[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 Statesvs.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 Statesvs.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 Statesvs.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 Statesvs.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 theforma 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 anex officiolawyer, 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 Statesvs.Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al., vols. XII-XIV, this series); and SS General Hofmann in the RuSHA Case (United Statesvs.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 personsoutsidethe 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 Statesvs.Oswald Pohl, et al., Volume V, this series, and the Ministries Case, United Statesvs.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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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).
[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.
[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.
[264]Reproduced earlier in this section.
[265]See the extracts from the testimony of defendant Rothenberger reproduced in section V C 1 a.
[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).
[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.
[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.
[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).
[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).
[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.
[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.)
[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.
[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 Statesvs.Otto Ohlendorf, et al., Case 9, vol. IV, this series).
[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 Statesvs.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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[281]Document 654-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 39, reproduced earlier in this section.
[282]Prosecution Exhibit 38, the first document reproduced 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.
[283]Document 648-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 264, reproduced in section V B.
[284]Document 701-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 268, 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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 Statesvs.Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al., Case 11, volumes XII-XIV, this series.
[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 Statesvs.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 Statesvs.Wilhelm von Leeb, et al., Case 12, volumes X and XI, 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 Statesvs.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).
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[313]Document is not signed.
[314]Paragraph (5) is not included in original document.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[317]Only the third draft (c) is reproduced herein.
[318]The text of the decree of 21 March 1933 is reproduced on page 218.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[321]Reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 185.
[322]Ibid., p. 187.
[322]Ibid., p. 187.
[323]Ibid., p. 188.
[323]Ibid., p. 188.
[324]Reproduced in part as a part of Doc. NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112, on p. 192.
[324]Reproduced in part as a part of Doc. NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112, on p. 192.
[325]Ibid., p. 193.
[325]Ibid., p. 193.
[326]Reproduced as a part of Doc. NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112, on p. 218.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[340]The text of the Reich Citizenship Law is reproduced on page 180.
[341]Id.
[341]Id.
[342]Document Schlegelberger 60, Schlegelberger Exhibit 26, reproduced in part above in this section.
[342]Document Schlegelberger 60, Schlegelberger Exhibit 26, reproduced in part above in this section.
[343]Stuckart was a defendant in the Ministries Case (United Statesvs.Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al., Vols. XII-XIV, this series).
[343]Stuckart was a defendant in the Ministries Case (United Statesvs.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.
[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.
[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.
[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).
[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.
[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.).
[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.
[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.
[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 theforma 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 anex officiolawyer, free of cost, where representation by counsel is required by law.
[352]Under German law, “Armenrecht,” or the benefits of theforma 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 anex officiolawyer, 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 Statesvs.Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al., vols. XII-XIV, this series); and SS General Hofmann in the RuSHA Case (United Statesvs.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.
[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 Statesvs.Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al., vols. XII-XIV, this series); and SS General Hofmann in the RuSHA Case (United Statesvs.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.
[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.
[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.
[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).
[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.
[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.
[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).
[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.
[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.
[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.
[363]Not reproduced herein.
[364]Reproduced at the end of this document.
[364]Reproduced at the end of this document.
[365]It will be noted that the statistics do not include personsoutsidethe Greater German Reich, for example, in the Government General.
[365]It will be noted that the statistics do not include personsoutsidethe 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.]
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.”
[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.
[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.
[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 Statesvs.Oswald Pohl, et al., Volume V, this series, and the Ministries Case, United Statesvs.Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al., Volumes XII-XIV, this series.
[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 Statesvs.Oswald Pohl, et al., Volume V, this series, and the Ministries Case, United Statesvs.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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.