A. The charges did not refer to the entire sermon, the subject of which was false prophets, but two basic thoughts were mentioned. For one, the thought that the leading individuals—meaning in the State—intended to take the Catholic faith from the people. In addition to that, the defendant also was charged with having attacked the principle prevailing in Germany of religious freedom. That was the charge.
Q. Schosser asserts that his sermon itself was really not the focus of interest; but that you had dealt emphatically with the matter of a funeral, and you had included that in the case. Is that correct?
A. The matter of the funeral was not the subject of the indictment so far as it was not considered a basis for any legal facts in connection with it, but it was merely mentioned in the course of the trial. It is correct that this matter was discussed in connection with the matters contained in the indictment, but not in the manner that it was the most important part of the trial. It was quite legally admissible to mention it, as I have mentioned.
Q. Can you prove, from the files, that the prosecution submitted the files concerning the sermon question to the court?
A. That can be seen from the file.
Presiding Judge Brand: Is that file in evidence?
Mr. Wooleyhan: No, Your Honor, it is not.
Dr. Koessl: The case was only discussed by the witness Schosser.
Defendant Rothaug: By an order in the file SG 948 from the year 1942 (matter of the funeral), the prosecutor decided on 27 August 1942, under III, “Filed without subsidiary file”, that the matter SD 1312 of 1942—that is the sermon matter—after that file had been returned, was to be attached. By way of that disposition, these files concerning the funeral were submitted by the prosecution as material evidence, together with the sermon file, with the consequence that I received that material and had to discuss it with the prosecution witness at the main trial. That was legally permitted at all times. The judge was authorized to touch upon matters which had become either the subject of amnesty, or where an acquittal had occurred, or on matters referring to cases that had been suspended, or where a sentence had been passed. He could touch upon all these matters in a different case and discuss them for the purposes of the case at hand. Whether that became the basis for an evaluation for that new trial—that, of course, could only evolve from that main trial and the discussions therein.
Q. What was the basic purpose of discussing that question on your part?
A. The fundamental purpose of discussing these matters was to specify the obligation that all individuals and all offices had to heed the measures and regulations issued by the State, and the final purpose was to establish what basic attitude the defendant himself had with regard to that problem.
*******
Q. Schosser says you had attacked him on account of his profession, and you had attacked, in fact, the entire clerical profession. What was it about these alleged attacks?
A. That just isn’t so. As was required for every case, the interrogation was a conversation between myself and the defendant and, in the course of that conversation, I went into the question that people, if they wanted to go to church, wanted to hear about heavenly matters and didn’t want to hear anything about politics. If he wanted to deal with questions of that kind, he shouldn’t have become a clergyman but a politician.
Q. In connection with the education of youth, you are supposed to have reproached him that in the house of his parents, he hadn’t been educated in the National Socialistic sense.
A. That kind of a conversation would have been straight nonsense because Schosser was born in 1909 and, at that time, there was no such thing as national socialism. Consequently, I could not blame him. * * *.
Presiding Judge Brand: We understand your answer.
Dr. Koessl: It is also asserted that you reproached him that the Catholics were saying that Protestants were going right to hell. Quite briefly, please.
Defendant Rothaug: That again was an entirely different thought. I set forth that the German State has two great denominations and many others and can, therefore, be neither Catholic or Protestant but only absolutely neutral. It was, of course, up to him personally in his clerical field to speak for the accuracy of his opinion and his faith. If you are of the opinion that all those who are of a different denomination will go to hell, it is impossible for the State to share that opinion. As far as we are concerned, everybody will go right to heaven.
Q. Another question, quite briefly. Will you tell us what was said about Rosenberg?[548]
A. The name Rosenberg was brought in in the following manner. Schosser himself referred to it because his line of defense was that he had not intended to attack the Party by his statements but new [religious] ideas [neopaganism] and that he particularly intended to turn against Rosenberg with his statements. Thereupon, I told him that at any time it was his right to refute the thoughts which Rosenberg developed in his book, “Myths of the 20th Century,” in his sermons and to prove that they were wrong, only he had to specify what he intended to refute and whom he intended to refute because that, of course, was the most important thing of the trial. He had to exclude any possibility that these things might be carried into the general political field. That was the basis for my thoughts.
Q. Under what provisions was Schosser sentenced?
A. On the basis of article 130a of the Criminal (Penal) Code and article 2 of the Insidious Acts Law,[549]that is to say, according to German law both provisions became applicable; as we would have said technically, there was a sort of a legal connection between the two laws.
Q. Would Schosser have been punishable if there hadn’t been an Insidious Act Law?
A. Of course, on the basis of article 130a.
Q. As far as the facts are concerned, had the case Schosser been dealt with leniently or severely?
A. As far as the facts were concerned, it had been dealt with most leniently because the basis of suspicion was that the entire sermon of the false prophets and the roving wolves in all its structure and tendency was a political attack against the government. Schosser, when he was heard here as a witness, more or less admitted that. In our evaluation, however, we did not go that far, but we only referred to these two basic attacks.
*******
EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KLEMM CONCERNING PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 291 AND LIMITATIONS ON DIVINE SERVICES[550]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Dr. Schilf(counsel for defendant Klemm): The prosecution in this connection submitted another document, Prosecution Exhibit291, that is Document NG-770.[551]It deals with the problem whether church services could be held in penal institutions. I ask you whether you had anything to do with that matter?
Defendant Klemm: Yes, and I remember it quite well because I had a rather hot argument with Thierack about that matter.[552]Thierack, without informing me, prohibited that any church services could be held in penal institutions. I found out about that directive through theDeutsche Justiz—the periodical for German Justice—of 1944, on page 270. I immediately went to Thierack and referred to ethical reasons, but he did not abstain from his intentions. Then I used stronger arguments. I told him that I knew from the period of my work in the Party Chancellery that Hitler himself had issued a strict order that during the war all measures which might cause struggles with the church should be abstained from. Thierack doubted that. I offered that I would get a written confirmation from the Party Chancellery about that. He forbade that I write to the Party Chancellery. I told him in the course of the conversation that I was quite sure what the outcome of that matter would be. The moment one bishop would turn to Hitler, Hitler on account of his basic attitude would disavow Thierack.
A short time later when letters were received from German bishops, from the Protestant side as well as from the Catholic side, I went to Thierack and he became rather thoughtful and agreed to rescind the former order. That happened in a very carefully stated form, but it actually occurred. Especially for that matter, I claim a certain amount of credit.
*******