exist and things which are not correct.
THE PRESIDENT:Don't you think this is really taking up unnecessary time if this witness doesn't know anything about it? I quite see, of course, that it is the purpose of cross-examination to discredit the witness.
LT.COL.GRIFFITH-JONES: I am much obliged to the Tribunal.
Perhaps I might be allowed, to say this: This defendant has produced a witness to give evidence on his oath before this Tribunal. If that evidence is unchallenged, then it goes down on the record, and there is nothing to stop this Tribunal from regarding this witness as a man who is in a position to give reliable evidence of that kind. This cross-examination is rather to show that this witness, whether he is saying it truthfully or untruthfully, is certainly inaccurate. The evidence he has given as to the good character of this defendant does not bear investigation -- that is quite clear -- and the Tribunal is not saying we are not entitled to cross-examine as to character However, I don't think I need occupy the time of the Tribunal with that.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY COLONEL AMEN:
Q Witness, when were you last in New York city?
AIn New-York? In the year 1936.
QAt that time you made a speech at Madison Square Garden, is that correct?
AYes.
QThat was really in the Garden?
A It was German Day, on the 6th of October 1936.
Q AGerman Day rally, correct?
AIt was an annual meeting of Germans which took place on the 6th of October.
QAnd in that rally there participated to a very large extent members of the German-American Bund, is that correct?
AYes.
QIn fact, that whole rally was hold under the auspices of the GermanAmerican Bund, was it not?
AThere was a committee in our club--I believe there are two thousand of then in New York--and these had grouped themselves into a Festivity Committee which agreed to put on the German Dry. Just what the constituents were I don't know.
QAnd it was at the solicitation of the German-American Bund that you made your speech, was it not?
ANo, the committee invited me, the committee of New York.
QYes, and on that committee were numerous members of the German-America Bund, is that true? Yes or no.
AYes.
QAnd as a matter of fact, there were many of the members of your organization at that time who were active members of the German-American Bund, is that correct?
AYes.
QAnd you personally had had several conferences with them, both here in Germany and in New York City, correct?
ANo, that is not correct.
QWell, what is correct?
AIt is correct that I was invited, but further conferences did not take place so.
QBut you don't dispute that many of the members of your organization were at that time members of the German-American Bund?
AI am not informed on that point.
THE PRESIDENT (to the witness): I have just taken down that you have said that was so.
COLONEL AMEN:Precisely.
THE WITNESS:Please repeat the question. BY COLONEL AMEN:
QDid you not just tell no a few moments ago, in response to a previous question, that many members of your organization were members of the German-American Bund who were present at your speech at the rally in Madison Square Garden?
ADo you mean members of the German Ausland Institute?
QYour organization? is the way I put it.
AI had no organization; I had an institute.
QExactly. And under whose auspices were you making this speech in Madison Square Garden?
AI was asked to make this speech because shortly before I had been made Lord Mayer of the City of Foreign Germans. I was Lord Mayer of that city, and in my capacity as such I was asked to give the speech. Stuttgart was made the City of Foreign Germans for the Swabians because most of the emigrants had come from there, and for that reason Stuttgart was the native city of foreign Germans.
QWell, is it not a fact that many members of the Ausland organization were at that time also members of the German-American Bund? Yes or no.
AYes.
QIs it not also a fact that at that time many members of the Institute were also members of the German-American Bund: Yes or no.
AYes, some of these people had come back. They were students who had studied abroad and had returned to Germany from America.
QIs it not also a fact that many of these members of the GermanAmerican Bund, who were likewise members of the Ausland Organization and the Institute, were indicted and tried and convicted a various espionage offense in the federal courts of the United States? Yes or no.
ANo, I know nothing about that.
QYou never heard that?
A No, I never heard about that. If you mean case Kappe, that case I do know, but that is not in connection with this matter.
QThat is one case, as a matter of fact. Now, you know some others too, don't you?
AI wonder if you could give me particulars.
QI could, but I am asking you the questions rather than trying to tell you the answers.
AI cannot remember any other cases. Please ask me..
QNo, I will go to another subject now, because it is getting late.
Are you acquainted with a Mr. Alfred Weninger--W-e-n-i-n-g-e-r?
AI didn't get this name. Alfred-
QAlfred Weninger, or however you pronounce it.
AWeninger--yes, I am familiar with that name.
QWho is he?
A Alfred Weninger is, to my knowledge, at present in France. I believe he is a jurist.
QWell, don't you know? Don't you know whether he is a jurist or not?
AYes, he is employed as a jurist.
QWhat is his nationality?
AHe is a Frenchman.
QIs he a friend of yours?
AYes.
QDid you intervene on his behalf on at least one occasion?
AI saw to it that he was freed from prison.
QThat was in March 1943?
ANo, there must be a misunderstanding. I mean the Alfred Weninger who is a Frenchman and whom I helped during the war so that he was not sentenced to death, and later he was freed from prison, but that took place in the year 1942 or 1943. That is the Weninger I know. There may be two Alfred Weningers, but this ...
QNo, that is correct. He was arrested for espionage with the enemy?
AYes, then it must be the same man. I helped him.
QAnd you intervened with the People's Court?
AYes, with Freisler.
QAnd also, at the Ministry of the Interior and Justice in Berlin?
AIn the Ministry of the Interior. I wrote a memo about conditions in Alsace, and I also helped others.
QAnd as a result of your assistance, these people received temporary suspension of their sentences, is that correct?
AYes. I Would like to mention expressly that I asked Neurath to intervene and that it is because of him a letter was written to Hitler and thus mitigating circumstances were carried through.
QSo that this individual, to put it mildly, is under a considerable obligation to you at the present time? Correct?
AYes, I assume so.
QWell, you saved his life in effect, did you not?
AI did that for others also, but I don't know whether there would be any gratitude for that.
Q Then you do not question the truth of what he might repeat as a conversation with you, correct?
AI do not doubt that he would remember this.
QDo you recall having a conversation with him in June, 1940?
AAt the moment I cannot say that without your telling me some of the particulars concerned.
QWell, I will tell you what you are reported by him to have said and I ask you whether you recall having said that to him either in the exact words which I put to you, or in substance. Do you understand?
AYes, I understand.
QHere are the words. "I warn you against National Socialism which does not recoil before anything and which makes justice a servile agent. They are criminal and I have but one wish -- to get out of it." Did you say that to Weninger in words or in substance? Answer yes or no.
AI did not quite understand just what you said. Will you please repeat it?
QYou understand English, don't you, witness?
ASome. I understand just a little.
QAs a matter of fact, you were interrogated in English by one of our interrogators, were you not?
AJust one occasion. I Spoke a little English. I do not believe . . .
QAnd you understand perfectly well what I just read to you, don't you?
AI did not understand it in German, and the substance of your questions is not clear to me.
QI'll read it to you again. But I believe that you are merely taking this time to try to think of your answer. I ask you again, you either said to Weninger in words or in substance, in June of 1940, the following:
I warn you against National Socialism which does not recoil before anything and which makes justice a servile agent. They are criminal and I have but one wish -- to get out of it."
Do you understand?
AYes, I understand but I do not recall having made that statement.