Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume III

by Various

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Although the subject material in many of the cases overlaps, it was believed that this arrangement of the cases would be most helpful to the reader and the most feasible for publication purposes.

[2] See protocol p. XVIII for correction of this paragraph.

[3] Judge Harding’s middle name was correctly used as “Woodward” in General Orders No. 52, OMGUS, 21 June 1947. See section VII, opinion and judgment.

[4] Id.

[5] The order constituting the Tribunal and designating the judges, General Orders No. 11, 14 February 1947, is reproduced on page 7. Because of illness, Judge Marshall was obliged to retire from the case after the trial was under way. Thereupon, Judge Brand succeeded Judge Marshall as Presiding Judge and, pursuant to Article II, paragraphs (b) and (f) of Military Government Ordinance No. 7, Judge Harding became a full member of the Tribunal. The text of General Order No. 52, OMGUS, 21 June 1947, is quoted in the opinion and judgment, (sec. VII). The final order of the Military Governor providing for these changes in the constitution of the Tribunal is reproduced on page 8.

[6] A “Staatssekretaer” is approximately the equivalent of an under secretary in one of the executive departments of the United States Government. During the trial “Staatssekretaer” was translated synonymously as State Secretary or Under Secretary.

[7] This caption, with the necessary factual changes, appeared at the top of the first page of the transcript for each day of the proceedings. Hereinafter it will be omitted from all extracts from the transcript.

[8] The defendant Westphal committed suicide in the Nuernberg prison adjacent to the Palace of Justice where the trials were held.

[9] Tr. pp. 34–137, 5 March 1947.

[10] Trial of the Major War Criminals, Nuremberg, 1947, volume I, page 181.

[11] These two charts are reproduced below in section IV C 2.

[12] Later nine more were formed in Austria, Danzig, Poland, Sudetenland, and Bohemia, making 35 in all.

[13] Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag 13 July 1934, Voelkischer Beobachter, 15 July 1934.

[14] Voelkischer Beobachter, 27 August 1930.

[15] Deutsche Allgemaine Zeitung, 28 November 1934.

[16] Speech before the NSDAP congress, 14 September 1935; Dokumente der Deutschen Politik, volume 3, page 315.

[17] A Nation Beholds Its Rightful Law, lecture at the University of Rostock, 13 February 1936.

[18] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., page 179.

[19] 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt I, 175. This decree is one of over 40 laws and decrees collected by the prosecution and introduced as Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112. Most of these are reproduced chronologically in section IV B below. See footnote 1, page 160.

[20] 26 January 1937, Reichsgesetzblatt I, 39, 71.

[21] Decree of the Reich President for Protection against Insidious Attacks on the Government of the Nationalist Movement of 21 March 1933, Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 135.

[22] 15 September 1935; Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 1146.

[23] 17 August 1938; 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 1455.

[24] 28 June 1935; 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 839.

[25] 28 June 1935; 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 844.

[26] Speech before the NSDAP Congress, op. cit., page 315.

[27] Speech before members of People’s Court, 22 July 1942; reproduced below in section V C 2a.

[28] Reproduced below in section V C 1a.

[29] 6 May 1940, Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 754.

[30] 16 September 1939, Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 1841.

[31] Decree of 21 February 1940, Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 407.

[32] Decree of 13 August 1942, Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 508.

[33] Decree of 1 September 1939, Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 1658.

[34] Extracted from Voelkischer Beobachter, 27 April 1942; reproduced below in section V C 2a.

[35] Resolution of the Greater German Reichstag, 26 April 1942, “Deutsche Justiz,” 1942, page 283.

[36] 20 August 1942, 1942 Reichsgesetzblatt, page 535.

[37] Periodical of Academy for German Law, 1 September 1942, page 44.

[38] Decree on Courts Martial Procedure, 15 February 1945, Reichsgesetzblatt I, page 30.

[39] Reproduced below in section V C 3 a.

[40] Complete text of the Moscow Declaration is reproduced in the preface pages of this volume. See table of contents.

[41] Complete text of Ordinance No. 7 is reproduced in the preface pages of this volume. See table of contents.

[42] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., page 253.

[43] Ibid., pages 253–255.

[44] Complete text of Control Council Law No. 10 is reproduced in the preface pages of this volume. See table of contents.

[45] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., page 304.

[46] Ibid., p. 318.

[47] Ibid., pages 318–319.

[48] United States vs. Holt, 108 F. 2d 365 (C.C.A., 7th, 1939).

[49] Reproduced below in section V D 2.

[50] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., pages 232 and 233.

[51] Rudolf Lehmann was a defendant in Case 12, the “High Command Case.” He was convicted and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. See volumes X and XI, this series.

[52] Ibid., p. 271.

[53] 1943. Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 372.

[54] Reproduced below in section V E.

[55] Reproduced below in section V C 3 b.

[56] Wigmore, John Henry, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Wigmore on Evidence), (Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1940), 3d Ed., vol. II, p. 206.

[57] Ibid., sec. 363, p. 274.

[58] Ibid., p. 275.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid., p. 275–276.

[61] Ibid., p. 287.

[62] The Volkszeitung of Reuss, 16 March 1931.

[63] Deutscher Juristentag, 30 May 1933, pp. 7 and 8.

[64] Deutsche Justiz, 1941, p. 441.

[65] Ibid., p. 839.

[66] Preussisches Justizministerialblatt, 24 April 1933 (I 9474), p. 130.

[67] Decree concerning Community Life of Undergraduates of Law (referendare) admitted to the Second State Examination, Preussisches Justizministerialblatt, (I 10136) 29 June 1933, p. 210.

[68] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., pp. 255–257.

[69] Ibid., pp. 270–273.

[70] Ibid., pp. 258–261.

[71] This general opening statement by Dr. Kubuschok was made, as noted by the Tribunal, “in behalf of all of the defendants.” (Tr. p. 4055.) Both this statement (Tr. pp. 4057–4083) and those on behalf of each defendant (Tr. pp. 4084–4221) were delivered on 23 and 24 June 1947.

[72] Professor Jahrreiss appeared as a defense witness on 25 and 26 June 1947. Extracts from his testimony are reproduced below in section IV D. Dr. Niethammer did not appear as a witness.

[73] Tr. pp. 4084–4089.

[74] The general opening statement on behalf of all defendants is reproduced immediately above, section III B.

[75] Tr. pp. 4090–4106.

[76] Tr. pp. 4106–4119.

[77] Transcript pages 4120–4124.

[78] Tr. pp. 4138–4140.

[79] Document is reproduced below in section V D 3.

[80] Tr. pp. 4141–4148.

[81] Technische Nothilfe, Technical Emergency Corps.

[82] The prosecution collected over forty different laws, decrees, extracts from the Weimar constitution, or German legal writings in Document NG-715 and introduced these in one document book as Prosecution Exhibit 112. Numerous decrees and laws from Document NG-715 are reproduced in this and later sections of this volume. Therefore, where a particular law or decree is reproduced in different parts of this volume under the heading “Partial Translation of Document NG-715,” this does not necessarily mean that only extracts from that law or decree are reproduced. It merely means that only a part of Document NG-715, which in fact contained many different “documents,” is reproduced at that point.

[83] The defense often included all or parts of documents in their document books which had previously been introduced as exhibits by the prosecution. This was not necessary, of course, in order to give the defense the benefit of materials contained in prosecution exhibits, but it was apparently done to bring together in one place (the defense document books) the documentary materials upon which the defendant principally relied. In this volume the editors have occasionally noted the designation of documents as both prosecution and defense exhibits.

[84] During the early period of the Nazi regime, this decree served as the basis for numerous “restrictions on personal freedom,” including the placing of persons in “protective custody” without trial. For example, see the Goering decree concerning the Secret State Police (Gestapo) of 11 March 1934, (Klemm Doc. 28, Klemm Ex. 28), reproduced below in section V B. See also Document NG-478, Prosecution Exhibit 61, in section C-3.

[85] These articles, contained in part II (“Fundamental Rights and Duties of Germans”) of the Weimar constitution, read:

“Article 114. Personal liberty is inviolable. No encroachment on or deprivation of personal liberty by any public authority is permissible except in virtue of a law.

“Persons, who have been deprived of their liberty, shall be informed—at the latest on the following day—by what authority and on what grounds the deprivation of liberty has been ordered; opportunity shall be given them without delay to make legal complaint against such deprivation.

“Article 115. The residence of every German is an inviolable sanctuary for him; exceptions are admissible only in virtue of laws.

*******

“Article 117. The secrecy of correspondence and of the postal, telegraph, and telephone services is inviolable. Exceptions may be permitted only by law of the Reich.

“Article 118. Every German has the right, within the limits of general laws, to express his opinion freely, by word of mouth, writing, printed matter or picture, or any other manner. This right must not be affected by any conditions of his work or appointment, and no one is permitted to injure him on account of his making use of such rights.

“No censorship shall be enforced, but restrictive regulations may be introduced by law in reference to cinematograph entertainments. Legal measures are also admissible for the purpose of combating bad and obscene literature, as well as for the protection of youth in public exhibitions and performances.

*******

“Article 123. All Germans have the right without notification or special permission to assemble peaceably and unarmed.

“Open-air meetings may be made notifiable by a law of the Reich, and in case of direct danger to public security may be forbidden.

“Article 124. All Germans have the right to form unions and associations for purposes not in contravention of the penal laws. This right may not be restricted by preventive regulations. The same provisions apply to religious unions and associations.

“Every union is at liberty to acquire legal rights in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. These rights shall not be refused to a union on the ground that its objects are of political, social-political, or religious nature.

*******

“Article 153. Property is guaranteed by the constitution. Its extent and the restrictions placed upon it are defined by law.

“Expropriation may be effected only for the benefit of the general community and upon the basis of law. It shall be accompanied by due compensation, save insofar as may be otherwise provided by a law of the Reich. In case of dispute as to the amount of compensation, resort may be had to legal proceedings in the ordinary course, unless a law of the Reich otherwise determines. Property of the states, local authorities, and public utility associations may be expropriated by the Reich only on payment of compensation.

“The ownership of property entails obligations. Its use must at the same time serve the common good.”

[86] This act became known as the “Enabling Act” because it authorized Hitler and his government to alter the statutory law and even the constitution of Germany without the participation or consent of the legislative bodies. See the testimony of the expert witness for the defense, Professor Jahrreiss, section D, below.

[87] This law repealed an earlier law of 28 April 1933 creating a special basis for imposing disciplinary penalties on members of the SA and the SS.

[88] Before the reorganization of the German judicial system by the Hitler regime, the administration of justice was largely the function of the separate German states (Laender) making up the Reich.

[89] For more extensive evidence from the record concerning treason and related matters, see section V E, below.

[90] This part is reproduced below on page 231.

[91] The full text of this law was submitted in evidence as Schlegelberger Document 26, Schlegelberger Defense Exhibit 66. The parts of the law not reproduced here deal with arrangements for the further transfer of the administration of justice from the individual German states (Laender) to the Reich.

[92] Article 2 of the penal code prior to the above amendment was as follows:

“For no act may punishment be imposed unless such punishment is prescribed by statute before the act is committed. In the event of any change in the statute between the time of commission of an act and the time of rendering a decision, the most lenient statute shall apply.”

[93] This law and the Reich citizenship law of the same date constitute the original “Nuernberg Laws,” so-called because both were issued in Nuernberg “at the Reich Party Congress for Freedom.” The Reich citizenship law (1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 1146), was signed by Hitler and Frick, the Reich Minister of Interior. The text of this law reads as follows:

“The Reichstag has unanimously decided on the following law, which is herewith promulgated:

“1. (1) A citizen [Staatsangehoeriger] is one who belongs to the protective association of the German Reich and owes allegiance to it. (2) Citizenship can also be obtained according to regulations of the Reich and State citizenship law.

“2. (1) A Reich citizen [Reichsbuerger] is only a citizen of German or related blood, who proves through his behaviour, that he is willing and fit to serve the German people and Reich faithfully. (2) Reich citizenship [Reichsbuergerrecht] will be obtained through the award of a Reich citizenship letter. (3) The Reich citizen is the sole bearer of full political rights to the extent of the law.

“3. The Reich Minister of the Interior decrees in collaboration with the deputy of the Fuehrer those legal and administrative regulations necessary for the execution and supplementation of this law.”

[94] A number of further decrees as well as other materials concerning the application of the “Nuernberg Laws” in the Incorporated Eastern Territories (Poland), are reproduced below in section V D 2.

[95] This extract is taken from Prof. Arthur Brand’s book, The German Civil Service Law, Berlin, 1937, p. 123. The book contains the law with extensive annotations and commentaries, as well as further regulations on the law.

[96] Note that the decree is dated 17 August 1938, at which time it was signed by Hitler and Keitel. It was not promulgated in the Reichsgesetzblatt, however, until 26 August 1939. The decree had no general preamble. The earlier articles are entitled: “1. Substantive law;” “2. Espionage;” “3. Guerrilla warfare;” and “4. Acts contrary to decrees issued by the commanders in occupied foreign territory.”

[97] Materials concerning the application of the law of “undermining of military efficiency” are reproduced below in section V-E.

[98] This decree was not published in the Reichsgesetzblatt. It was taken from a letter of 9 September 1939 from Meissner, chief of the Presidential Chancellery, transmitting this decree to the chief of the Reich Chancellery and to the chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer of the Nazi Party.

[99] Material concerning the application of laws on “public enemies” is reproduced below in section V E.

[100] For other decrees concerning the establishment and jurisdiction of “Special Courts,” see section C 3 below.

[101] Article 1 of this decree was also introduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112. This decree and a decree of 15 July 1942 extending the jurisdiction of SS courts into Bohemia and Moravia (reproduced later in this section as another part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112) were the subject of questions put to the defendant Schlegelberger by Judge Harding. This testimony is reproduced below in section V D 3.

[102] The SS Death Head units were in charge of the concentration camps.

[103] Material concerning the application of the laws on “public enemies” are reproduced below in section V E.

[104] The Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, both announced in Nuernberg on 15 September 1939, were the basic parts of the so-called “Nuernberg Laws.” See the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, reproduced earlier in this section also as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112. Further decrees and other materials concerning Jews are reproduced below in section V D 2.

[105] The reference is to Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag on the same day, 26 April 1942. Extracts from this speech (Doc. NG-752, Pros. Ex. 24) are reproduced below in section V C 2a.

[106] The decree of 17 October 1939 establishing special jurisdiction in criminal proceedings against members of the SS and members of police formations on special tasks, (Klemm Doc. 29, Klemm Ex. 29), is reproduced earlier in this section.

[107] Thierack at this time had just been appointed Reich Minister of Justice. From late January 1941 until the middle of August 1942, the defendant Schlegelberger had been acting Reich Minister of Justice. Evidence concerning developments in the administration of justice while Thierack was Reich Minister are reproduced below in section V C3.

[108] Martin Bormann, tried in absentia and sentenced to death by the International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 367.

[109] Reproduced on page 184 as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112.

[110] Reproduced on page 207 as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112.

[111] At this time the defendant Klemm was one of several Under Secretaries (Staatssekretaere) in the Reich Ministry of Justice.

[112] Reproduced on page 207 as a part of Doc. NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112.

[113] Complete testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, (31 July, 1 Aug. 1947), pages 6235–6271; 6274–6362.

[114] Defendant Mettgenberg later testified that in department III of the Ministry of Justice he held the position of “Referent for legislation in the field of international penal law” and that in department IV he was “a subdepartment chief in charge of a sphere of work which, above all, also concerned affairs of international penal law” (Tr. p. 6251).

[115] For various periods of time under the Hitler regime, over half of the defendants held one or more of the various titles and positions which the defendant Mettgenberg here proceeds to describe. For example, the defendant Joel was a Referent and later a ministerial counsellor; the defendants von Ammon and Westphal were ministerial counsellors; the defendant Mettgenberg himself was a Ministerialdirigent; the defendants Altstoetter and Engert were ministerial directors; and the defendants Schlegelberger, Klemm and Rothenberger were Under Secretaries. Only two persons held the position of Reich Minister of Justice during the Hitler regime, Guertner and Thierack, both of whom were dead by the time of the trial. The defendant Schlegelberger was acting Reich Minister of Justice between the death of Guertner in January 1941 and Thierack’s appointment as Minister in August 1942.

[116] This summary and the following two charts are part of the “Basic Information” submitted by the prosecution at the beginning of the case as an aid to the understanding of the evidence to be later submitted.

[117] This decree is reproduced on p. 218.

[118] This decree is reproduced on p. 231.

[119] For further information on this subject, see contemporaneous documents below in section C5.

[120] The decree on court martial procedure is reproduced below in section C6.

[121] A much enlarged copy of this chart was displayed in the courtroom during several sessions of the trial as a visual aid in argument and in the presentation of evidence.

[122] A number of the contemporaneous documents reproduced later in this volume deal with trials held before Special Courts. Among the specific cases treated herein are the Katzenberger case (Doc. NG-270, Pros. Ex. 155, and Doc. NG-154, Pros. Ex. 152), reproduced in part below in section V D2; the Kaminska-Wdowen case (Doc. NG-457, Pros. Ex. 201) reproduced in part below in section V D2; and the Father Schosser case (Doc. NG-1808, Pros. Ex. 557) reproduced in part below in section V F.

[123] This law is reproduced on p. 173.

[124] This decree is reproduced on p. 185.

[125] This decree is reproduced on p. 187.

[126] This decree is reproduced on p. 188.

[127] These decrees, dated 5 September, 4 September, 6 December, and 1 September 1939, respectively, are reproduced in section B, above.

[128] This decree is reproduced on p. 218.

[129] This decree, dated 28 February 1933, is reproduced on p. 160.

[130] This decree, dated 20 December 1934, is reproduced on p. 173 under the title, Law on Insidious Acts against State and for the Protection of Party Uniforms.

[131] A number of the contemporaneous documents reproduced later in this volume deal with trials held before senates of the People’s Court. Among the specific cases treated herein are the Stenfanowicz-Lenczewski case (Doc. NG-351, Pros. Ex. 132), reproduced below in section V D 2; the Bratek case (Doc. NG-595, Pros. Ex. 136), reproduced in part below in section V E; the Beck case (Doc. NG-381, Pros. Ex. 159), reproduced in part below in section V E; and the Paschen case (Doc. NG-546, Pros. Ex. 141), reproduced below in section V E.

[132] The law of 24 April 1934 consists of three chapters or parts (each divided into several articles and sections). Chapter I broadened and redefined the concepts of high treason and treason, according to National Socialist principles by amended articles 80–93 of the Reich criminal code. Chapter I is reproduced in part above in section B, Selected Laws and Decrees. Chapter III of the law, reproduced here, established a special judicial machinery to deal with high treason and treason as newly defined in chapters I and II. Materials on the application and interpretation of these provisions on treason and high treason are reproduced below in section V E.

[133] This decree is reproduced on p. 160.

[134] From 1936 until 1942, Thierack was President of the People’s Court. In 1942, Thierack became Reich Minister of Justice, and Freisler, President of the People’s Court.

[135] This law is reproduced in part on p. 182.

[136] Decree of the Reich President for the protection of people and State is reproduced on p. 160.

[137] The hereditary health courts dealt with sterilization of human beings. Because of space limitations, a relatively small amount of the evidence introduced in the Justice Case has been reproduced in this volume. However, sterilization was also the subject of charges in the Medical Case. See “Medical Experiments—Experiments for Mass Sterilization” (sec. VII A 15, Vol. I, pp. 694 ff., this series).

[138] Reference is made to the basic law of 14 July 1933, reproduced in part immediately above.

[139] Dr. Conti was Reich Health Leader (Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer). His activities came into issue in the Medical Case, United States vs. Karl Brandt, et al., Volumes I and II, this series. Conti committed suicide in 1945 after Germany’s unconditional surrender.

[140] Complete testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 25 and 26 June 1947, pages 4253–4364.

[141] Reference is made to the Law Concerning the Head of the German Reich, 1 August 1934 (1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, pt. I, p. 747). This law reads as follows: “Article 1. The office of the Reich President is herewith united with that of the Reich Chancellor. Therefore, the prerogatives hitherto held by the Reich President are transferred to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. He determines his deputy. Article 2. This law becomes effective from the time of the death of Reich President Hindenberg.” Hindenberg died on 2 August 1934. This law was signed by Hitler and 14 Reich ministers.

[142] This act is reproduced on page 163.

[143] Article 53 reads—“The President of the Reich appoints and dismisses the Chancellor of the Reich and, on the latter’s recommendation, the ministers of the Reich.”

[144] Article 54 reads—“The Chancellor of the Reich and the ministers of the Reich require the confidence of the Reichstag in the administration of their office. Any one of them must resign should the confidence of the Reichstag be withdrawn by an express resolution.”

[145] Article 50 reads—“All orders and decrees of the President of the Reich, including those relating to the armed forces, require for their validity the countersignature of the Chancellor or the competent minister of the Reich. The countersignature entails the undertaking of responsibility.”

[146] Article 76 reads—“The constitution may be amended by legislation. But decisions of the Reichstag as to such amendments come into effect only if two-thirds of the legal total of members be present, and if at least two-thirds of those present have given their consent. Decisions of the Reichsrat in favor of amendments of the constitution also require a majority of two-third of the votes cast. Where an amendment of the constitution is decided by an appeal to the people as the result of a popular initiative, the consent of the majority of the voters is necessary.

“Should the Reichstag have decided upon an alteration of the constitution in spite of the objection of the Reichsrat, the president of the Reich shall not promulgate the law if the Reichsrat, within 2 weeks, demands an appeal to the people.”

[147] Article 102 reads—“Judges are independent and subject only to the law.”

[148] The problem referred to by the witness was briefly the following: The value of the German currency having fallen to a very small fraction of its prewar value, debtors were able to pay off debts by paying, in terms of purchasing power, only a small fraction of the original debt. This brought hardship to many creditors. Hence, the question was whether, under the doctrine of “unjust enrichment,” or under some similar doctrine, or by virtue of special legislation, these debts, particularly toward creditors in the lower economic strata, should be “revalued.”

[149] Article 48, paragraph 2, reads—“Where public security and order are seriously disturbed or endangered within the Reich, the President of the Reich may take the measures necessary for their restoration, intervening in case of need with the help of armed forces. For this purpose he is permitted, for the time being, to abrogate either wholly or partially the fundamental rights laid down in articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153.”

The articles subject to temporary suspension are quoted in the footnote to the decree of 28 February 1933, the first decree reproduced in section B, above.

[150] Article 43 reads—“The president of the Reich holds office for 7 years. Reelection is permissible.

“The president of the Reich may, upon the motion of the Reichstag, be removed from office before the expiration of his term by the vote of the people. The resolution of the Reichstag requires to be carried by a two-thirds’ majority. Upon the adoption of such a resolution, the president of the Reich is prevented from the further exercise of his office. Refusal to remove him from office, expressed by the vote of the people, is equivalent to reelection, and entails the dissolution of the Reichstag.

“Penal proceedings may not be taken against the president of the Reich without the consent of the Reichstag.”

[151] The “red folder” contained the order of the Reich President dissolving the Parliament (Reichstag). In some instances, the Reich Chancellor would bring the “red folder” with him into a session of the Reichstag, thus indicating that the Reich President had already signed but not yet promulgated the order dissolving the Reichstag and making it clear to the Reichstag that an adverse vote would lead to the dissolution of the Reichstag.

[152] Paragraph 3 of article 48 reads: “The President of the Reich must, without delay, inform the Reichstag of any measures taken in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of this article. Such measures shall be abrogated up on the demand of the Reichstag.”

[153] In a previous section of his testimony, the witness had differentiated between the ordinary private citizen, who was affected by many norms only indirectly, and such categories as the soldiers and the public employees, who were more directly affected by certain norms.

[154] Article 4 reads: “The generally recognized rules of international law are valid as binding constituent parts of the law of the German Reich.”

[155] Article 4 is quoted in footnote immediately preceding.

Article 45, paragraph 3, reads: “Alliances and treaties with foreign states which refer to matters in which the Reich has legislative power require the consent of the Reichstag.”

[156] Other extracts from the testimony of defendant Schlegelberger appear below in sections V B, V C 2 a, V D 2, V D 3, and V E. His entire testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript (26, 27, 30 June, 1 July 1947, pp. 4367–4568).

[157] The portions of the record omitted here pertain to such matters as the order of trial and the offers of documents. At this point no testimony has been omitted.

[158] Reproduced below in section V C 1 a.

[159] Reproduced below in section V C 1 a.

[160] Opening statement for the prosecution, section III A, above.

[161] Hans Frank, former head of the National Socialist Legal Workers’ Association, and of the German Academy of Law, Reich Minister and Governor General of the Government General (Poland).

[162] Prior to the Hitler regime, the administration of justice was largely in the hands of the German Laender (States). When Hitler abrogated the federal system, he also centralized the administration of justice.

[163] Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor concerning Appointment of Civil Servants and Termination of Civil Service Status, (Schlegelberger 127, Schlegelberger Def. Ex. 123), is reproduced above in section IV B.

[164] According to the testimony of prosecution witness Ferber (Tr. p. 1325) Heller and his mistress were riders in a taxicab.

[165] The defendant Westphal committed suicide in Nuernberg jail after indictment but before the arraignment.

[166] Counsel refers to the testimony of the prosecution witness Karl Ferber, (31 March, 1, 3, 8 April 1947, pp. 1312–1315, 1319–1466, 1576–1630, 1665–1746). None of his testimony has been reproduced herein.

[167] Reproduced below in Section V C 2 a.

[168] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 275.

[169] Three of the defendants in the Medical case were tried and convicted upon charges of participation in the euthanasia program. (See United States vs. Karl Brandt, et al., Vol. I, p. 794, and Vol. II, p. 171 ff., this series.) Concerning the time when Guertner received a copy of a Hitler notice regarding euthanasia, the prosecution in the Justice Case introduced the following document (630-PS, Pros. Ex. 383), the original of which was on the letterhead of “A. Hitler” and dated Berlin, 1 September 1939:

Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M.D. are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who according to human judgment are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.

[Signed] A. Hitler

[Handwritten note]

Given to me by Bouhler on 27 August 1940.

[Signed] Dr. Guertner

III a 3/ 41g R s /

[170] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., page 182.

[171] Reproduced below in section VC3a.

[172] Reproduced above in section IVB.

[173] This document is a letter of 14 September 1937 from Thierack, at that time President of the People’s Court, to Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery, in which Thierack suggested that Hitler address a further meeting of the members of the People’s Court in connection with their “fight against treason.” This exhibit is not reproduced herein.

[174] Thierack became Reich Minister of Justice in August 1942.

[175] The defendant refers to the showing before the Tribunal of a German sound film showing scenes from the actual trial of some of the persons allegedly involved in the attempt upon Hitler’s life on 20 July 1944 (NG-1019, Pros. Ex. 192). In that trial, Freisler acted as the presiding judge of the People’s Court.

[176] Testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 28 April 1947, pp. 2675–2691; 2716–2729.

[177] This resolution is reproduced on page 204.

[178] Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag on 26 April 1942 (NG-752, Pros. Ex. 24) is reproduced below in section VC2a.

[179] Dr. Ferdinand Behl testified as a prosecution witness. His testimony is not reproduced herein. It is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 18–21 March 1947, pp. 562–826.

[180] The first mentioned law is reproduced in full on page 167, and the second in part on page 172.

[181] This document is the Second Law concerning the transfer of administration of justice to the Reich, dated 5 December 1934. Extracts from this law are reproduced as a part of Doc. NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112, on p. 172.

[182] Higher officials belong to the top group of German Civil Servants. See table on German Civil Service Ranks in the appendix.

[183] Reproduced below in section V F.

[184] Extracts from the testimony of Father Schosser are reproduced below in section V F. Further testimony of defendant Schlegelberger, dealing with treatment of Jews, is also reproduced below, section V D 2.

[185] This order was printed in German Justice (Deutsche Justiz), 1934, 96th year, pp. 341 ff.

[186] In the IMT trial, this document was identified as Document 3751-PS and introduced in evidence as Exhibit USA-828.

[187] Wilhelm Frick was one of the defendants sentenced to death by the International Military Tribunal. Concerning Frick’s relation to concentration camps, the IMT stated, “From the many complaints he received, and from the testimony of witnesses, the Tribunal concludes that he knew of atrocities committed in these camps.” (Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., vol. I, p. 300.)

[188] The enclosure was not offered in evidence.

[189] This document was taken from “General Collection of Regulations,” a secret publication of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) compiling numerous regulations of concern to the various police agencies.

[190] The introductory paragraphs of this regulation were omitted from the document as introduced in evidence by the defense. These paragraphs read as follows:

“The following regulations regarding protective custody go into effect on 1 February 1938. At the same time, the following are rescinded:

“a. My decree of 12 April 1934—I 3311 A/28.2 along with the supplement of 26 April 1934 and 10 July 1934 (directed to governments of the states and to the Reichstatthalters).

“b. My decree of 12 April 1935—VI B 757A/3014 along with the supplementary decree of 1 June 1935 VI B 11568/3014 (directed to the governments of the states, Reichstatthalters, Prussian presidents of government districts).

“c. My decree of 17 June 1935—III P 3311/329 (directed to the state government and the Reichstatthalter).

“d. The decree of office of Secret State Police of 3 July 1934—B Nr. 19582 II I D (directed to the presidents of the Prussian government districts).

“e. The decree of the Political Police Commander of the Lands of 9 September 1935—B. Nr. 37840/35 II I D (directed to the political police of the states and the Prussian State police offices).”

[191] Although the term Generalstaatsanwalt may be translated literally as state chief attorney, the term was ordinarily translated at the trial as “attorney general” or “chief public prosecutor.” Similarly, Staatsanwalt has ordinarily been translated as “attorney general” or “public prosecutor.”

[192] Defense counsel often reproduced in their document books documents which had previously been introduced as prosecution exhibits, and in these cases the document ordinarily acquired both a prosecution and a defense exhibit number.

[193] Document reproduced immediately above reports on two meetings of this conference.

[194] Document is not signed.

[195] The reference is to the widespread acts of violence against Jews during this time, a period often referred to as “Crystal Week” because of the large number of windows in Jewish stores which were broken.

[196] Further parts of this report, dealing with the question of “race pollution” and the treatment of Jews, are reproduced below in section V D 2.

[197] The exact status of the enclosures mentioned is not known. Since the letter itself was only a draft, the marginal notes of which indicate that it was submitted to Dr. Guertner’s consideration more than once, it is not clear whether the original list mentioned was initially compiled and then substituted by a completely new list, or whether the list compiled initially was merely revised by new additions as time passed. However, it should be pointed out that the list reproduced below, and which was submitted as part of the file as found by Allied authorities, contains entries as late as 30 January 1940. It should also be noted that the three cases specifically mentioned in the draft letter of 30 November 1939 (Latacz, Jacobs, and Gluth) are all cases mentioned in the following list.

[198] The initials indicate that Dr. Crohne, a department chief in the Reich Ministry of Justice, proposed this draft or, in any event saw it before it was shown to Reich Minister Guertner. Dr. Crohne was chief, first of Department III, and later of Department IV, in the Reich Ministry of Justice.

[199] Concerning this list, see footnote on preceding page.

[200] Otto Meissner was Chief of the Presidential Chancellery of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. He was a defendant in Case 11, United States vs. Ernst von Weizsaecker et al. See volumes XII-XIV, this series.

[201] Concerning the relation of the extermination program to transfers of certain groups to the Reich Leader SS, two documents written by Thierack, Reich Minister of Justice, are especially enlightening—Thierack’s memorandum concerning his conference with Himmler and others on 18 September 1942, which mentions “special treatment” (654-PS, Pros. Ex. 39), reproduced below in section V C 3 a; Thierack’s letter of 13 October 1942 to Bormann, which mentions “the extermination of members of these nationalities,” referring to Poles, Russians, Jews, and gypsies (NG-558, Pros. Ex. 143), reproduced below in section V D 2.

[202] See related documents in section V D, below, concerning the treatment of Poles, Jews, and others.

[203] Other extracts from the testimony of defendant Schlegelberger are reproduced above in section IV E, and below in sections V C 2a, V D 2, V D 3, V E.

[204] Reproduced earlier in this section.

[205] Reproduced below in section VC2a.

[206] Article 340 of the Reich Criminal (Penal) Code provides as follows: “An Official who in the exercise of or in connection with the exercise of his office intentionally commits or causes to be committed a bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 3 months. If there are extenuating circumstances, the punishment may be reduced to 1 day imprisonment or to a fine.

“If the bodily injury is serious, confinement in a penitentiary for not less than 2 years shall be imposed. If there are extenuating circumstances, the punishment shall be imprisonment for not less than 3 months.” (Taken from Klemm Doc. 26, Klemm Ex. 26.)

[207] Highest court in Berlin.

[208] The enclosure is reproduced following this letter.

[209] Here follow the names, followed by initials, of 23 department chiefs and assistants, including the names of defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg.

[210] Both directives were taken from “Ordinances, Regulations, Announcements,” pages 377 and 378, issued by the Chancellery of the Nazi Party and published by the Central Publishing Office of the NSDAP, Frz. Eher Successor, G.m.b.H., Munich.

[211] Concerning the later establishment of special jurisdiction in criminal proceedings against members of the SS and members of police formations on special tasks, see the decree of 17 December 1939, (Klemm Doc. 29, Klemm Ex. 29), reproduced above in section IV B.

[212] Stahlhelm (Steel Helmet), an organization of German Veterans of World War I.

[213] Rudolf Hess, one of the defendants before the International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volumes I-XLII.

[214] Complete testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 30 April, 1 May 1947, pages 2884–2938.

[215] Otto Ohlendorf, defendant in the Einsatzgruppen Case, United States vs. Otto Ohlendorf, et al., Case 9, volume IV, this series.

[216] “Decree concerning the administration of Penal Justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories” of 4 December 1941. It is reproduced below as a part of NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, page 632.

[217] The opinion and judgment in the Katzenberger case, one of the trials in which defendant Rothaug was presiding judge, is reproduced below in section D 2, (NG-154, Pros. Ex. 152).

[218] Reference is made to cases under the “Law on Insidious Acts Against State and Party and for the Protection of Party Uniforms,” 20 Dec. 1934, (1393-PS, Pros. Ex. 508), reproduced above in section IV B.

[219] The role of the Party Chancellery in connection with legal matters is discussed in the extracts from the testimony of defendant Klemm reproduced below in section V D 2.

[220] Further extracts from the testimony of the defendant Klemm are reproduced below in sections V C 3, V D 2, and V F. His entire testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15 July and 23 September 1947, pages 4784–4822; 4891–5025; 5027–5090; 5094–5199; 9383–9396.

[221] The defendant Klemm held a number of different official positions during the Hitler regime, the last of which was Under Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice. Extracts from his testimony reproduced later in this volume deal with his activities during periods when he held other positions.

[222] Reproduced earlier in this section.

[223] Further extracts from the testimony of the defendant Rothenberger are reproduced below in sections C 2 b, C 3 a and D 2. Rothenberger’s entire testimony appears in the mimeographed transcript, 16–18, 21, and 22 July, 24 September 1947, pages 5324–5381; 5400–5484; 5495–5581; 9438–9478; 9512–9515.

[224] In the preceding part of his direct examination, defendant Rothenberger testified that he had previously held the following positions, among others: judge from 1925–1927; government counselor (Regierungsrat and subsequently Oberregierungsrat) in the justice administration of Hamburg from 1927–1930; and district court director in Hamburg after 1931 (tr. 5327–5331).

[225] Later Governor General of German occupied Poland. Frank was tried and sentenced to death by the International Military Tribunal. Thierack later succeeded Frank as leader of the NSRB, and in 1944, Thierack appointed the defendant Klemm as his deputy in this organization.

[226] This is a report of a conference on 22 August 1939 between defendant Rothenberger and the SD chief in Hamburg. It is reproduced earlier in this section.

[227] Further extracts from the testimony of defendant Rothaug are reproduced later in this section and in sections V D 2, V E, and V F.

Complete testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 11–14, 18–22, 25, and 26 August 1947, pages 6754–6917, 6928–7016, 7179–7395, 7406–7470, 7474–7636, 7640–7648.

[228] Extracts from the testimony of the prosecution witness Elkar are reproduced earlier in this section.

[229] Testimony of Dr. Karl Ferber, a prosecution witness, is not reproduced herein.

[230] Doebig was a prosecution witness. His testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript 9, 10 August 1947, pages 1750–1872.

[231] In German legal terminology a judgment or an interlocutory ruling is described as “rechtskraeftig” if all regular means of opposing or altering it (by such means as objection and appeal) have been exhausted, or if the period of time within which objection or appeal can be taken has lapsed. The term “rechtskraeftig” in this trial, Justice Case, was usually translated as “final.”

[232] Further extracts from the testimony of the defendant Lautz are reproduced below in section V E. His entire testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript (23, 24, 25, 28 July 1947, pages 5761–5775, 5781–6054).

[233] Concerning the purpose of the extraordinary objection, the defendant Schlegelberger stated the following in a letter to Hitler on 6 May 1942: “In order to accelerate the setting aside of such decisions [judgments not accomplishing the unrelenting punishment of criminals], you, my Fuehrer, created the extraordinary objection to the Reich Supreme Court. With the help of this legal resource the judgment against Schlitt, which you mentioned in the session of the Reichstag, was quashed within 10 days by sentence of the Reich Supreme Court. Schlitt was sentenced to death and executed at once.” (See Doc. NG-102, Pros. Ex. 75, reproduced in sec. V C 2 a.)

[234] Dr. Escher acted as a defense lawyer for a number of accused persons during the Nazi regime and executed a number of affidavits concerning his experiences which were introduced as exhibits by the prosecution. Extracts from Dr. Escher’s cross-examination concerning his affidavit on the nullity plea appear immediately below.

[235] This decree is reproduced in part immediately above.

[236] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript 23 May 1947, pages 3628–3641.

[237] Reproduced in part just above.

[238] Tr. 6885–6886, (12 Aug 1947). Further extracts from the testimony of defendant Rothaug are reproduced earlier in this section, and below in sections V D 2, V E, and V F.

[239] The letter to Hitler is reproduced immediately above.

[240] 1940 appears in the original, but obviously 1941 was intended.

[241] Testimony of defendant Schlegelberger concerning this document (Tr. p. 4462) is reproduced above in section V B where Schlegelberger discusses the question of the transfer of persons to the Gestapo.

[242] The newspaper clipping is reproduced on following page.

[243] Schaub was Hitler’s adjutant.

[244] Extracts from this document were also submitted as Document Petersen 2, Petersen Exhibit 5.

[245] This extract is taken from the speech as reported in the “Voelkischer Beobachter,” South German Edition, page 3, for 27 April 1942.

[246] In a unanimous decision on the same day as this speech, the Reichstag granted Hitler power to take action “without being bound by existing legal regulations” and “regardless of so-called well established right.” The Reichstag decision is reproduced on page 204 as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112.

[247] Excerpts from parts of this correspondence not reproduced in this exhibit are quoted in the extracts from Schlegelberger’s testimony reproduced at the end of this section.

[248] Pertinent parts of Hitler’s speech are contained in Document NG-752, Prosecution Exhibit 24, reproduced immediately above.

[249] See section V C 1 b, “New devices to change final court decisions—extraordinary objection and nullity plea,” for further information concerning this subject.

[250] Not reproduced herein. This letter transmitted Schlegelberger’s letter to Hitler and the decree on right of confirmation, both reproduced immediately above.

[251] The decision of the Greater German Reichstag, 26 April 1942, promulgating Hitler’s authority to act “without being bound by existing law,” is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 204.

[252] On 26 April 1942, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag, which discussed, among other things, the role of persons concerned with the administration of justice. Extracts from this speech (NG-752, Pros. Ex. 24) are reproduced earlier in this section. Concerning Hitler’s speech, see also the letter of 7 July 1942 from the President of the Court of Appeal in Hamm to the defendant Schlegelberger (NG-395, Pros. Ex. 74) reproduced later in this section.

[253] Concerning the treatment of so-called “asocial elements,” see Thierack’s memorandum on decisions made in conference with Himmler on 18 September 1942 (654-PS, Pros. Ex. 39), reproduced in section V C 3 a, and Crohne’s notes on a conference of 9 October 1942 (662-PS, Pros. Ex. 263), reproduced in section V D 2.

[254] Numerous persons have stated that Hitler died in the air-raid shelters under the garden of the Reich Chancellery just before Germany’s unconditional surrender to the Allies in 1945.

[255] Thierack became Reich Minister of Justice in August 1942. From March 1941 until Thierack’s appointment, the defendant Schlegelberger had been Acting Reich Minister of Justice.

[256] Further extracts from the testimony of defendant Schlegelberger are reproduced above in sections IV E and V B, and below in sections V D 2, V D 3 and V E.

[257] These documents are reproduced in this section with the exception of Document NG-505, Prosecution Exhibit 71, which is reproduced below in section V D 2. It is a letter signed by defendant Schlegelberger concerning “mild sentences against Poles,” dated 24 July 1941.

[258] Reproduced above in this section.

[259] For testimony of defendant Schlegelberger on the general question of transfer of persons to the police, see extracts from his testimony reproduced in section V B.

[260] Not to be mistaken for Martin Bormann, chief of the Party Chancellery, whose name appears in a number of the contemporaneous documents reproduced herein.

[261] Cf. Rothenberger’s “Reflections on a National Socialist Judicial Reform,” Document NG-075, Prosecution Exhibit 27, reproduced above.

[262] Not to be confused with The Enabling Act of 24 March 1933 reproduced on page 163 (Doc. NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112).

[263] Other extracts from the testimony of the defendant Rothenberger appear in sections V C 1 a, V C 3 a and V D 2.

[264] Reproduced earlier in this section.

[265] See the extracts from the testimony of defendant Rothenberger reproduced in section V C 1 a.

[266] Earlier in his direct examination the defendant Rothenberger had testified—“In 1929 I was in England for about 8 months. There I studied the organization and structure of the English courts, the position of the English judges, the positions of the masters and the registrars, and the relations of the barristers and solicitors to the court. I studied these in detail. I worked at the high court of justice with a barrister and with a solicitor. * * *” (Tr. p. 5331).

[267] Reproduced in section C 2 b, above.

[268] Reference is made to Rothenberger’s “Reflections on a National Socialist Judicial Reform,” (Doc. NG-075, Pros. Ex. 27), reproduced at the beginning of this section.

[269] Extracts from this speech as reported in the “Voelkischer Beobachter” are reproduced in section V C 2 a (Doc. NG-752, Pros. Ex. 24).

[270] Reich Minister Thierack’s minutes concerning this conference are reproduced immediately below (Doc. 654-PS, Pros. Ex. 39).

[271] See the testimony of defendant Rothenberger concerning this notation and Thierack’s minutes of the meeting, reproduced later in this section.

[272] Thierack wrote a letter to Bormann on this subject on 13 October 1942, entitled “Administration of Criminal Justice against Poles, Russians, Jews, and Gypsies.” (See Doc. NG-558, Pros. Ex. 143, reproduced in section V D 2.)

[273] Kuemmerlein was Thierack’s adjutant.

[274] SS General Otto Ohlendorf was commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe D, one of the special task forces assigned to exterminate “undesirable elements” in the East. He was also chief of Office III of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) from 1939–1943. Ohlendorf and a number of his codefendants were sentenced to death in the Einsatzgruppen Case (United States vs. Otto Ohlendorf, et al., Case 9, vol. IV, this series).

[275] This document is referred to in the testimony of defendant Schlegelberger, reproduced in section IV E.

[276] The IMT in its judgment found Gauleiter to be within the group of persons of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party declared by the Tribunal to be criminal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, pages 257–262.

[277] Further extracts from the testimony of defendant Rothenberger are reproduced in sections V C 1 a, V C 2 b, and V D 2.

[278] Document NG-059, Prosecution Exhibit 38, and Document 654-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 39, are reproduced above in this section.

[279] Reference is made to Rothenberger’s “Reflections on a National Socialist Judicial Reform,” (NG-075, Pros. Ex. 27), reproduced at the beginning of section V C 2 b.

[280] Reproduced in section V C 2 a. It is a situation report of 4 July 1941 from defendant Rothenberger to defendant Schlegelberger.

[281] Document 654-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 39, reproduced earlier in this section.

[282] Prosecution Exhibit 38, the first document reproduced in this section.

[283] Document 648-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 264, reproduced in section V B.

[284] Document 701-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 268, reproduced in section V B.

[285] Document NG-558, Prosecution Exhibit 143, reproduced in section V D 2.

[286] This section of the document discusses the interpretation of the “Decree against Public Enemies,” 5 September 1939, reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 188.

[287] This announcement was taken from “Ordinances, Regulations, Directives,” 1942, (vol. II, p. 377 ff.), issued by the Nazi Party Chancellery and published by the Central Publishing Office of the NSDAP, Frz. Eher Successor, G.m.b.H., Munich.

[288] The technical German term for this type of letter was “Lenkungsbrief” (“guidance letter” or “directing letter”). They differed from the “Judges’ Letters” of Thierack insofar as they were not circulated generally but rather addressed to specific courts. See the extracts from the testimony of defendant Klemm reproduced later in this section for discussion of these letters.

[289] A list of 28 more cases follows.

[290] This is the abbreviated designation for the “Decree concerning special criminal law in time of war and special emergency,” signed on 17 August 1938 but not promulgated until 26 August 1939. The pertinent provisions of article 5 of this law, which define the crime of “undermining the German military efficiency” are reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 184.

[291] Further extracts from the testimony of defendant Klemm are reproduced in sections V C 1 a, V C 3 d, V D 2, and V F.

[292] Klemm and his counsel divided Klemm’s direct examination principally into four phases of activity during the Hitler regime. Klemm testified that the first phase included two different assignments. From 1933 until March 1935, he was personal Referent and adjutant to Thierack who was at that time, Minister of Justice for Saxony. From March 1935 until he was conscripted as a soldier, Klemm testified that he was an official in Department III (later Department IV) of the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin. He testified that here he reached the rank of ministerial counsellor and acted as liaison officer between the Ministry and the supreme leadership of the SA (Storm Troops) of the Nazi Party. The second phase, Klemm testified, was an assignment on the staff of the German civilian administration in the Netherlands from July 1940 to March 1941, where he introduced German penal administration for German citizens in Holland and acted as liaison between Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart and the Dutch administration of justice. Klemm testified that the third phase was from 17 March 1941 to January 1944. During this period he was on the staff of the deputy of the Fuehrer (Rudolf Hess, until Hess flew to Scotland on 10 May 1941) and then on the staff of the Party Chancellery (which was created with Martin Bormann as its chief after Hess’ flight to England). Here Klemm was the chief of Group III-C, administration of justice, of the Party Chancellery. (See Klemm’s testimony reproduced in section V D 2.) Klemm testified that the fourth and last phase began when in January 1944, Thierack, at that time Reich Minister of Justice, had him appointed Under Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice as successor to defendant Rothenberger. (See the extracts from the testimony of defendant Rothenberger reproduced in section V C 3 a.) In 1944 and early 1945, Klemm resided in Thierack’s house in Berlin.

[293] This is a Judge’s Letter, issued for March and April 1944. It was entitled “Plunderers and public enemies during air raids,” and contains 26 case histories with comments by the Reich Minister of Justice. It is not reproduced herein.

[294] Guidance letters of 5 July 1944 and of 1 March 1945 reproduced earlier in this section.

[295] Mr. LaFollette, Deputy Chief Counsel, stated the following concerning the prosecution’s purpose in offering this document in evidence: “I briefly stated this morning with reference to the other brief [Judges’ Letters] and to this brief [Lawyers’ Letter] that the prosecution offers them as evidence for the purpose of showing that there was a direct controlled judiciary and bar. We are not offering these documents as evidence of any particular act contained therein, but since we offer them, we are to some extent bound by them and our purpose of offering them is to prove there was a connection” (Tr. p. 412). Mr. LaFollette also stated that this was the only Lawyers’ Letter known to the prosecution.

[296] General Warlimont was convicted for his participation in the “Terror Flier” program in the High Command Case, United States vs. Wilhelm von Leeb, et al., Case 12, volumes X and XI. Extracts from his testimony on this question are reproduced in section VII C 5, volume X, this series.

[297] Kaltenbrunner was appointed chief of the Security Police and SD and head of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) on 30 January 1943. He was sentenced to death by the International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 365.

[298] Karl Ritter was ambassador for special assignments in the German Foreign Office from 1939–1945, and liaison officer between von Ribbentrop, the Foreign Minister, and Keitel, the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces (OKW). Ritter was a defendant in the Ministries Case, United States vs. Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al., Case 11, volumes XII-XIV, this series.

[299] “Special treatment by the SD” generally meant killing of the persons in question by the Security Service. This subject is extensively treated in the High Command Case, United States vs. Wilhelm von Leeb, et al., Case 12, volumes X and XI, this series.

[300] Concerning the scope of the physical distribution of this circular, see the discussion in the judgment of the IMT concerning “The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.” Under the heading “Structure and component parts,” the IMT stated that “The Kreisleiter were the lowest members of the Party hierarchy who were full-time paid employees” (Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., vol. I, p. 257).

[301] Helmuth Friedrichs, Chief of the Division II, the party-political division, of the Nazi Party Chancellery.

[302] The circular letter, Document NG-364, Prosecution Exhibit 108, is reproduced above in this section.

[303] Complete testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 22 September 1947, pages 9302–9315.

[304] The actual directive of Thierack was not found or introduced in evidence. However, see Thierack’s handwritten note on Document 635-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 109, reproduced immediately above.

[305] Ludwig Kluettgen was tried and sentenced to death by a General Military Government Court at Dachau, Germany, 11 and 12 August 1947. His execution was carried out on 29 October 1948.

[306] Further extracts from the testimony of the defendant Klemm are reproduced above in sections V C 1 a and V C 3 b, and below in sections V D 2 and V F.

[307] These documents are reproduced earlier in this section.

[308] At the time the defendant Klemm was Under Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice.

[309] See Klemm Document 68a, Klemm Exhibit 68a, the first document reproduced in this section.

[310] Translation of entire document appears in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946) volume IV, pages 186–189.

[311] These documents are reproduced above in this section.

[312] The first part of this report on the conference is reproduced in section B. It dealt with attacks on judicial actions in the official SS magazine and questions of prosecuting those who committed criminal offenses during the widespread violence against Jews during “Crystal Week,” 9–11 November 1938.

[313] Document is not signed.

[314] Paragraph (5) is not included in original document.

[315] This ordinance was promulgated in the 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, part I, page 1044. It provided that beginning 1 January 1939, male Jews must add “Israel” and female Jews “Sara” as their first or middle names unless they already used such names. This provision applied to all German Jews but not to Jews in Austria or Jews of foreign nationality. The aim was to identify Jewish persons as Jews by their names.

[316] At this time the Reich Minister of the Interior was Frick and the Fuehrer’s Deputy was Hess. Both were tried in Nuernberg before the International Military Tribunal.

[317] Only the third draft (c) is reproduced herein.

[318] The text of the decree of 21 March 1933 is reproduced on page 218.

[319] Document 1393-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 508, reproduced above in section IV B.

[320] Reproduced in part as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 182.

[321] Reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 185.

[322] Ibid., p. 187.

[323] Ibid., p. 188.

[324] Reproduced in part as a part of Doc. NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112, on p. 192.

[325] Ibid., p. 193.

[326] Reproduced as a part of Doc. NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112, on p. 218.

[327] Part of the background of this decree is shown by the letter of defendant Schlegelberger to the Reich Minister of the Interior and to the Fuehrer’s deputy of 3 February 1940, which transmitted a proposed draft for this decree (NG-880, Pros. Ex. 459) reproduced in part earlier in this section.

[328] Articles I and III of this decree were omitted from the document as offered in evidence by defense counsel. Article I is entitled, “Introduction of Reich Legal Regulations” and lists a large number of Reich laws most of which are contained in article 1 of the proposed draft of the Reich Ministry of Justice (NG-880, Pros. Ex. 459) reproduced in part earlier in this section.

[329] Document Schlegelberger 60, Schlegelberger Exhibit 26, reproduced in part earlier in this section.

[330] Schlegelberger’s draft (NG-331, Pros. Ex. 343) is reproduced following this letter.

[331] Defendant Schlegelberger testified concerning this document and his draft of a proposed ordinance (NG-331, Pros. Ex. 343, immediately following). The pertinent extracts from Schlegelberger’s testimony are reproduced near the end of this section. The decree ultimately issued by the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich was dated 4 December 1941. It is reproduced on page 632.

[332] The transmittal letter from Schlegelberger to Lammers (NG-144, Pros. Ex. 199) appears immediately above. File notes of the Reich Chancellery concerning Schlegelberger’s draft (NG-130, Pros. Ex. 200) are reproduced just below.

[333] Document Schlegelberger 60, Schlegelberger Ex. 26, reproduced earlier in this section.

[334] This draft by defendant Schlegelberger (NG-331, Pros. Ex. 343) is reproduced immediately above.

[335] Schlegelberger’s explanatory letter of 17 April 1941 (NG-144, Pros. Ex. 199) is reproduced above in this section.

[336] Hans Frank, Governor General of Poland, was a defendant before the International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volumes I-XLII.

[337] Words denoting colors are explained in the testimony of defendant Klemm on pp. 589 ff.

[338] Document NG-144, Prosecution Exhibit 199, reproduced earlier in this section.

[339] The enclosure was not a part of this document as offered in evidence.

[340] The text of the Reich Citizenship Law is reproduced on page 180.

[341] Id.

[342] Document Schlegelberger 60, Schlegelberger Exhibit 26, reproduced in part above in this section.

[343] Stuckart was a defendant in the Ministries Case (United States vs. Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al., Vols. XII-XIV, this series).

[344] On the same day, 31 May 1941, the three persons signing this decree also signed a “second decree for the execution of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor,” which is reproduced immediately below.

[345] Reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 188.

[346] This circular letter was discussed during the direct examination of defendant Schlegelberger in connection with a number of other documents reproduced above in section C 2 a.

[347] A supplementary decree of 31 January 1942, signed by defendant Schlegelberger and Dr. Pfundner of the Reich Ministry of Interior, is reproduced later in this section (NG-665, Pros. Ex. 346).

[348] Document Schlegelberger 60, Schlegelberger Exhibit 26, reproduced earlier in this section.

[349] This article was published in the periodical “German Justice [Deutsche Justiz], Administration of Justice and Judicial Policy,” 104th year, Edition A, Number 2, Berlin, 9 January 1942, (p. 25 ff.).

[350] Proceedings started by the injured in order to force the public prosecutor to lodge an indictment.

[351] This decree is reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632.

[352] Under German law, “Armenrecht,” or the benefits of the forma pauperis, are to be granted to plaintiffs or defendants who are destitute. The benefits consist, principally, of the exemption from court fees and the assignment of an ex officio lawyer, free of cost, where representation by counsel is required by law.

[353] Of the seven persons to whose attention the copies of this letter were sent, two were tried in Nuernberg—Dr. Stuckart in the Ministries Case (United States vs. Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al., vols. XII-XIV, this series); and SS General Hofmann in the RuSHA Case (United States vs. Ulrich Greifelt, et al., vols. IV-V, this series). The activities of Luther, Under Secretary in the Foreign Office, were often brought into issue in the Ministries Case.

[354] First degree presumably those with two non-Aryan grandparents and second degree with only one.

[355] Julius Streicher, editor of “Der Stuermer” and Gauleiter of Franconia, the province in which Nuernberg is located, was sentenced to death by the International Military Tribunal.

[356] This is one of a number of opinions and sentences by extraordinary German courts which were received in evidence. In some of these cases one of the defendants sat as presiding judge or as a member of the court. In some the defendant Lautz or one of his representatives acted as prosecutor. For an opinion and sentence of the Nuernberg Special Court in which the defendant Oeschey presided, see the Kaminska case, decided on 29 October 1943 (NG-457, Pros. Ex. 201), reproduced later in this section.

[357] “Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor,” 15 September 1935, one of the two original Nuernberg laws, is reproduced on page 180 (NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112).

[358] See Document NG-129, Prosecution Exhibit 355, reproduced immediately above.

[359] Reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632.

[360] This supplementary decree, signed by defendant Schlegelberger and Dr. Pfundner, is reproduced earlier in this section (NG-665, Pros. Ex. 346).

[361] In discussing this subject with Himmler, the Reich Leader SS, on 18 September 1942, Thierack used the words “special treatment at the hands of the police,” and “delivery of asocial elements * * * to the Reich Leader SS to be worked to death.” See Thierack’s memorandum of his conference with Himmler, Document 654-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 39, reproduced in section V C 3 a.

[362] Not counting the small number of sentences on the basis of former Polish, Austrian, or Czech law, as well as the decrees of the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.

[363] Not reproduced herein.

[364] Reproduced at the end of this document.

[365] It will be noted that the statistics do not include persons outside the Greater German Reich, for example, in the Government General.

[366] Including dual punishment. Compare also annotation 1 of chart 1.

[Chart 1 is not reproduced herein.]

[367] Sentenced by virtue of the Penal Ordinance for Poles, dated 12 April 1941.

[368] Selections from the correspondence of various Reich authorities concerning the drafting of this law are reproduced immediately below in Document NG-151, Prosecution Exhibit 204.

[369] Reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632.

[370] The thirteenth regulation under the Reich Citizenship Law, dated 1 July 1943 (NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112), is reproduced immediately above.

[371] The German word “Rechtsmittel” is a technical term, meaning “writs” (such as writ of appeal, writ of certiorari, writ asking for a revision) which aims at changing a decision of a court, be it a judgment or an interlocutory ruling. In the present case, the term “Rechtsmittel” was usually translated, “legal rights” or “legal remedies.”

[372] The letter of 12 August 1942, with enclosed draft, of the Goebbels ministry, was not a part of the document introduced in evidence.

[373] This letter is reproduced immediately below.

[374] By this time, measures for the “final solution” of the Jewish question were well under way. See, for example, the following contemporaneous documents reproduced earlier in this volume: 654-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 39 (sec. V C 3 a); 648-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 264 (sec. V B); and NG-558, Prosecution Exhibit 143, reproduced previously in this section. See also the materials contained in the volumes on the Pohl Case, United States vs. Oswald Pohl, et al., Volume V, this series, and the Ministries Case, United States vs. Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al., Volumes XII-XIV, this series.

[375] The decree of 5 August 1943 was not with the copy of the document introduced in evidence.

[376] Dr. Vollmer was a Ministerialdirektor in the Reich Ministry of Justice and chief of division IV—penal jurisdiction and penal legislation.

[377] For an opinion and judgment of the Nuernberg Special Court, with defendant Rothaug presiding, see Document NG-154, Prosecution Exhibit 152, reproduced earlier in this section.

[378] The testimony of defendant Oeschey concerning this case is reproduced subsequently in this section.

[379] Dr. Franz Gros was called as a prosecution witness concerning this case. His testimony, none of which is reproduced herein, is recorded in the mimeographed transcript (30 April 1947), pages 2826–2882.

[380] Dr. Theodor Pfaff was called as a prosecution witness concerning this case. His testimony, none of which is reproduced herein, is recorded in the mimeographed transcript (27 May 1947), pages 3642–3650.

[381] The words which appear italicized and in parentheses were crossed out in the original.

[382] The proposed insert appears at the end of the document.

[383] Further extracts from the testimony of the defendant Schlegelberger are reproduced above in sections IV E, V B, and V C 2 a; and below in sections V D 3 and V E.

[384] The reference is to the “Decree concerning the Administration of Penal Justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories,” reproduced on page 632 (NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112).

[385] Document NG-219, Prosecution Exhibit 42, reproduced above in section C 3 a.

[386] Document Schlegelberger 79, Schlegelberger Exhibit 72, was a law of 25 March 1939 amending the German Civil Service Law. Document Schlegelberger 80, Schlegelberger Exhibit 73, was the third law amending the German Civil Service Law of 21 October 1941, neither of which are reproduced.

[387] Reproduced earlier in this subsection.

[388] For contemporaneous documents concerning labor camps in German-occupied Poland, see the Pohl Case, United States vs. Oswald Pohl, et al., Volume V, this series.

[389] Document NG-151, Prosecution Exhibit 204 is reproduced previously in this section.

[390] Schlegelberger refers to his letter of 13 August 1942 to the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Dr. Goebbels, making specific proposals for the wording of the decree. This letter is reproduced earlier in this section as part of a lengthy correspondence on the matter (Doc. NG-151, Pros. Ex. 204).

[391] Schlegelberger refers to decisions taken by Thierack after consultations with Reich Leader SS Himmler on 18 September 1942. See Thierack’s own memorandum of this conference (654-PS, Pros. Ex. 39) reproduced in section C 3 a, and Thierack’s letter to Bormann of 13 October 1942 (NG-558, Pros. Ex. 143) reproduced earlier in this section.

[392] Reproduced earlier in this section.

[393] The reference is to a provision in German law whereby a person who has been granted the benefits of the forma pauperis but who, later on, ceases to be poor, must pay the court and lawyer’s fees from which he had been exempted.

[394] Document NG-880, Prosecution Exhibit 459, is reproduced earlier in this section.

[395] Document Schlegelberger 60, later received in evidence as Schlegelberger Defense Exhibit 26, is reproduced earlier in this section.

[396] Here defense counsel makes two erroneous references, as both the contemporaneous documents and Schlegelberger’s ensuing testimony show. The pertinent penal ordinance concerning Poles and Jews was promulgated on 4 December 1941, and it was introduced in evidence as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, reproduced on page 632. On the other hand, Prosecution Exhibit 343, which defense counsel mentions, is a draft for a penal ordinance on Poles and Jews by defendant Schlegelberger. He transmitted this draft to the Reich Chancellery on 17 April 1941 with a long letter of explanation (NG-144, Pros. Ex. 199). Both the transmittal letter by Schlegelberger and the proposed draft are reproduced earlier in this section, and both are discussed in the following testimony by the defendant.

[397] Document NG-227, Prosecution Exhibit 341, is not reproduced herein. It contains, among other items, a note prepared in the Reich Ministry of Justice, dated 26 November 1940, stating that “the Deputy of the Fuehrer [Rudolf Hess] thinks it best to rescind the application of the German Penal Code in the new eastern provinces and to create a penal code a special dominating principle of which must be to deter by fear and there must be a possibility of pronouncing a sentence of corporal punishment. The law of criminal procedure must not allow for obstruction; here the deputy of the Fuehrer is in favor of police courts martial rather than law courts.”

[398] This draft (NG-331, Pros. Ex. 343) is reproduced earlier in this section just following Schlegelberger’s letter of 17 April 1941 (NG-144, Pros. Ex. 199) transmitting the draft to Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery.

[399] Document NG-144, Prosecution Exhibit 199, dated 17 April 1941, reproduced earlier in this section.

[400] Decree concerning the administration of penal justice against Poles and Jews, 4 December 1941 (NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112), reproduced on page 632.

[401] Extracts from this article were offered in evidence as Document Schlegelberger 61, Schlegelberger Exhibit 27, reproduced earlier in this section.

[402] This is an undated table entitled “Death Sentences.” It lists 115 persons delivered to jail between 24 April 1942 and 1 September 1944, all having been sentenced by the Special Court in Stuttgart. However, in a column headed “Execution,” the table shows that five of the cases were either sentences for a term of years or possibly cases where death sentences were changed to imprisonment for a term of years. The entry under the heading “Execution” for the two cases mentioned by Schlegelberger are for Pitra, “8 years’ prison camp” and Wozniak, “5 years’ prison camp, beginning September 1942.”

[403] Reference is made to article I of the Supplementary Decree concerning the Administration of Penal Justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, a decree signed by the defendant Schlegelberger and Dr. Pfundner. This decree (NG-665, Pros. Ex. 346) is reproduced earlier in this section.

[404] Reproduced earlier in this section.

[405] The two original Nuernberg laws, the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, were both announced at Nuernberg on 15 September 1935. The second law is reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 180.

[406] This document is reproduced earlier in this section.

[407] Other extracts from the testimony of the defendant Klemm are reproduced above in sections V C 1 a, V C 3 b, V C 3 d, and below in section V F.

[408] Concerning the earlier phases of Klemm’s activities, see the footnote appearing at the beginning of the extracts from Klemm’s testimony which are reproduced above in section V C 3 b. There was still a fourth phase to Klemm’s activities, for in January 1944 he was appointed Under Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice.

[409] Hess landed in Scotland on 10 May 1941.

[410] 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, 1 December 1933, part I, page 1016.

[411] Reproduced above in section C 3 d.

[412] Reproduced above in this section.

[413] Reproduced above in section C 2 a.

[414] Reproduced below in subsection E.

[415] Reproduced above in this section.

[416] Circular letter of 10 March 1944, reproduced above in this section.

[417] Reproduced above in this section.

[418] Further extracts from Rothaug’s testimony are reproduced in sections V C 1 a, V C 1 b, V E, and V F.

[419] See the opinion and judgment in the Katzenberger case (NG-154, Pros. Ex. 152), reproduced earlier in this section. Rothaug was presiding judge in the Katzenberger case.

[420] These were all prosecution witnesses and none of their testimony is reproduced herein. Their testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript as follows: Dr. Karl Ferber, (31 Mar, 1, 3, 8 Apr 47), pages 1312–1315, 1319–1466, 1576–1630, 1665–1746; Irene Seiler, (26 Mar 1947), pages 1025–1057; and Armin Baur, (23 May 1947), pages 3598–3606.

[421] Extracts from the pertinent article in “Der Stuermer” concerning the Katzenberger case are reproduced above in this section (NG-270, Pros. Ex. 155).

[422] Further extracts from the testimony of defendant Rothenberger appear in sections V C 1 a, V C 2 b, and V C 3 a.

[423] Reproduced in part in section V B. This document was also introduced as Document, Rothenberger 3, Rothenberger Exhibit 3.

[424] Reproduced above in this section.

[425] Document NG-392, Prosecution Exhibit 373, is not reproduced herein. It is a situation report of 5 January 1942 from defendant Rothenberger to defendant Schlegelberger. The item of this report concerning privileges of Jews in court proceedings is the following: “VII. The lower courts do not grant to Jews the right to participate in court proceedings in forma pauperis. The district court suspended such a decision in one case. The refusal to grant this right of participation in court proceedings in forma pauperis is in accordance with today’s legal thinking. But since a direct legal basis is missing, the refusal is unsuitable. We therefore think it urgently necessary that a legal regulation or order is given, on the basis of which the rights of a pauper can be denied to a Jew.”

[426] Document NG-1106, Prosecution Exhibit 462, reproduced in part above in this section.

[427] Reproduced above in this section.

[428] In January 1944, at Thierack’s request, defendant Klemm was made Under Secretary.

[429] Document NG-1656, Prosecution Exhibit 535, above, earlier in this section.

[430] Further testimony of defendant Rothenberger denying knowledge of “final liquidation” measures of Poles and Jews is reproduced in section V C 3 a.

[431] Complete testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, (9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 Sep 1947), pages 8510–8548, 8559–8805.

[432] From these official files only the opinion and sentence of the Nuernberg Special Court has been reproduced herein. See Document NG-457, Prosecution Exhibit 201, reproduced in part above in this section.

[433] Actually only the first two of these three exhibits are affidavits. Document NG-650, Prosecution Exhibit 229, is an affidavit of Associate Judge Dr. Franz Gros. Document NG-635, Prosecution Exhibit 235, is an affidavit of Associate Judge Dr. Theodor Pfaff. Gros and Pfaff were the two associate judges sitting in the Kaminska-Wdowen case with defendant Oeschey. Both were called as witnesses before the Tribunal. (Gros, 30 Apr 1947, tr. pp. 2826–2882) (Pfaff, 27 May 1947, tr. pp. 3642–3650). The third mentioned exhibit, Document NG-2245, Prosecution Exhibit 635, is a newspaper clipping of 25 August 1942. None of these three exhibits and none of the testimony of Gros and Pfaff is reproduced herein.

[434] Associate Judge Dr. Franz Gros. In addition, the second associate judge was also heard. See footnote 2.

[435] Decree concerning the Administration of Penal Justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, 4 December 1941, reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632.

[436] SG 256/1943 is the file number of the Kaminska-Wdowen case. See Document NG-457, Prosecution Exhibit 201, reproduced in part above in this section.

[437] Counsel refers to the two associate judges in the case, both of whom testified in the justice trial.

[438] Reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 193.

[439] Decree of 5 September 1939, reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 188.

[440] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 and 16 September 1947, pp. 8841–8962.

[441] Reproduced above in this section.

[442] Decree of 1 July 1943, reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 685.

[443] The defendant Altstoetter, as this time a Ministerial Director, was Chief of Department VI of the Reich Ministry of Justice. Department VI was concerned with civil law; commercial and economic law; racial legislation; public administrative law and international law; international law and international treaties; constitution of the courts; and administration of civil law.

[444] The State in its capacity as carrier of rights and duties of a financial-legal nature.

[445] Document NG-900, reproduced above in this section.

[446] Lieutenant General Rudolf Lehmann was head of the armed forces legal section. Lehmann also had the title of judge advocate general (Generaloberstabsrichter) and Ministerialdirektor. Lehmann, whose name comes up in ensuing documents, was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment by Tribunal V in the High Command Case. Extracts from Lehmann’s testimony concerning the Night and Fog decree appear near the end of this section and more lengthy testimony by Lehmann on the same and related subjects appears in the materials on the High Command Case, United States vs. Wilhelm von Leeb, et al., Volumes X-XI, this series.

[447] This decree was the Night and Fog decree (1733-PS, Pros. Ex. 303) reproduced immediately below.

[448] This implementation decree is contained as the enclosure to Document 669-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 305 reproduced below after the Night and Fog decree.

[449] Distribution appears at end of document.

[450] Sometimes referred to as Document 665-PS. See transcript, 21 April 1947, page 2440.

[451] Defendant Schlegelberger testified that he signed the proposed executive order and that it was the same as the draft submitted in the document book, i.e., the draft enclosed hereto. See extracts from the testimony of defendant Schlegelberger reproduced later in this section.

[452] SS General Pohl, Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office, and a number of his subordinates, were tried in the Pohl Case (United States vs. Oswald Pohl, et al., Vol. V, this series).

[453] Request addition of case, as soon as available settled. [Signed] Ebersberg 12 Sept.

[454] Document NG-232, Prosecution Exhibit 308, reproduced earlier in this section.

[455] Goebel was president of the Essen Special Court and also held the title of District Court Director.

[456] Items a and b crossed out in original document.

[457] Bracketed excerpt is part of handwritten note partially illegible on document.

[458] The enclosures were not a part of the document received in evidence.

[459] (in the case of Breslau as of 31 March 1944)

[460] This document was introduced in evidence during the cross-examination of defendant von Ammon. See extracts from his testimony reproduced at the end of this section.

[461] Complete testimony appears in the mimeographed transcript (23, 24 Apr. 47), pages 2586–2643.

[462] This affidavit is not reproduced herein.

[463] Extracts from the testimony of the defendant Schlegelberger have been reproduced above in several sections, including IV E, V B, V C 2 A, V D 2, and V E.

[464] Reference is made to the draft contained in Document NG-077, Prosecution Exhibit 306, a letter of 16 December 1941, from the Reich Ministry of Justice. This document is reproduced earlier in this section.

[465] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 232 and following.

[466] Special jurisdiction of the SS was established by a decree of 17 October 1939, entitled “Decree on Special Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings against Members of the SS and Members of Police Formations on Special Tasks.” This decree (Klemm 29, Klemm Ex. 29) is reproduced in section IV B.

[467] Judge Harding refers to Article 1 which with other parts is reproduced as Document Klemm 29, Klemm Ex. 29 on page 190.

[468] This decree is reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 205.

[469] The entire testimony appears in the mimeographed transcript (1–4 Aug 1947), pages 6377–6473.

[470] Document NG-988, Prosecution Exhibit 510 consists of over one hundred mimeographed pages, dealing with the organization of Departments III, IV, V, and VI of the Reich Ministry of Justice. It is not reproduced herein.

[471] Document NG-232, Prosecution Exhibit 308, reproduced above in this section.

[472] See, for example, Document NG-205, Prosecution Exhibit 328, a secret directive of 21 January 1944, reproduced above in this section.

[473] Document NG-077, Prosecution Exhibit 306, reproduced above in this section.

[474] Document NG-232, Prosecution Exhibit 308, reproduced above in this section.

[475] This exhibit is a draft dated 16 December 1941 which was later published as an executory decree on 6 February 1942.

[476] Document NG-486, Prosecution Exhibit 337, not reproduced herein.

[477] The testimony of defendant Mettgenberg appears in the mimeographed transcript (31 Jul–1 Aug 1947) pages 6235–6271; 6274–6362. The testimony referred to is not reproduced herein.

[478] Document NG-205, Prosecution Exhibit 328, reproduced above in this section.

[479] Document von Ammon 4, von Ammon Exhibit 2. This affidavit, except for the parts quoted, is not reproduced herein.

[480] Document NG-269, Prosecution Exhibit 319, reproduced above in this section.

[481] Document NG-255, Prosecution Exhibit 314, reproduced in part above in this section. The report referred to here is not reproduced herein.

[482] Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Lehmann are reproduced above in this section.

[483] Document NG-232, Prosecution Exhibit 308, reproduced above in this section.

[484] Document NG-255, Prosecution Exhibit 314, reproduced in part above in this section. This letter referred to here is not reproduced herein.

[485] Document NG-077, Prosecution Exhibit 306, reproduced above in this section. Note entry on document indicating that it was dispatched.

[486] Document NG-253, Prosecution Exhibit 317, reproduced in part above in this section.

[487] This note is a part of Document NG-253, Prosecution Exhibit 317, reproduced above in this section.

[488] Document NG-486, Prosecution Exhibit 337, not reproduced herein.

[489] Roemer’s testimony appears in the mimeographed transcript (24 Apr 1947), pages 2652–2672.

[490] The testimony of defendant Lautz appears in the mimeographed transcript (23–25, and 28 Jul 1947), pages 5761–5775; 5781–6054.

[491] Pastor Martin Niemoeller, Protestant clergyman in Berlin-Dahlen at the time of his arrest.

[492] Robert Hecker was an official of Department V (which dealt with the execution of court sentences). The chief of Department V was defendant Engert. The entire testimony of prosecution witness Hecker is recorded in the mimeographed transcript (18 Apr, 9 and 12 May, and 7 Jul 1947), pages 2363–2386, 3047–3083, 3111–3114, and 4823–4870.

[493] Document NG-737, an affidavit by Hecker, not reproduced herein.

[494] Document NG-1886, Prosecution Exhibit 546, reproduced above in this section.

[495] This letter was written before the promulgation of the Decree concerning the administration of penal justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories of 4 December 1941, reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632. The first four sections of the decree also applied to Poles domiciled or residing in Poland on 1 September 1939 “and who committed punishable acts in any part of the German Reich other than the Incorporated Eastern Territories.” (Sec. XIV.)

[496] GewVVO, abbreviation for “Verordnung gegen Gewaltverbrecher”—Decree against Violent Criminals—dated 5 December 1939. Article 1 of this decree makes the death penalty mandatory for acts of “armed violence” as defined therein. The decree is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 193.

[497] VVO, abbreviation for “Verordnung gegen Volksschaedlinge”—Decree against Public Enemies—dated 5 September 1939. Article 4 of this decree makes the death sentence possible but not mandatory. The decree is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 188.

[498] Reference is made to the articles of the Reich Penal Code defining treason. The provisions of this code concerning “high treason” and “treason” were amended early in the Hitler regime by the law of 24 April 1934, “amending provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure.” This same law established the People’s Court with competence in treason cases. Provisions of this law defining treason are reproduced on page 169 as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, and the provisions establishing the People’s Court are reproduced on page 23, as part of the same document. Article 91 of the Reich Penal Code, as amended by the law of 24 April 1934 reads, “(1) Whoever established contact with a foreign government or a person acting for a foreign government with the intention of causing a war or forcible measures against the Reich or other serious disadvantages to the Reich, will be punished by death. (2) Whoever established contact of the kind described in paragraph (1) with the intention of causing serious disadvantages for a national of the Reich, will be punished with hard labor for life or for not less than 5 years.”

[499] Article 2 of the Reich Penal Code, as amended by the “Law Amending the Penal Code” of 28 June 1935, introduced the principle of “creation of law by analogous application of penal laws,” and declared punishable any act “which deserves punishment according to the fundamental idea of a penal law or the sound sentiment of the people.” Extracts from this amending law are reproduced on page 176, as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112. Article 91, paragraph 2, of the Reich Criminal (Penal) Code, as amended, established the principle that intentional causing of “serious disadvantages for a national of the Reich” in connection with a foreign government was treasonable. This provision, however, did not go so far as to declare that acts against “ethnic Germans of foreign nationality” could constitute treason against Germany. Hence, the discussion of Article 2 of the Reich Penal Code as amended with its provision for punishment “according to the fundamental idea of a penal law or the sound sentiment of the people” and the “creation of law by analogous application of penal law.”

[500] This decree of 4 December 1941 is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632.

[501] Concerning the “nullity plea,” see section V C 1 b.

[502] The decree of 5 September 1939 is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 188.

[503] The relevant provisions of this law are reproduced on page 231 as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112.

[504] The various articles of the Reich Penal Code mentioned in this sentence are all contained in the law of 24 April 1934, amending provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure. This law amended numerous articles of the Reich Penal Code. It is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 169.

[505] This decree, entitled “Decree concerning the Administration of Penal Justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories,” is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632.

[506] Political organization founded by the Austrian Government in 1934 after the dissolution of the Social Democratic Party and the National Socialist Party.

[507] Reference is made to the “Law on Insidious Acts against State and Party, and for the Protection of Party Uniforms,” Document 1393-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 508, reproduced in section IV-B.

[508] Reference is made to the “Decree concerning Special Criminal Law in Wartime,” 17 August 1938, the relevant provisions of which are reproduced on page 184, as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112. Article 5 of this decree is entitled “Undermining of Military Efficiency.”

[509] All italicized parts in this portion of the document are handwritten in the original.

[510] Bracketed text is crossed out in original document.

[511] Concerning this document, see extracts from the testimony of defendant Lautz reproduced below in this section.

[512] The first-mentioned law, Document 1393-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 508, is reproduced in section IV B, and extracts from the second mentioned law, as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 184. Article 2, paragraph 1 of the law of 20 December 1934 provides that “Whoever makes statements showing a malicious, inciting or low-minded attitude toward leading personalities of the State or the NSDAP, or about orders issued by them, or about institutions created by them which are apt to undermine the confidence of the people in its political leadership, shall be punished with imprisonment.” The decree of 17 August 1938 on special criminal law in wartime established and defined the new offense of “undermining of military efficiency” and makes the death sentence mandatory. In view of the different penalty under the two laws, the question of indicting a person who allegedly made defeatist remarks under the one law or the other was most significant.

[513] Concerning Judges’ Letters, see the materials in section V C 3 b.

[514] A town west of Smolensk where a mass grave of 10,000 Polish army officers was found. See Trial of Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume XXIII, page 426.

[515] The reference is to the act of 20 December 1934, which does not provide for the death penalty.

[516] The reference is to the decree of 17 August 1938, which makes the death penalty mandatory.

[517] Extracts from the testimony of defendant Schlegelberger have also been reproduced in sections IV E, V B, V C 2 a, V D 2, and V D 3.

[518] Reproduced above in this section.

[519] Extracts from the testimony of defendant Lautz are also reproduced in section C 1 b. His entire testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript 23–25, 28 July 1947, pages 5761–5775; 5781–6054.

[520] Decree concerning special criminal law in time of war and special emergency, 17 August 1938, reproduced in part as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 184.

[521] Document NG-1474, Prosecution Exhibit 515, is not reproduced herein. The cross-examination of Dr. Horst Guenther Franke concerning this affidavit is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 22 September 1947, pages 9265–9280. The affiant Dr. Franke was the official in the Reich Ministry of Justice who succeeded defendant Joel in the fall of 1943 as chief of the ministry section dealing with crimes against war economy.

[522] Document NG-510, Prosecution Exhibit 97, a decree of 8 March 1943 by Thierack further defining the jurisdiction of the People’s Court in case of “subversive undermining of German military efficiency.” This decree is not reproduced herein.

[523] Document NG-671, Prosecution Exhibit 220, reproduced in part above.

[524] Prior to his assignment in the Reich Ministry of Justice, defendant Rothaug had been presiding judge of the Nuernberg Special Court.

[525] Document NG-659, Prosecution Exhibit 126, an affidavit of defendant Lautz dated 17 January 1947, is not reproduced herein.

[526] Bruno Gruenwald appeared as a prosecution witness. His testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 3 June 1947, pages 3879–3910.

[527] These exhibits are all reproduced herein in whole or in part. Document NG-676, Prosecution Exhibit 178, is a letter of 5 July 1944 from the defendant Klemm to the president of the district court of appeal and the attorney general in Stuttgart concerning cases of defeatism (sec. V C 3 b); Document NG-627, Prosecution Exhibit 474, is a letter of 1 March 1945 from defendant Klemm to the president of the district court of appeal and the attorney general in Hamburg, concerning dangerously lenient sentences (sec. V C 3 b); and Document NG-674, Prosecution Exhibit 100, is a report of a conference held in Weimar on 3 and 4 February 1944 concerning undermining morale and malicious political acts (sec. V E).

[528] Document NG-685, Prosecution Exhibit 259, reproduced in part at the beginning of this section.

[529] Document NG-595, Prosecution Exhibit 136, reproduced above.

[530] Reference is made to the law of 24 April 1934 “amending provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure,” the pertinent parts of which are reproduced on page 169 as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112. This law expanded the previously existing concepts of treason and high treason.

[531] Report contained in Document NG-548, Prosecution Exhibit 347, reproduced above in this section.

[532] Complete testimony is reproduced in the mimeographed transcript (26–28 Aug 1947), pages 7649–7752, 7780–7901.

[533] Extracts from the official files in the Beck case are reproduced above in this section.

[534] Presiding Judge Brand refers to defendant Barnickel’s letter of 30 July 1943 to the Reich Chief Prosecutor at the People’s Court in which he enclosed the indictment in the Beck case. This is reproduced earlier in this section as a part of Document NG-381, Prosecution Exhibit 159.

[535] Other extracts from the testimony of defendant Rothaug appear in sections V C 1 A, V C 1 B, V D 2, and V F.

[536] Extracts from the official files in the Lopata case are contained in Document NG-337, Prosecution Exhibit 186, reproduced above in this section. The defendant Rothaug was presiding judge of the Special Court which sentenced Lopata to death upon a second trial in April 1942.

[537] At the first recess, the prosecution called Mr. Arnold Buchthal, one of the prosecution’s research analysts, as an expert witness concerning the translation and meaning of the disputed words “Polnisches Untermenschentum.” Until 1939, Buchthal had lived in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland; and German was his native language. He testified that the literal translation of “Polnisches Untermenschentum” was “Polish subhumanity;” that he had never heard the expression “Untermenschentum” used in Germany before 1933; that after 1933 the context in which the word was used was always political, referring to Jews, Czechs, Poles, or Communists. On cross-examination, Buchthal said that the word might have been used occasionally in the technical language of the criminologist, but certainly not frequently. (Tr. 7471–7474.)

[538] For the decree establishing the nullity plea and other material concerning its application, see section V C 1 b.

[539] Document 1393-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 508, reproduced in section IV B.

[540] Reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 160.

[541] This law of 20 December 1934, Document 1393-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 508, is reproduced in section IV B.

[542] This document is discussed in extracts from the testimony of defendant Klemm, reproduced below in this section.

[543] Entire testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript (9 May 1947) pages 3021–3046.

[544] The reference is to Article 130a of the Reich Penal Code, which was inserted into the Code by the Law of 26 February 1876: “Imprudent Discussion of State Affairs by Ministers of Religion (Kanzelmissbrauch). 130a. A clergyman or other minister of religion who in the exercise of his calling or on the occasion of such exercise makes affairs of state a subject of his announcement or discussion in a manner endangering public peace either before a crowd or before several people assembled in a church or other place assigned for religious meetings, shall be punished by imprisonment or confinement in a fortress not to exceed 2 years. A similar punishment shall be imposed upon a clergyman or minister of religion who, in the exercise of his calling or on the occasion of such exercise, issues or distributes writings in which affairs of state are made the subject of announcement or discussion in a manner endangering public peace.”

[545] Further extracts from the testimony of defendant Rothaug appear in sections V C 1 a, V C 1 b, V D 2, and V E.

[546] Dr. Karl Ferber’s testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript (31 Mar., 1, 3, 8 Apr. 1947), pages 1312–1315, 1319–1466, 1576–1630, 1665–1746. Ferber was a district court director (Landgerichtsdirektor) and associate judge of the Nuernberg Special Court. He was called a prosecution witness. Ferber referred to the case of a second Catholic Priest named Froehlich who had buried a Pole in Roding (Upper Palatinate), mimeographed transcript, pages 1352–1354, 1743–1744.

[547] The text of this law, Document 1393-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 508, is reproduced above in section IV B.

[548] Reference is made to Alfred Rosenberg who was tried and sentenced to death by the International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., Volumes I-XLII.

[549] The text of article 130a of the Reich Penal Code is reproduced in a footnote earlier in this section. The Insidious Acts Law of 20 December 1934, Document 1393-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 508, is reproduced in section IV B.

[550] Further extracts from the testimony of the defendant Klemm appear in sections V C 1 A, V C 3 B, V C 3 D, and V D 2.

[551] Reproduced above in this section.

[552] At this time the defendant Klemm was Under Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice.

[553] Tr. pp. 10587–10604, 18 October 1947.

[554] Document NG-414, Prosecution Exhibit 252, has not been reproduced in this volume because of its great length and because it has been impossible, in view of space limitations, to include any considerable amount of evidence concerning clemency matters—a topic frequently in issue in the Justice Case. The document in question is 142 pages in the original German and 162 pages in the English translation. It consists of file notes of the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning “Reports to the Minister of Justice,” “Reports to the Under Secretary” (Staatssekretaer), and “Death Sentence Reports” for the following dates: 24 and 27 January 1944; 10, 22, and 29 February 1944; 8, 17, and 29 March 1944; 5, 18, and 26 April 1944; 3, 12, and 31 May 1944; 2, 8, 16, 21, and 30 June 1944; 2 and 17 August 1944; 22 and 29 September 1944; 5, 12, 19, and 27 October 1944; 10, 16, and 29 November 1944; 7, 15, and 21 December 1944; and 4, 10, 17, and 24 January 1945. The “Death Sentence Reports” list the names (usually only the family name) of persons sentenced to death, dividing the death sentences into “doubtful” and “clear cut” cases, and grouping the sentences mainly under the following categories: “high treason cases,” “treason cases,” and cases involving “undermining the military efficiency.” On the reports a diagonal line was drawn indicating that the death sentence was confirmed. For example, the list of 17 January 1945, mentioned specifically by the defendant Klemm in his final statement, shows the following diagonal lines in the category “high treason cases.” (For typographical reasons, the diagonal lines have here been indicated before the respective letter or figure, whereas on the original document, the diagonal lines were drawn through them.)

/a.	doubtful
	Hauke	Death
	Ritter	Death
	Schellenberger	Death
	Giezelt	Death
/b.	clear cut
	/1. Hoehn	Death
	Schultz	Death
	Seiffert	Death
	/2. Kroeger	Death
	Splenemann	Death
	Fuebinger	Death
	/3. Boecker	Death
	Kaess	Death
	/4. Luedtke	Death
	/5. Haitzmann	Death
	Bueschinger	Death
	Hauberger	Death

The document shows that between 24 January 1944 and 24 January 1945, death sentences of more than 2,500 persons were confirmed. The largest number confirmed appears on the report of 22 September 1944, 128 cases; and the smallest number appears on the report of 4 January 1945, 25 cases. The report for 17 January 1945, mentioned specifically by the defendant Klemm, shows that 49 death sentences were confirmed.

[555] All the documents referred to are reproduced in the preface portion of this volume and are not reproduced as a part of this judgment. See Table of Contents.

[556] Text is reproduced in “The Axis in Defeat,” Department of State Publication No. 2423 (Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.), pages 24 and 25.

[557] Ibid., pages 62 and 63.

[558] Ibid, page 10 et seq.

[559] Alwyn V. Freeman, “War Crimes by Enemy Nationals Administering Justice in Occupied Territory,” The American Journal of International Law, XLI, July 1947, 605.

[560] John H. E. Fried, “Transfer of Civilian Manpower from Occupied Territory,” The American Journal of International Law, XL, April 1946, 326–327.

[561] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., judgment, volume I, page 254.

[562] Ibid., p. 218.

[563] Ibid., p. 174.

[564] Ibid., p. 219.

[565] Herbert Wechsler, “The Issues of the Nuremberg Trial,” Political Science Quarterly, LXII, No. 1, March 1947, 14.

[566] Hackworth, “Digest of International Law”, (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1940), volume 1, pages 1–4.

[567] Hyde, “International Law”, (2d rev. ed., Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1945), volume 1, page 4.

[568] Lord Wright, “War Crimes under International Law,” The Law Quarterly Review, LXII, January 1946, 51.

[569] Hyde, op. cit., page 2.

[570] Philip C. Jessup, “The Crime of Aggression and the Future of International Law,” Political Science Quarterly, LXII (Mar 1947), No. 1, page 2, citing Journal of the United Nations, No. 58, Supp. A-A/P. V./55, page 485.

[571] Lord Wright, op. cit., page 41.

[572] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 218.

[573] Hyde, op. cit., pages 16 and 17.

[574] Case 5, Volume VI, this series.

[575] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, pages 254 and 255.

[576] Ibid., p. 219.

[577] The Nuremberg Trial: “Landmark in Law”; Foreign Affairs, January 1947, pages 180 and 184.

[578] Maxwell-Fyfe, foreword to “The Nuremberg Trial” (London, Penguin Books, 1947), by R. W. Cooper.

[579] Wechsler, op. cit., pages 23–25.

[580] Hyde, op. cit., volume III, page 2409.

[581] Ibid., pages 2409 and 2410.

[582] American Journal of International Law, Vol. 14 (1920), p. 117.

[583] Hyde, op. cit., page 2412.

[584] Ibid., page 2414.

[585] Ibid., volume I, pages 7 and 8.

[586] Ibid., p. 38.

[587] “Since the World War of 1914–1918, there has developed in many quarters evidence of what might be called an international interest and concern in relation to what was previously regarded as belonging exclusively to the domestic affairs of the individual state; and with that interest there has been manifest also an increasing readiness to seek and find a connection between domestic abuses and the maintenance of the general peace. See article XI of the Covenant of the League of Nations, United States Treaty, volume III, 3339.” (Hyde, “International Law,” 2d rev. ed., vol. I, pages 249–250.)

[588] Oppenheim, “International Law”, volume I, (3d ed.) (Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1920), page 229.

[589] State Department Publication No. 9, pages 153 and 154.

[590] Norman Bentwich, “The League of Nations and Racial Persecution in Germany,” Problems of Peace and War, XIX, (London, 1934), page 75 and following.

[591] Ibid.

[592] President’s Message to Congress, 1904. “The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, Presidential Addresses and State Papers”, (P. F. Collier & Son, New York), volume III, pages 178 and 179.

[593] President’s Special Message of 11 April 1898. Hyde, op. cit., volume 1, page 259.

[594] J. Bluntschli, Professor of Law, Heidelberg University, in “Das Moderne Voelkerrecht der Civilisierten Staaten,” (3d ed.) page 270 (1878). Professor Bluntschli was a Swiss national.

[595] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume III, page 92.

[596] Journal of the United Nations, No. 58, Supp. A-C/P. V./55, page 485; as cited in Political Science Quarterly (Mar 1947), volume LXII, No. 1, page 3.

[597] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., judgment, volume I, page 178.

[598] 1934 RGBl. I, p. 75.

[599] Law of 4 April 1933, 1933 RGBl. I, page 162.

[600] Law of 24 April 1934, 1934 RGBl. I, page 341. Most of the laws and decrees mentioned herein are reproduced as parts of document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112. (See footnote on p. 231.)

[601] 1944 RGBl. I, p. 225.

[602] 1935 RGBl. I, p. 839.

[603] 1935 RGBl. I, p. 844, art. 267a.

[604] 1936 RGBl. I, p. 999.

[605] 1939 RGBl. I, p. 1455.

[606] Ibid., p. 1683.

[607] Ibid., p. 1679.

[608] 1939 RGBl. I, p. 2319.

[609] 1944 RGBl. I, p. 115.

[610] 1942 RGBl. I, p. 535.

[611] 1933 RGBl. I, p. 175.

[612] Ibid., p. 188.

[613] 1933 RGBl. I, p. 225.

[614] Ibid., p. 685.

[615] 1938 RGBl. I, p. 338.

[616] Ibid., p. 1580.

[617] 1939 RGBl. I, p. 864.

[618] 1942 RGBl. I, p. 722.

[619] This decree was also known as the “decree concerning the administration of penal justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories.”

[620] Trials of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., judgment, volume I, page 194.

[621] Ibid., p. 197.

[622] 1941 RGBl. I, p. 722.

[623] 1933 RGBl. I, p. 136.

[624] Ibid., p. 162.

[625] 1939 RGBl. I, p. 1683.

[626] 1939 RGBl. I, p. 1679.

[627] 1940 RGBl. I, p. 405.

[628] Id.

[629] 1941 RGBl. I, p. 759.

[630] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 179.

[631] 1934 RGBl. I, p. 341.

[632] 1939 RGBl. I, p. 752.

[633] Id.

[634] Ibid., p. 1841.

[635] 1940 RGBl. I, p. 754.

[636] 1933 RGBl. I, p. 136.

[637] 1944 RGBl. I, p. 339.

[638] 1934 RGBl. I, p. 91.

[639] [Article 1, 4, b] Law of 28 June 1935; 1935 RGBl. I, page 844.

[640] Ibid., article 4, 1, a.

[641] “German Criminal Procedure,” by Heinrich Henkel, (Hamburg 1943) pages 440–442.

[642] 1945 RGBl. I, p. 30.

[643] 1942 RGBl. I, p. 475.

[644] Law of 28 June 1935; 1935 RGBl. I, p. 844.

[645] The three expressions “supreme justice,” “supreme law lord” and “supreme magistrate” are three different translations of the German term “Oberster Gerichtsherr.”

[646] Department of State Bulletin, 4 November 1939, page 458, cited in Hyde’s International Law, Volume 1 (2d rev. ed.), page 391.

[647] “Legal Effects of War” (2d ed.) (Cambridge, 1940), footnote on page 320.

[648] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 255.

[649] Ibid., p. 256.

[650] Ibid., p. 261.

[651] Ibid., pp. 267–268.

[652] Ibid., p. 273.

[653] Ibid., pp. 232–233.

[654] Ibid., p. 234.

[655] Ibid., p. 266.

[656] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., Volume I, page 266.

[657] Ibid., pp. 235–236.

[658] Ibid., pp. 222–223.

[659] Rosenberg, Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts, (Munich 1935), page 114 (1st Ed., 1930), cited in National Socialism, Department of State Publication 1864 (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 1943), page 31.

[660] Ernst Kaltenbrunner, a defendant before the IMT, was sentenced to death. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 365.

[661] 1938 RGBl. I, p. 1581.

[662] Complete testimony of defense witness Hans Heinrich Schulz is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 25 September 1947. (Tr. pp. 9530–9552.)

[663] Complete testimony of defense witness Hans Heinrich Lammers is recorded in the mimeographed transcript 22 July 1947, pages 5582–5620.

[664] Hyde, op. cit., volume III (2d rev. ed.), page 1714.

[665] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, pp. 234, 235, and 237.

[666] 1935 RGBl. I, page 844.

[667] This date is evidently a recording error, in as much as the decrees mentioned were published in 1940 and 1941.

[668] General Warlimont was a defendant in the High Command Case (United States vs. Wilhelm von Leeb, et al., Case 12, vols. X-XI, this series).

[669] The reference is to the highest and higher leaders of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

[670] Complete testimony of defense witness Hans Hartmann is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 17 September 1947, pages 8999–9068.

[671] Popular name for the decree against public enemies.

[672] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 273.

[673] Ibid.

[674] 1944 RGBl. I, page 339.

[675] Trials of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, pages 259–261.

[676] Ibid., pp. 270–273.

[677] Ibid., p. 218.

[678] Ibid., pp. 216–218.

[679] Supreme Court decision re Yamashita; 66 S. Ct. 340.

[680] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 218.

[681] Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 226.

[682] Session of the Tribunal on 4 December 1947, Transcript pages 10934–10936.

[683] At the time this volume was nearing completion, further action on these sentences was taken by the United States High Commissioner for Germany. His decision upon review of these sentences will be included in section XXV, volume XV, this series.

[684] In Berlin—Kammergerichtspraesident.

[685] The German Civil Service is divided into two main groups: Beamte (officials) and Angestellte (employees). Beamte are classified according to four levels: Beamte of “unteren Dienstes” (lower level), “einfachen mittleren Dienstes” (intermediate level), “gehobenen mittleren Dienstes” (upper level), and “hoeheren Dienstes” (higher level). Angestellte are mainly custodial employees, workers, and minor clerks, but also include some specialists who do not have Beamten-status.

[686] Officials of the “lower level” are usually clerical employees and are usually addressed with the title of their position (such as “Buerovorsteher”—chief clerk).

[687] Usually carries a prefix such as “Justiz,” “Regierung,” “Verwaltung,” “Ministerial,” etc.

[688] Equivalent to a senior colonel.

[689] For detailed information on German court system see “A Brief Summary of the Court System,” in section IV C 2.

[690] Term “Assessor” is also used in connection with probational appointments in the administrative career service and the teaching career in university-level institutions.

[691] Literal translation of “Rechtswahrer” is “one who guards the observation of law.”

[692] For offenses included in “Wehrkraftzersetzung” see NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, in section IV B, pages 192 and 193.

Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected silently.
2. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the original.
3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been retained as in the original.