[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 Statesvs.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 Any one of them must resign should the confidence of the Reichstag be withdrawn by an express resolution.”[145]Article 50 reads—“All orders and decrees of the President of the Reich, including those relating to the armed forces, require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 Statesvs.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. GuertnerIII 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 inGerman 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 Statesvs.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 Statesvs.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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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).
[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.
[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 Statesvs.Karl Brandt, et al., Volumes I and II, this series. Conti committed suicide in 1945 after Germany’s unconditional surrender.
[139]Dr. Conti was Reich Health Leader (Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer). His activities came into issue in the Medical Case, United Statesvs.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.
[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.
[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.
[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.”
[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.”
[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.”
[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.”
[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.”
[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.”
[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.
[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.”
[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.”
“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.
[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.”
[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.
[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.”
[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.”
[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).
[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.
[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.
[158]Reproduced below in section V C 1 a.
[159]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.
[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).
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[167]Reproduced below in Section V C 2 a.
[168]Trial of the Major War Criminals,op. cit., volume I, page 275.
[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 Statesvs.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. GuertnerIII a 3/ 41g R s /
[169]Three of the defendants in the Medical case were tried and convicted upon charges of participation in the euthanasia program. (See United Statesvs.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. GuertnerIII a 3/ 41g R s /
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.
[170]Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., page 182.
[171]Reproduced below in section VC3a.
[171]Reproduced below in section VC3a.
[172]Reproduced above in section IVB.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[176]Testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, 28 April 1947, pp. 2675–2691; 2716–2729.
[177]This resolution is reproduced on page 204.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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 inGerman Justice(Deutsche Justiz), 1934, 96th year, pp. 341 ff.
[185]This order was printed inGerman 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.
[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.)
[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.
[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.
[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).”
[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.”
[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.
[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.
[193]Document reproduced immediately above reports on two meetings of this conference.
[194]Document is not signed.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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 Statesvs.Ernst von Weizsaecker et al. See volumes XII-XIV, this series.
[200]Otto Meissner was Chief of the Presidential Chancellery of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. He was a defendant in Case 11, United Statesvs.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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[204]Reproduced earlier in this section.
[205]Reproduced below in section VC2a.
[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.)
[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.
[207]Highest court in Berlin.
[208]The enclosure is reproduced following this letter.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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 Statesvs.Otto Ohlendorf, et al., Case 9, volume IV, this series.
[215]Otto Ohlendorf, defendant in the Einsatzgruppen Case, United Statesvs.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.
[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).
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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).
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.”
[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).
[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.)
[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.
[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.
[235]This decree is reproduced in part immediately above.
[236]Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript 23 May 1947, pages 3628–3641.
[236]Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript 23 May 1947, pages 3628–3641.
[237]Reproduced in part just above.
[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.
[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.
[239]The letter to Hitler is reproduced immediately above.
[240]1940 appears in the original, but obviously 1941 was intended.
[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.
[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.
[242]The newspaper clipping is reproduced on following page.
[243]Schaub was Hitler’s adjutant.
[243]Schaub was Hitler’s adjutant.
[244]Extracts from this document were also submitted as Document Petersen 2, Petersen Exhibit 5.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.