Morning Session
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the documents of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, the Tribunal admits the following documents which were objected to: Number 11, Number 47, Number 48, Number 50, Number 54, and Number 71.
The remainder of the documents which were objected to are rejected. I will enumerate them: Number 5, Number 10, Number 14, Number 19b, Number 21, Number 22, Number 27, Number 31, Number 39, Number 55, Number 60, Number 61, Number 68, Number 69.
That is all.
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, last night at the end of the session the counsel for Admiral Raeder submitted a certain number of documents including Document Raeder-105 of Document Book 5. This document is an excerpt from the German White Book, Number 5. It is the testimony of an old man of 72, a native of Luxembourg, who had lived in Belgium for only 6 months, and who affirms that in April 1940 he saw 200 French soldiers in Belgium. These soldiers, who he said were French, were in armored cars.
I must ask the Tribunal to allow me to make objection to this Document Number 7 of the White Book Number 5, the original of which has never been submitted and has not even been reproduced in the White Book, as is the case with a certain number of documents in the German White Book. It is necessary that in the name of France and of Belgium a protest—a formal, categorical protest—be made against such an assertion. At no time before the invasion of Belgium by the German forces did any French troops set foot on Belgian soil. The reading of this document, Number Raeder-105 of Document Book 5 of Admiral Raeder, enables us to understand how there came to be the error in the testimony by Grandjenet that is cited.
I have already told the Tribunal that this man is 72 years old and was from Luxembourg. To the question put to him by the German authorities as to how he recognized the soldiers he had seen as being of French nationality, he answered:
“I was quite sure that they were French soldiers because I know their uniform well. Moreover, I recognized the soldiers because of the language they used when they spoke to me.”
Now, as far as the uniform is concerned, the Tribunal knows that at the time when these events took place, the Belgian Army had a uniform of the same color as the French Army and a helmet of the same shape. As for the language, the Tribunal knows that a great part of the Belgian population who live along the Luxembourg frontier speak French, and the Belgian soldiers recruited in these districts speak French.
The Tribunal will certainly remember that this witness, who is a very old man, had only been living for 6 months in Belgium and probably had only a limited experience with things Belgian—and especially with the Belgian Army.
At any rate, we assert in the name of France and in the name of Belgium that before 10 May 1940 no French troops, no organized French troops, penetrated Belgium, and that the isolated individuals who did go into Belgium were interned there.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: If it please the Tribunal, may I reply very briefly?
This matter concerns a document from the White Book, on which a decision has already been handed down once and which was granted me. I propose that the Prosecution be requested to submit the original if they dispute the correctness of this document. In this I am in agreement with a decision of the Tribunal according to which the application is to be made for the presentation of the original if it is available, or application should be made so that whoever has the original should produce it. As far as I know the Prosecution have the original, since all original documents were located in the Foreign Office in Berlin, or in the alternative place of safekeeping, and all the originals of these White Books fell into the hands of the Allies.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by “original”? The original, I suppose, is the original of the White Book. Is that what you mean?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I mean now, Mr. President, the original of this court record.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this comes from a White Book. That is a printed document, I suppose, I do not suppose it contains the original of the statement of this Luxembourg man.
DR. SIEMERS: The White Book is a collection of numerous documents, and the single original documents are in the possession of the Foreign Office; in part they were from the files of the French General Staff, and partly they were records of court proceedings. Regarding the contents of this document...
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, you are not proposing that we should strike the document out, but the Tribunal will certainly take into account the facts to which you have drawn our notice.
M. DUBOST: This is an application that the Tribunal shall refuse to admit that document, Mr. President. At the same time this is a protest against the assertion made by the Defense that French soldiers violated Belgian neutrality in the course of the month of April. I hope the Tribunal will allow me to add a few words of explanation. The White Book, which we have here, comprises two parts. The first part reproduces texts and the second part gives photostatic copies of these texts. In the first part, which simply reproduces the texts, is found the document which I ask the Tribunal to strike from the record. We have searched in the second part which gives the photostatic copies of the documents in the first part, and we do not find it. We state to the Tribunal that the original of the document, which we ask the Tribunal to strike out, has not been reproduced in the German White Book, since it is not to be found in the second part.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that M. Dubost’s entire explanation refers to the question of the value of the document as evidence and not to the question of the admissibility of the document. That this document is in order appears to me to be quite clear, since it is a record of court proceedings where a certain person, namely Grandjenet, has been interrogated. Everything said by M. Dubost referred more to the contents of the document than to the question of its value as evidence. May I ask therefore that the document be admitted, as has been done up to now, and ask that consideration be given to the fact that the document has value in connection with the other documents which have been granted to me and to Dr. Horn in his document book with reference to Holland and Belgium.
If, in the second part of the document book there is no photostatic copy...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Siemers, and M. Dubost, the Tribunal will consider the objection that has been made.
DR. SIEMERS: May I merely mention, Mr. President, that if the photostat is not in the book, as M. Dubost states, then this is due to the fact that this court record in its original text was German, and the facsimiles are those prepared from the original text in French, that is to say, of those documents which in their original version were in French. If necessary I would appeal to Geheimrat Von Schnieden as a witness regarding this record, since he at the time was informed about all the records of this type and helped in the work of compiling the book.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the objection.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal I should like to say that the interrogatory put to the American Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Nimitz, is available. I received it the day before yesterday and in the meantime it has gone in to the interpreters for translation. With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to submit it now, in connection with the cases of Admiral Dönitz and Admiral Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution seen it?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got copies for us?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I had been informed that the copies for the Tribunal would be handed on by the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless we have copies, the document must not be read. It must be put off until we have copies.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: There are two copies in English and one in French.
I present the document as Number Dönitz-100.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, the Soviet members of the Tribunal do not have a copy of the document translated into their language, so you will present it at a later date.
Will the counsel for the Defendant Von Schirach present his case?
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant Von Schirach): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I propose first of all to conduct the examination of the Defendant Schirach himself, and in the course of this examination I will bring to your attention the passage of the document book concerned, as the individual points come up. Following the examination of the defendant I shall then call my four witnesses, and at the end I intend to submit the remaining documents, insofar as these documents have not by that time been presented during the examination of the Defendant Von Schirach. I presume, Mr. President, that you agree to this procedure.
I now call to the witness stand, first, Baldur von Schirach.
[The Defendant Baldur von Schirach took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the following oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.
[The defendant repeated the oath in German.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, what is the date of your birth?
BALDUR VON SCHIRACH (Defendant): 9 May 1907.
DR. SAUTER: That means that a few days ago you were 39. You have been married for 14 years; is that correct?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: And you have four children, whose ages are...
VON SCHIRACH: 4, 8, 11, and 13 years.
DR. SAUTER: In the Third Reich you were mainly active as Youth Leader?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: What offices did you fill in that connection, that is, offices in the Party and in the Government—please state also how long you held these various offices?
VON SCHIRACH: To start with, in 1929 I was the leader of the National Socialist Students’ Union. In 1931 I became Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP, at first on the staff of the SA Supreme Command; in 1932, Reich Leader for Youth Education of the NSDAP; in 1933, Youth Leader of the German Reich, at first under the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick. In 1934, I held the same position under the Reich Minister of Education, Rust. In 1936 the Reich Youth Leader became a leading Reich official, and in that capacity I came directly under the Führer and Reich Chancellor.
DR. SAUTER: Now, which of your offices were Party positions and which of the ones you have mentioned were offices of the Reich?
VON SCHIRACH: Party positions were the office of Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP, and that of Reich Leader for Youth Education. Government positions: The Youth Leader of the German Reich, at first subordinate to the Minister of the Interior as I have described or under the Minister for Education, and then in an independent position.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you were removed from some of these offices in 1940. What positions in Youth Leadership did you lose in 1940, and what positions did you still continue to fill to the end?
VON SCHIRACH: In 1940 I left the position as the leader of Youth, that is, I left the office of the Reich Youth Leadership of the NSDAP, but I retained the office of Reichsleiter for Youth Education and with that the entire responsibility for German youth. I received as an additional new post that of Gauleiter of Vienna, which was combined with the governmental post of Reichsstatthalter of Vienna and also that of Reich Defense Commissioner for Wehrkreis XVII.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, we want now to come back to your activity as Youth Leader. There is an affidavit by you here dated 4 December 1945, 3302-PS. In this affidavit you stated to the Prosecution in December that you acknowledge yourself to be responsible for all youth education in the Third Reich.
VON SCHIRACH: That is correct.
DR. SAUTER: Were you, when you gave the statement of guilt, under the impression that your successor, the late Reich Youth Leader Axmann, was dead?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: You thought that he died in the last battles of the war?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I was convinced that he had died in Berlin.
DR. SAUTER: In the meantime, Witness, you have learned from newspaper reports that your successor as Reich Youth Leader, this man Axmann, is still alive. Is that correct?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Do you want then, today, to support your affidavit regarding your personal responsibility as Youth Leader without reservation; or do you want to limit it in any respect today?
VON SCHIRACH: I do not want to limit this affidavit in any way. Although during the last years of his life Hitler gave orders to the Youth of which I do not know and also my successor, Axmann, particularly in 1944, gave orders with which I am not acquainted since the relationship between us had been broken off due to the events of the war, I stand by the statement that I have made in the expectation that the Tribunal will consider me the only person responsible in Youth Leadership and that no other Youth Leader will be summoned before a court for actions for which I have assumed responsibility.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I would now be interested in knowing whether possibly principles and directives which you received from Hitler or from any Party office or from any governmental quarter were the formula for your youth education; or whether, for your youth education, the principles were derived from the experiences which you had during your own youth and among the youth leaders of that time.
VON SCHIRACH: The latter is correct. Of course, the education of the Hitler Youth was an education on the basis of the National Socialist idea. But the specifically educational ideas did not originate with Hitler, they also did not originate with other leaders in the Party; they had their origin in youth itself, they originated with me, and they originated with my assistants.
DR. SAUTER: Perhaps you will be good enough now to explain to the Tribunal somewhat more in detail how you, yourself, arrived at those principles and that type of youth education, based on your own education, your personal development, and so forth?
VON SCHIRACH: I believe that the simplest way for me to do this would be for me here, very briefly, to sketch the story of my youth and describe also in that connection the youth organizations with which I came in contact. I can in that way save much time for my further statements.
My father was a professional officer in the Garde-Kürassier Regiment of the Kaiser. I was born in Berlin and one year later my father retired and moved to Weimar, where he took over the management of the Court Theater there, which later became the Weimar National Theater. Thus I grew up in Weimar, and that town, which in a certain sense is the native city of all Germans, I regard as my native city. My father was well off; our home offered a great deal of intellectual and artistic stimulation, above all in the literary and musical field, but apart from and beyond the educational opportunities of our home, it was the atmosphere of the town itself, that atmosphere of the classic and also the postclassic Weimar which influenced my development. It was most of all the genius loci, which early captured my imagination. It is directly due to those experiences of my youth that later on I led the youth back again, year after year, to Weimar and to Goethe.
And the first document which is important in this connection for my case, which is Document Schirach-80, will prove just that. There is a brief reference in that document to one of the many speeches which I made in the course of my activity as Youth Leader to the leaders of the young generation, and in which I directed the youth to Goethe...
DR. SAUTER: May I interrupt you for a moment, Herr Von Schirach?
In this Document Number Schirach-80, Mr. President, there is—on Page 133 of Schirach’s document book—a brief report on a Reich Cultural Convention (Reichskulturtagung) of the Hitler Youth in Weimar. This happens to be a report from 1937, but the defendant has already told you that such cultural conventions of the Hitler Youth took place every year in Weimar, the city of Schiller and Goethe. In this report, Document 80 of document book Schirach, there is, for instance, discussion of a speech of the defendant on the importance of Goethe for the National Socialist education of youth. It is said, in this connection, that at that time Schirach stated, and I quote...
THE PRESIDENT: You need not read it to us, Dr. Sauter. It refers to Goethe, that is all.
DR. SAUTER: In that case, Herr Von Schirach, will you continue?
VON SCHIRACH: It was not only the annual cultural convention but the annual meeting of the leaders of the Hitler Youth which took place in Weimar. Apart from that there were also what we called the “Weimar Festivals of German Youth.”
What is important in this connection is that in this speech I quoted a sentence of Goethe which, to a certain extent, became the leitmotiv of all my educational work: “Youth fashions itself afresh from youth.”
Even my worst enemy cannot deny the fact that I was to the young generation of the German people at all times not only the propagandist of National Socialism but also the propagandist of Goethe. A certain Herr Ziemer has submitted a lengthy affidavit against me in which he quarrels with the youth education for which I am responsible. I believe that Herr Ziemer did his work a little too superficially. In his description of German national education he should at least have taken into consideration my educational efforts designed to guide youth toward the life work of Goethe.
I joined my first youth organization when I was 10 years old. I was then just the age of the boys and girls who later on entered the Jungvolk. That youth organization which I joined was the so-called “Young German League,” (Jungdeutschland Bund), which Count von der Goltz had founded, a Boy Scout organization. Count von der Goltz and Haeseler, impressed by the British Boy Scout movement, had formed Pathfinder units in Germany, and one of these Pathfinder organizations was the Jungdeutschland Bund just mentioned. It played an important part in the education of German youth until about 1918 or 1919.
Much more significant in my development, however, was the time which I spent in a country boarding school (Waldpädagogium). This was an educational institution directed by an associate of the well-known educator, Hermann Lietz. There I was educated in the way which I later, on an entirely different basis...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, do you think the education of the defendant himself is in any way material for the Tribunal to hear? It is the education which he imparted which is the matter that is material. What he imparted, not what he himself took in.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the defendant would nevertheless ask you to allow him these statements, particularly, from the point of view that with them he wants to show you that the principles according to which he led youth education came to him not from Hitler and not from any Party source, but that they resulted from his own experiences in his own youth. It is, indeed, of some importance for the Tribunal to examine the question: According to what principles did the defendant direct youth education and how did he arrive at these principles? The defendant is asking permission to explain that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Sauter, the defendant has already taken some considerable time in telling us about his early youth and his education, and the Tribunal thinks that it ought to be cut short, and that not much more time ought to be taken up in dealing with the education of the defendant. As I have pointed out to you, what is material for us is the education he imparted to German youth and not the education which he received himself.
DR. SAUTER: We shall, of course, comply with your wish, Mr. President.
[Turning to the defendant.] Herr Von Schirach, will you please make your statements as brief as possible?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I can be very brief.
DR. SAUTER: Please, go on.
VON SCHIRACH: Lietz’ idea was to give youth an education in which they have in the school an image of the state. The school community was a miniature state and in this school community was developed a self-administration of youth. I only want to point out in passing that he, too, was applying ideas which long before him had been developed by Pestalozzi and the great Jean Jacques. All modern education, of course, goes back somehow to Rousseau, be it a question of Hermann Lietz or the Boy Scouts, the Pathfinder movement or the German Wandervogel movement. At any rate, that idea of self-administration of youth in a school community gave me my idea of the self-leadership of youth.
My thought was to attract the younger generation in school to ideas that Fröbel had originated 80 years before. Lietz wanted to win over youth from early school days onward.
I may perhaps mention very briefly that when in 1898 Lietz began his educational work, the British Major Baden-Powell was being surrounded by rebels in a South African town, and was training youngsters to scout in the woods and with this laid the groundwork for his own Boy Scout movement, and that in that same year, in 1898, Karl Fischer from Berlin-Steglitz founded the Wandervogel movement.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I think that this chapter, which is merely the historic background, might perhaps, in accordance with the wish of the President, be terminated now. If I understand you rightly then, you mean that those principles which you applied later on as Reich Youth Leader had become familiar to you in your own youth and in the youth movement of the time. Is that right?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes; basically, yes. The basic principles of my later work originate there.
DR. SAUTER: There is one more point I want to know in this connection. Did this education at that time have any political or anti-Semitic tendencies and how did you happen to get into politics?
VON SCHIRACH: No, that educational work had no political and most certainly no anti-Semitic tendencies, because Lietz came from the circles around the Democrat Naumann, from the Damaschke circle.
DR. SAUTER: But how did you get into politics?
VON SCHIRACH: In the meantime the revolution had broken out. My father...
DR. SAUTER: The revolution of 1918-1919?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, the revolution of 1918-1919. My father had been thrown out of his position by the Reds. The National Assembly in Weimar had convened. The Weimar Republic had been founded. We had a parliamentary system, we had a democracy, or what we in Germany thought was a democracy—I doubt that it was one. It was about 1923. I was at home at the time. It was a period of general insecurity, want, and dissatisfaction; many respectable families had become beggars through the inflation, and the worker and the citizen had lost their savings. The name “Hitler” made its appearance in connection with the events of 9 November 1923. I was not able at the time to gain any exact information about him. This Trial has informed me and people of my generation for the first time what Hitler actually wanted. At that time I was not a National Socialist. Together with some boys of my age I joined a youth organization which had the name “Knappenschaft.” It was in some way connected with the people’s movement, but it was not bound to any party. The principles of that organization were simply comradeship, patriotism, and self-control. There were about 100 boys from my city in it at the time who, in this youth organization, fought against the shallow tendencies of youth in the postwar period and against the dissipation indulged in by growing youngsters.
In that circle, as a 16-year-old, I first came in contact with socialism, for here I found youths from every level, working boys, craftsmen, young office employees, sons of farmers. But there were some older ones among us too, who were already settled in life, and some also who had been in the World War. From discussions with these comrades I came to grasp for the first time the consequences of the Versailles Treaty in their full import. The situation of the youth at the time was this: The school boy had the prospect of struggling through somehow or other as a working student, and then he would in all probability become a member of the academic proletariat for the possibility of an academic career practically did not exist for him at all. The young worker had no prospect of finding an apprenticeship. For him there was nothing other than the grim misery of unemployment. It was a generation nobody would help unless it helped itself.
DR. SAUTER: And that circle to which you belonged as a 16-year-old boy, then, gradually drifted into the currents of National Socialism?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, and in quite a natural way.
DR. SAUTER: How did it happen?
VON SCHIRACH: In central Germany there were disturbances. I need only mention the name of the Communist bandit leader, Max Hölz, to indicate what conditions obtained at the time. And even after outward calm had come, conditions still prevailed that made it impossible to hold patriotic meetings because they were usually broken up by Communists. There came an appeal to us young people to furnish protection for these patriotic meetings, and we did. Some of us were wounded in doing this. One of us, a certain Garschar, was killed by Communists. In that manner a large number of national meetings took place which otherwise could not have been held in the Weimar Republic, National Socialist meetings, too; and to an increasing degree it was exactly such meetings that we had to protect because the Communist terror was directed against them particularly.
Through this protective activity I met leading National Socialists—at first as speakers, naturally, not personally. I heard Count Reventlow speak; I think I heard Rosenberg then too; I heard Streicher speak and heard the first oratorical efforts of Sauckel, who soon after became Gauleiter of the National Socialist Party in Thuringia. In this way...
THE PRESIDENT: What date is he speaking of?
DR. SAUTER: This is the period around 1924, that is, a year after the Hitler Putsch.
In that way, Witness, the circle of which you were then a member came under National Socialist influences. Was this also supported with reading, reading of National Socialist literature?
VON SCHIRACH: Of course, I do not know what my comrades read, with the exception of one book which I shall give you directly. I know only what I read myself; I was interested at that time in the writings of the Bayreuth thinker, Chamberlain, in The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, in the writings of Adolf Bartels, in his Introduction to World Literature and History of German National Literature. There were works...
THE PRESIDENT: I have already told you that we do not want to know the full story of the defendant’s education. He is now giving us a series of the books which he has read, but we are not interested.
DR. SAUTER: Very well, Mr. President.
VON SCHIRACH: I shall only say in one sentence that these were works which had no definite anti-Semitic tendencies, but through which anti-Semitism was drawn like a red thread. The decisive anti-Semitic book which I read at that time and the book which influenced my comrades...
DR. SAUTER: Please...
VON SCHIRACH: ...was Henry Ford’s book, The International Jew; I read it and became anti-Semitic. In those days this book made such a deep impression on my friends and myself because we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success, also the exponent of a progressive social policy. In the poverty-stricken and wretched Germany of the time, youth looked toward America, and apart from the great benefactor, Herbert Hoover, it was Henry Ford who to us represented America.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal thinks, as I have said twice now, that the educational influences of the defendant are quite irrelevant to us. I do not want to say it again and, unless you can control the defendant and keep him to the point, I shall have to stop his evidence.
DR. SAUTER: But, Mr. President, is it not of interest to the Tribunal when judging this defendant and his personality that they know how the defendant became a National Socialist and how the defendant became anti-Semitic? I had thought...
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not of interest to the Tribunal.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, how did you then meet Hitler and how did you happen to join the Party?
VON SCHIRACH: I must say that I did not become a National Socialist because of anti-Semitism but because of Socialism. I met Hitler as early as 1925. He had just left Landsberg on the Lech, his imprisonment was ended, and he came to Weimar and spoke there. It was on that occasion that I was introduced to him. The program for the national community which he developed appealed to me so enormously because in it I found on a large scale something I had experienced in a small way in the camaraderie of my youth organization. He appeared to me to be the man who would pave the way into the future for our generation. I believed that through him there could be offered to this younger generation the prospect of work, of happiness. And in him I saw the man who would liberate us from the shackles of Versailles. I am convinced that without Versailles the rise to power of Hitler would never have happened. That dictate led to dictatorship.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, when did you then become a member of the Party?
VON SCHIRACH: I became a member of the Party in 1925. I joined the SA at the same time, with all my comrades.
DR. SAUTER: You were 18 at the time?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Why did you join the SA?
VON SCHIRACH: The SA furnished the protection for the meetings, and we simply continued in the SA, as part of the Party, the activities which we had carried out before in our youth organization.
DR. SAUTER: In 1926, Witness, that is when you were 19 years old, there was a Party rally in Weimar?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: As far as I know, you talked to Hitler personally on that occasion; is that correct?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I was to have talked personally to Hitler one year earlier. On this occasion there was another meeting. He was making speeches at various mass meetings in Weimar, and he came back to Weimar again during the same year to speak before a smaller circle. Together with Rudolf Hess he paid a visit to the home of my parents and on that occasion he suggested that I should study in Munich.
DR. SAUTER: Why?
VON SCHIRACH: He thought I ought to know the Party at its very core and thought I would become acquainted with the Party work in that way. But I want to say here that at that time I did not have any intention at all of becoming a politician. Nevertheless, I was very much interested, of course, in getting acquainted with the Movement at the place where it had been founded.
DR. SAUTER: You went, then, to Munich, and studied there?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I then went to Munich. At first I did not concern myself with the Party. I was occupied with Germanic studies, history, and the history of art; I wrote and I came into contact with many people in Munich who were not actually National Socialists but who belonged, I should say, to the periphery of the National Socialist movement. At that time I lived in the house of my friend, the publisher Bruckmann...
DR. SAUTER: Then in 1929 you became the head of the Movement within the universities. I think you were elected, not nominated, to that post?
VON SCHIRACH: The situation at the beginning was this: I attended Party meetings in Munich; in Bruckmann’s salon I met Hitler and Rosenberg and many other men who later played an important role in Germany. And at the university I joined the university group of the National Socialist German Students League.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
DR. SAUTER: Go on, Herr Von Schirach, you have just told us that you joined this university group in Munich. Will you please continue?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, and I also started to take an active part in this group. I spoke there before my comrades, at first about my own work in the literary field, and then I began to give lectures to the students also about the National Socialist movement. I organized Hitler student meetings among the students in Munich, and then I was elected a member of the General Students Committee, the ASTA, and through this activity among the students I came more and more into contact with the Party leadership. In 1929, the man who was the then so-called Reich Leader of the National Socialist Students Union retired, and the question arose of who should be given the leadership of all the university groups. At that time Rudolf Hess, on behalf of the Führer, questioned all university groups of the National Socialist University Movement and the majority of all these groups cast their vote for me to head the National Socialist Students Union. This accounts for the curious fact that I am the only Party leader who was elected into the Party leadership. That is something which has otherwise never occurred in the history of the Party.
DR. SAUTER: You mean to say by that, that all the others were nominated, and you alone were elected?
VON SCHIRACH: I was elected, and then I was confirmed in office.
DR. SAUTER: And if I am right, you were elected at the students’ meeting at Graz in 1931.
VON SCHIRACH: That is not correct. That is wrong. I am now talking only of the National Socialist University Movement; I will come back to this point later.
Now I was leader of the National Socialist University Movement, and I reorganized this movement. I began my work as a speaker. In 1931 I was...
THE PRESIDENT: Surely it is sufficient that he became the leader. It really does not matter very much to us whether he was elected or not.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I am making every effort all the time to abbreviate this speech. But perhaps I may ask just one more question with reference to this subject.
Witness, then in 1931 you were, as far as I know, elected to the presidency of the General Congress of Austrian and German Students, comprising all parties, and elected, I think, unanimously. Is that correct?
VON SCHIRACH: It is not correct.
DR. SAUTER: Then explain briefly, Herr Von Schirach.
VON SCHIRACH: That is not correct. At the meeting of the General German Students Congress in 1931, at which all German students and all Austrian students and Sudeten-German students were represented, one of my collaborators whom I had suggested as leader was unanimously elected head of the entire student group. This was a very important affair for the youth and for the Party. Two years before the seizure of power the entire academic youth had unanimously given their vote to a National Socialist. After this students’ rally at Graz, I had with Hitler a...
THE PRESIDENT: I think this would be a convenient time to adjourn.
DR. SAUTER: Very well.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. SAUTER: Witness, before the recess we stopped at the fact that in 1929 you had been elected the leader of the academic youth. Two years later, Hitler made you Reich Youth Leader. How did that appointment come about?
VON SCHIRACH: After the student meeting at Graz in 1931, the success of which was very surprising to Hitler, I had a conference with him. In the course of that meeting, Hitler mentioned a conversation we had had previously. At that time he had asked me how it came about that the National Socialist University Movement was developing so quickly, whereas the other National Socialist organizations lagged behind in their development.
I told him at that time that one cannot lead youth organizations as an appendix of a political party; youth has to be led by youth, and I developed for him the idea of a youth state, that idea which had come to me from experiencing the school community, the school state. And thereupon in 1931 Hitler asked me whether I would like to assume the leadership of the National Socialist Youth Organization. This included youth cells, then the Hitler Youth and the National Socialist Students Organization, which also was in existence at that time. Several men had already tried their hand at the leadership of these organizations: the former Oberstführer SA Leader Pfeffer, the Reichsleiter Buch, actually without much result.
I agreed and became then Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP, temporarily a member of the staff of the Oberst SA Leader Röhm. In that position, as Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP in the staff of Röhm, I had the rank of an SA Gruppenführer and kept that rank also when, half a year later, I became independent in my position. That explains also the fact that I am an SA Obergruppenführer. I got that rank many years later, honoris causa. However, I did not possess an SA uniform—even after 1933.
DR. SAUTER: Then in 1931 you became Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: That, of course, was a Party office?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Then in 1932 you became Reichsleiter? At that time you were 25 years old. How did that come about?
VON SCHIRACH: I have already said that I had expressed the opinion to Hitler that youth could not be the appendix of another organization, but youth had to be independent; it had to lead itself; it had to become independent; and it was in fulfillment of a promise which Hitler had already given me that, half a year later, I became an independent Reichsleiter.
DR. SAUTER: Independent Reichsleiter, so that you were subordinate directly to the Party leader Hitler?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: With what material means was that youth organization created at that time?
VON SCHIRACH: With the means furnished by the young people themselves.
DR. SAUTER: And how were those funds raised? By collections?
VON SCHIRACH: The boys and girls paid membership fees. A part of these membership fees was kept at the so-called district leadership offices, which corresponded to the Gauleitung in the Party or to the SA Gruppenführung in the SA. Another part went to the Reich Youth Leader. The Hitler Youth financed its organization with its own means.
DR. SAUTER: Then, I am interested in the following: Did the Hitler Youth, which you created and which was given Hitler’s name, get its importance only after the seizure of power and by the seizure of power only, or what was the previous size of this youth organization which you created?
VON SCHIRACH: Before the seizure of power, in 1932 the Hitler Youth was already the largest youth movement of Germany. I should like to add here that the individual National Socialist youth organizations which I found when I took over my office as Reich Youth Leader were merged by me into one large unified youth movement. This youth movement was the strongest youth movement of Germany, long before we came to power.
On 2 October 1932, the Hitler Youth held a meeting at Potsdam. At that meeting more than 100,000 youth from all over the Reich met without the Party’s providing a single pfennig. The means were contributed by the young people themselves. Solely from the number of the participants, it can be seen that that was the largest youth movement.
DR. SAUTER: That was, therefore, several months before the seizure of power, and at that time already more than 100,000 participants were at that rally at Potsdam?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: The Prosecution has made the accusation, Witness, that later, after the seizure of power—I believe in February 1933—you took over the Reich Committee of German Youth Organizations. Is that correct, and against whom was that action directed?
VON SCHIRACH: That is correct. The Reich Committee of Youth Organizations was practically no more than a statistical office which was subordinate to the Reich Minister of the Interior. That office was managed by a retired general, General Vogt, who later became one of my ablest assistants. The taking over of that Reich Committee was a revolutionary act, a measure which youth carried out for youth, for from that day on dates the realization of the idea of the Youth State within the State. I cannot say any more about that.
DR. SAUTER: The Prosecution further accuses you, Witness, of having dissolved the so-called “Grossdeutscher Bund” in 1933, that is, after the seizure of power. What was the Grossdeutscher Bund, and why did you dissolve it?
VON SCHIRACH: The Grossdeutscher Bund was a youth organization, or rather a union of youth organizations, with pan-German tendencies.
I am surprised, therefore, that the Prosecution has made the dissolution of that organization an accusation at all.
DR. SAUTER: Many members of this Grossdeutscher Bund were National Socialists. There was no very essential difference between some of the youth groups associated in that organization and the Hitler Youth. Is that correct?
VON SCHIRACH: I wanted youth to be united, and the Grossdeutscher Bund wanted to continue a certain separate existence. I objected to that, and there was agitated public controversy between Admiral Von Trotha, the leader of the Grossdeutscher Bund and me, and in the end the Grossdeutscher Bund was incorporated into our youth organization. I do not recall exactly whether I banned the organization formally; I know only that the members came to me, and that between Admiral Von Trotha and me a discussion took place, a reconciliation. Admiral Von Trotha until his death was one of the warmest sponsors of my work.
DR. SAUTER: How did the suppression of the Marxist youth organization come about?
VON SCHIRACH: I believe that the suppression of the Marxist youth organizations, if I remember correctly, came about in connection with the suppression of trade unions. I have no exact documents any more regarding that. But at any rate, from the legal point of view, I was not authorized in 1933 to order a suppression of that kind. The Minister of the Interior would have had to do that. I had the right to ban youth organizations, de jure, only after 1 December 1936. That the Marxist youth organizations had to disappear was a foregone conclusion for me, and in speaking about this suppression order as such, I can only say that the German working youth found the realization of its socialistic ideas, not under the Marxist governments of the Weimar Republic, but in the community of the Hitler Youth.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, at first you were Reich Führer of the NSDAP; that was a Party office. And after the seizure of power, you became Youth Leader of the German Reich; that was a State office. On the basis of this State or national office, did you also have jurisdiction over and responsibility for the school system, for the elementary schools, for instance?
VON SCHIRACH: For the school system in Germany the Reich Minister for Science, Education, and Culture was the only authority. My field was education outside the schools, along with the home and the school, as it says in the law of 1 December 1936. However, I had some schools of my own, the so-called Adolf Hitler Schools, which were not under national supervision. They were creations of a later period. And during the war, through the Child Evacuation Program that is, the organization by which we took care of evacuating the young people from the big cities endangered by bombing—I was in charge of education within the camps where these children were housed. But on the whole I have to answer the question about competence for the school system in Germany in the negative.
DR. SAUTER: This youth which you had to educate outside of the schools was called the Hitler Youth, the HJ.
Was membership in the Hitler Youth compulsory or voluntary?
VON SCHIRACH: The membership in the Hitler Youth was voluntary until 1936. In 1936 the law already mentioned concerning the HJ was issued which made all the German youth members of the HJ. The stipulations for the carrying out of that law, however, were issued only in March 1939, and only during the war, in May 1940, was the thought of carrying out a German youth draft considered within the Reich Youth Leadership and discussed publicly. May I point out that my Deputy Lauterbacher, at the time when I was at the front, stated in a public meeting—I believe at Frankfurt in 1940—that now, after 97 percent of the youngest age group of youth had volunteered for the Hitler Youth, it would be necessary to draft the remaining 3 percent by a youth draft.
DR. SAUTER: In this connection, Mr. President, may I refer to two documents of the document book Schirach. That is Number Schirach-51.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not quite understand what the defendant said. He said that the membership was voluntary until 1936, that the HJ Law was then passed, and something to the effect that the execution of the law was not published until 1939. Was that what he said?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, that is correct. Until 1936—if I may explain that, Mr. President—membership in the Hitler Youth was absolutely voluntary. Then in 1936 the HJ Law was issued, which provided that boys and girls had to belong to the Hitler Youth. But the stipulations for its execution were issued by the defendant only in 1939 so that, in practice, until 1939 the membership was nevertheless on a voluntary basis.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that right, Defendant?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes, that is right.
DR. SAUTER: And these facts which I have just presented, Mr. President, can also be seen from two documents of the document book Schirach, Number Schirach-51, on Page 91, and Number Schirach-52 on Page 92. In the latter document...
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Sauter, I accept it from you and from the defendant. I only wanted to understand it. You can go on.
DR. SAUTER: And in the second document mention is also made of the 97 percent which the defendant has said had voluntarily joined the HJ, so that now there were only 3 percent missing. May I continue:
[Turning to the witness.] Witness, what was the attitude of the parents of the children on the question of whether the children should join the HJ or not? What did the parents say?
VON SCHIRACH: There were, of course, parents who did not like to have their children join the HJ. Whenever I made one of my radio speeches to the parents or to the youth, many hundreds of parents sent me letters. Among these letters, there were many in which the parents voiced their objections to the HJ, or expressed their dislike for it. I always considered that a special proof of the confidence which the parents had in me. I should like to say here that never, when parents restrained their children from joining, have I exerted any compulsion or put them under pressure of any kind. In doing that I would have lost all the confidence placed in me by the parents of Germany. That confidence was the basis of my entire educational work.
I believe that on this occasion I have to say also that the concept that any youth organization can be established and carried on, and successfully carried on, by coercing youth, is absolutely false.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, did youngsters who did not join the Hitler Youth suffer any disadvantage for that reason?
VON SCHIRACH: Youngsters who did not join the Hitler Youth were at a disadvantage in that they could not take part in our camping, in our trips, in our sporting meets. They were in a certain sense outsiders of the youth life, and there was a danger that they might become hypochondriacs.
DR. SAUTER: But were there not certain professions in which membership in the HJ was a prerequisite for working in those professions?
VON SCHIRACH: Of course.
DR. SAUTER: What were the professions?
VON SCHIRACH: For instance, the profession of teacher. It is quite clear that a teacher cannot educate youth unless he himself knows the life of that youth, and so we demanded that the young teachers, that is those in training to teach, had to go through the HJ. The junior teacher had to be familiar with the ways of life of the pupils who were under his supervision.
DR. SAUTER: But there were only a few such professions, whereas for other professions membership in the HJ was not a prerequisite for admission. Or what was the situation?
VON SCHIRACH: I cannot answer that in detail. I believe that a discussion about that is not even possible, because the entire youth was in the Hitler Youth.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you know that the Prosecution has also accused the defendants of having advocated the Führer Principle. Therefore, I ask you:
Was the Führer Principle also valid in the HJ, and in what form was it carried out in the HJ? I should like to remind you that I mean that kind of Führer Principle of which we have heard in the testimony.
VON SCHIRACH: Of course, the HJ was built up on the Führer Principle; only the entire form of leadership of youth differed basically from that of other National Socialist organizations. For instance, we had the custom in youth leadership of discussing frankly all questions of interest to us. There were lively debates at our district leader meetings. I myself educated my assistants even in a spirit of contradiction. Of course, once we had debated a measure and I had then given an order or a directive, that ended the debate. The youth leaders—that is the young boy and girl leaders—through years of working together and in serving the common purpose, had become a unity of many thousands. They had become friends. It is evident that in a group of that kind the carrying out of orders and directives takes place in ways entirely different from those in a military organization or in any other political organization.
DR. SAUTER: Witness...
VON SCHIRACH: May I add something?
Leadership based on natural authority such as we had in the youth organization is something which is not alien to youth at all. Such leadership in the youth organization never degenerated into dictatorship.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you have been accused of training the youth in a military way, and in that connection, the fact has been pointed out that your HJ wore a uniform. Is that correct, and why did the HJ wear a uniform?
VON SCHIRACH: I have stated my opinion about that in many instances. I believe there are also documents to illustrate it. I have always described the uniform of the HJ as the dress of comradeship. The uniform was the symbol of a community without class distinctions. The worker’s boy wore the same garb as the son of the university professor. The girl from the wealthy family wore the same garb as the child of the day laborer. Hence the uniform. This uniform did not have any military significance whatsoever.
DR. SAUTER: In that connection, Mr. President, may I ask you to take judicial notice of Document Number Schirach-55 of the document book Schirach, then of Numbers Schirach-55a and 117, where the Defendant Von Schirach, many years ago, expressed in writing and repeatedly the same trends of thought which he is expressing today.
I should only like to ask, Mr. President, for permission to correct an error in Document 55, on Page 98. Rather far down, under the heading “Page 77,” is a quotation from a book by Schirach. There it says:
“Even the son of the millionaire has no other power...”
I do not know whether you have found the passage. It is on Page 77 of the book quoted, and Page 98 of the document book, Number Schirach-55. There is a quotation near the bottom of the page:
“Even the son of the millionaire has no other power...” It should read “dress,” not “power.” The German word “Macht”, is an error, and should be the word “Tracht.”
So I ask now to have the word “Macht” (power), changed to the word “Tracht” (dress).
Witness, I shall then continue with the interrogation. You have been accused of having prepared youth for the war, psychologically and pedagogically. You are alleged to have participated in a conspiracy for that purpose, a conspiracy by which the National Socialist movement acquired total power in Germany, and finally planned and carried out aggressive wars. What can you say about that?
VON SCHIRACH: I did not participate in any conspiracy. I cannot consider it participation in a conspiracy if I joined the National Socialist Party. The program of that party had been approved; it had been published. The Party was authorized to take part in elections. Hitler had not said—neither he nor any of his collaborators—“I want to assume power by a coup d’état.” Again and again he stated in public, not only once but a hundred times: “I want to overcome this parliamentary system by legal means, because it is leading us, year by year, deeper into misery.” And I myself as the youngest deputy of the Reichstag of the Republic told my 60,000 constituents similar things in electoral campaigns.
There was nothing there which could prove the fact of a conspiracy, nothing which was discussed behind closed doors. What we wanted we acknowledged frankly before the nation, and so far as printed paper is read around the globe, everyone abroad could have been informed also about our aims and purposes.
As far as preparation for war is concerned, I must state that I did not take part in any conferences or issuing of orders which would indicate preparation for an aggressive war. I believe that can be seen from the proceedings in this Court up to now.
I can state only that I did not participate in a conspiracy. I do not believe either that there was a conspiracy; the thought of conspiracy is in contradiction to the idea of dictatorship. A dictatorship does not conspire; a dictatorship commands.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, what did the leadership of the Hitler Youth do to prepare the youth for war and to train it for warlike purposes?
VON SCHIRACH: Before I answer that question, I believe I will have to explain briefly the difference between military and premilitary training.
Military training, in my opinion, is all training with weapons of war, and all training which is conducted by military personnel, that is, by officers, with and without weapons of war. Premilitary education—premilitary training is, in the widest sense, all training which comes before the time of military service; in particular cases it is a special preparation for military service. We, in the Hitler Youth, were opponents of any military drills for youth. We disliked such drills as not youthful. I am not giving my personal opinion here, but the opinion of thousands of my co-workers.
It is a fact that I rejected the Wehrjugend (the Youth Defense Groups), which had formerly existed in Germany, and did not allow any continuation of Wehrjugend work within the HJ. I had always been strongly opposed to any soldier-playing in a youth organization. With all my high esteem for the profession of an officer, I still do not consider an officer capable of leading youth because in some way or other, he will always apply the tone of the drill field and the forms of military leadership to youth.
That is the reason why I did not have any officers as my assistants in the Hitler Youth. Just on account of my refusal to use officers as youth leaders, I was severely criticized by the Wehrmacht on occasion. I should like to stress that that did not come from the OKW; Field Martial Keitel, especially, had a great deal of understanding for my ideas. However, in the Wehrmacht, now and again, criticism was heard on account of the general attitude of opposition of the Youth Leadership corps toward having officers used as leaders of a youth organization. The principle of “youth leading youth” was never broken in Germany.
If I am now to answer definitively the question of whether the youth was prepared for the war and whether it was trained in a military sense, I shall have to say, in conclusion, that the main efforts of all youth work in Germany culminated in trade competition, in the trade schools, in camping, and competition in sports. Physical training, which perhaps in some way could be considered a preparation for military service, took only a very small part of our time.
I should like to give as an example here: A Gebiet, or district, of the Hitler Youth, for instance the Gebiet of Hessen-Nassau which is about the same as a Gau in the Party, contributed from its funds in 1939 as follows: For hikes and camping, 9/20; for cultural work, 3/20; for sports and physical training, 3/20; for the Land Service (Landdienst), and other tasks and for the offices, 5/20.
The same area spent, in 1944—that is, 1 year before the end of the war—for cultural work, 4/20; for sports and defense training, 5/20; for Landdienst and other tasks, 6/20; and for the evacuation of children to the country, 5/20.
In that connection I should like to mention briefly that the same area, in the time from 1936 until 1943, made no expenditures for racial-political education; in 1944 there was an entry of 20 marks under the heading of racial-political education for the acquisition of a picture book about hereditary and venereal diseases. However, in that same district, in one single town, during the same time, 200,000 marks were given to have youth visit the theaters.
The question concerning premilitary or military education cannot be answered by me without describing small-caliber shooting practice. Small-caliber firing was a sport among the German youth. It was practiced on the lines laid down in the international rules for sport shooting. Small-caliber shooting, according to Article 177 of the Treaty of Versailles, was not prohibited. It states expressly in that article of the treaty that rifle clubs, sporting, and hiking organizations are forbidden to train their members in the handling and use of war weapons. The small-caliber rifle, however, is not a war weapon. For our sport shooting we used a rifle similar to the American 22-caliber. It was used with the 22-caliber Flobert cartridge for short or long distance.
I should like to say here that our entire marksmanship training and other so-called premilitary training have been collected in a manual entitled “HJ Service.” That book was printed and sold not only in Germany but was also available abroad.
The British Board of Education in 1938 passed judgment on that book, in the educational pamphlet, Number 109. With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to quote briefly what was said about it in this educational pamphlet. I quote in English:
“It cannot fairly be said to be in essence a more militaristic work than any thoroughgoing, exhaustive, and comprehensive manual of Boy Scout training would be. Some forty pages are, to be sure, devoted to the theory and practice of shooting small-bore rifle and air gun, but there is nothing in them to which exception can reasonably be taken, and the worst that one can say of them is that they may be confidently recommended to the notice of any Boy Scout wishing to qualify for his marksmanship badge.”
As to the mental attitude of the Hitler Youth, I can only say that it was definitely not militaristic.
DR. SAUTER: We will perhaps come back to that later with another question. You say the Hitler Youth had been trained with Flobert rifles, or small-caliber rifles, as they are also called. Was the Hitler Youth also trained with infantry rifles, or even machine guns or machine pistols?
VON SCHIRACH: Certainly not.
DR. SAUTER: Not at all?
VON SCHIRACH: Not a single German boy, until the war, had been trained with a war weapon, a military weapon, be it an infantry rifle, machine gun, or infantry gun; nor with hand grenades in any form.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in the document book Schirach are several documents which will show that the attitude of the Defendant Von Schirach concerning the question of military or premilitary education of the Hitler Youth was exactly the same as he has stated it today, particularly, that he expressed himself against any military drill, barracks language, and all such things.
These are mainly documents in the document book Schirach: 55, then 122, 123, 127, 127a, 128, and 131. I ask you to take judicial notice of these documents. They contain, on the whole, the same statements which Herr Schirach has made briefly already.
Herr Von Schirach, in connection with the so-called military training of the youth, I should like to know what influence the SA had on the training of youth?
VON SCHIRACH: None at all. The SA tried to have an influence on the education and training of youth.
DR. SAUTER: In what way?
VON SCHIRACH: It was in January of 1939. At that time I was in Dresden, where I arranged a performance which presented modern gymnastics for girls. I still remember it distinctly. While I was there, a newspaper was shown to me which carried a decree by Hitler, according to which the two oldest age groups of the Hitler Youth were to receive premilitary training from the SA. I protested against that at once and after my return to Berlin I succeeded not in having the decree withdrawn for that could not be done for reasons of prestige since Hitler’s name was on it—but invalidated as far as the youth were concerned.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, that incident is contained in a document in the document book Schirach, Number Schirach-132. That is a statement from Das Archiv, a semiofficial news periodical. I should like to refer to that as evidence; and in regard to the question of training in shooting I should like to ask the defendant one more question.
What part of the entire training did the shooting practice have in the HJ? Was it a very essential part or the essential part?
VON SCHIRACH: Unfortunately, I do not have the documentary material here which would enable me to answer that exactly. But at any rate, it was not an essential part of the training in the HJ.
DR. SAUTER: Did that marksmanship training go any further, according to your experiences and observations, than the marksmanship training of youth in other nations?
VON SCHIRACH: The marksmanship training of youth in other nations went much further, much beyond that which we had in Germany.
DR. SAUTER: Do you know that from your own observation?
VON SCHIRACH: I know that from many of my assistants who constantly made a detailed study of the training in other countries, and I know about it from my own observation.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think that is relevant, the fact that other nations trained in marksmanship? I am not sure it is true either, but anyhow, it is not relevant.
DR. SAUTER: Then I come to another question, Witness. The Prosecution have asserted and I quote:
“...that thousands of boys were trained militarily by the HJ in the work of the Navy, of the naval aviation and of the armored troops, and that over seven thousand teachers trained over a million Hitler Youth in rifle marksmanship.”
That is the citation of the Prosecution referring to some meeting of the year 1938. I should like to have you state your position with regard to the question here, the question of the special units of the Hitler Youth.
VON SCHIRACH: The Prosecution refers, if I am not mistaken, to a speech which Hitler made. How Hitler arrived at the figures concerning training, I cannot say. Concerning training in the special units I can only say, and prove with documents, the following:
In the year 1938 the motorized Hitler Youth—that is that special unit of our youth organization which the Prosecution think received preliminary training in the tank branch—in 1938 the motorized Hitler Youth had 328 vehicles of their own.
DR. SAUTER: In all Germany?
VON SCHIRACH: In all Germany. There were 3,270 private cars of their family members which, of course, were at their disposal for their work; and 2,000 cars of the NSKK (National Socialist Motor Corps). In the year 1938 21,000 youth got their driving licenses. I believe, but I cannot be sure about it, that that is twice the number of youngsters that received a driving license in 1937—that is, the driving license for a passenger car. These figures alone show that the motorized Hitler Youth did not receive preliminary training for our armored forces. The motorized Hitler Youth had motorcycles; they made cross-country trips. That is correct. What they learned in this way was, of course, useful for the Army too, when these boys later were drafted into the motorized units; but it was not true that the boy who had been in the motorized Hitler Youth went to the Army. There was no compulsion in that respect at all. The motorized Hitler Youth was not created upon the request of the Wehrmacht, but it was already created in the fighting years—long before the seizure of power, simply from the natural desire of the boys who owned a motorcycle and wanted to drive it. So we formed our motorized HJ; we used these boys as messengers between tent camps and we used them as drivers for our minor leaders, and later, in order to give them a regular training, especially knowledge of motors, of engines, we made an arrangement with the NSKK, which had motor schools and could train the boys.
Other units were created in the same way. The Flieger HJ, for example, never had any airplanes. We had only gliders. The entire Hitler Youth had but one airplane and that was my own, a small Klemm machine. Aside from that, the Hitler Youth had only model airplanes and gliders. The Hitler Youth not only taught their own members the use of gliders in the Rhön Hills and elsewhere, but also thousands of youth from England and other countries. We had glider camps where young Englishmen were our guests and we even had camps in England.
DR. SAUTER: The Navy HJ, did they perhaps have warships?
VON SCHIRACH: The Navy HJ, of course, had not a single warship, but from time to time our former Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Raeder, kindly gave us an old cutter and with that we put to sea.
The boys, for instance, who lived in a city like Berlin, near the Wannsee, and did some rowing, became members of the Navy HJ. When entering the Wehrmacht they did not, just because they had been in the Navy HJ, go into the Navy, but just as many went afterwards into the Army or the Air Force, and it was the same with other special units.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you say therefore that in your opinion the Hitler Youth was not educated in a military way for the war?
VON SCHIRACH: I should like to be quite precise about that. The training in these special units was carried out in such a manner that it really had a premilitary value. That is to say that whatever the boy learned in the Navy Hitler Jugend, regardless of whether he wanted to use it only as a sportsman later, or whether he actually went into the Navy, the basic principles were valuable as premilitary education. If one considers these special units of the HJ, one can establish that here a premilitary education actually took place, but not a military training. The youth were not prepared for the war in any place in the HJ; they were not even prepared for the military service, because the youth did not go direct from the Hitler Youth into the Army. From the Hitler Youth they went into the Labor Service.
DR. SAUTER: And how long were they in the Labor Service?
VON SCHIRACH: Half a year.
DR. SAUTER: And only then did they get to the Wehrmacht?
VON SCHIRACH: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: In that connection, however, the Prosecution has used an agreement which was made between the HJ leadership and the OKW in August 1939, and which has been submitted as Document 2398-PS by the Prosecution. What are the facts about that agreement between you and the OKW?
VON SCHIRACH: I cannot remember any details. Between Field Marshal Keitel and myself, according to my recollection, there was no discussion concerning that agreement, but I believe we arranged that by correspondence. And I should just like to state that during the entire time from 1933 to 1945, only one or two conversations of about half an hour took place between Field Marshal Keitel and me. The agreement, however, resulted from the following considerations: We endeavored in the Hitler Youth, and it was also the endeavor of the leading men in the Wehrmacht, to take nothing into our training which belonged to the later military training. However, in the course of time, the objection was raised on the part of the military, that youth should not learn anything in its training which later would have to be corrected in the Wehrmacht. I am thinking, for instance, of the compass. The Army used the infantry compass; the Hitler Youth, in cross-country sports, used compasses of various kinds. It was, of course, quite senseless that youth leaders should train their boys, for instance, to march according to the Bèzar compass if later, in their training as recruits, the boys had to learn something different. The designation and the description of the terrain should also be given according to the same principles in the Hitler Youth as in the Army, and so this agreement was made by which, I believe, thirty or sixty thousand HJ leaders were trained in cross-country sports. In these cross-country sports no training with war weapons was practiced.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, now I come to another chapter. It may be that this is the best time to adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.