Chapter 89

[381]The words which appear italicized and in parentheses were crossed out in the original.[382]The proposed insert appears at the end of the document.[383]Further extracts from the testimony of the defendant Schlegelberger are reproduced above in sections IV E, V B, and V C 2 a; and below in sections V D 3 and V E.[384]The reference is to the “Decree concerning the Administration of Penal Justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories,” reproduced on page 632 (NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112).[385]Document NG-219, Prosecution Exhibit 42, reproduced above in section C 3 a.[386]Document Schlegelberger 79, Schlegelberger Exhibit 72, was a law of 25 March 1939 amending the German Civil Service Law. Document Schlegelberger 80, Schlegelberger Exhibit 73, was the third law amending the German Civil Service Law of 21 October 1941, neither of which are reproduced.[387]Reproduced earlier in this subsection.[388]For contemporaneous documents concerning labor camps in German-occupied Poland, see the Pohl Case, United Statesvs.Oswald Pohl, et al., Volume V, this series.[389]Document NG-151, Prosecution Exhibit 204 is reproduced previously in this section.[390]Schlegelberger refers to his letter of 13 August 1942 to the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Dr. Goebbels, making specific proposals for the wording of the decree. This letter is reproduced earlier in this section as part of a lengthy correspondence on the matter (Doc. NG-151, Pros. Ex. 204).[391]Schlegelberger refers to decisions taken by Thierack after consultations with Reich Leader SS Himmler on 18 September 1942. See Thierack’s own memorandum of this conference (654-PS, Pros. Ex. 39) reproduced in section C 3 a, and Thierack’s letter to Bormann of 13 October 1942 (NG-558, Pros. Ex. 143) reproduced earlier in this section.[392]Reproduced earlier in this section.[393]The reference is to a provision in German law whereby a person who has been granted the benefits of theforma pauperisbut who, later on, ceases to be poor, must pay the court and lawyer’s fees from which he had been exempted.[394]Document NG-880, Prosecution Exhibit 459, is reproduced earlier in this section.[395]Document Schlegelberger 60, later received in evidence as Schlegelberger Defense Exhibit 26, is reproduced earlier in this section.[396]Here defense counsel makes two erroneous references, as both the contemporaneous documents and Schlegelberger’s ensuing testimony show. The pertinent penal ordinance concerning Poles and Jews was promulgated on 4 December 1941, and it was introduced in evidence as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, reproduced on page 632. On the other hand, Prosecution Exhibit 343, which defense counsel mentions, is a draft for a penal ordinance on Poles and Jews by defendant Schlegelberger. He transmitted this draft to the Reich Chancellery on 17 April 1941 with a long letter of explanation (NG-144, Pros. Ex. 199). Both the transmittal letter by Schlegelberger and the proposed draft are reproduced earlier in this section, and both are discussed in the following testimony by the defendant.[397]Document NG-227, Prosecution Exhibit 341, is not reproduced herein. It contains, among other items, a note prepared in the Reich Ministry of Justice, dated 26 November 1940, stating that “the Deputy of the Fuehrer [Rudolf Hess] thinks it best to rescind the application of the German Penal Code in the new eastern provinces and to create a penal code a special dominating principle of which must be to deter by fear and there must be a possibility of pronouncing a sentence of corporal punishment. The law of criminal procedure must not allow for obstruction; here the deputy of the Fuehrer is in favor of police courts martial rather than law courts.”[398]This draft (NG-331, Pros. Ex. 343) is reproduced earlier in this section just following Schlegelberger’s letter of 17 April 1941 (NG-144, Pros. Ex. 199) transmitting the draft to Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery.[399]Document NG-144, Prosecution Exhibit 199, dated 17 April 1941, reproduced earlier in this section.[400]Decree concerning the administration of penal justice against Poles and Jews, 4 December 1941 (NG-715, Pros. Ex. 112), reproduced on page 632.[401]Extracts from this article were offered in evidence as Document Schlegelberger 61, Schlegelberger Exhibit 27, reproduced earlier in this section.[402]This is an undated table entitled “Death Sentences.” It lists 115 persons delivered to jail between 24 April 1942 and 1 September 1944, all having been sentenced by the Special Court in Stuttgart. However, in a column headed “Execution,” the table shows that five of the cases were either sentences for a term of years or possibly cases where death sentences were changed to imprisonment for a term of years. The entry under the heading “Execution” for the two cases mentioned by Schlegelberger are for Pitra, “8 years’ prison camp” and Wozniak, “5 years’ prison camp, beginning September 1942.”[403]Reference is made to article I of the Supplementary Decree concerning the Administration of Penal Justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, a decree signed by the defendant Schlegelberger and Dr. Pfundner. This decree (NG-665, Pros. Ex. 346) is reproduced earlier in this section.[404]Reproduced earlier in this section.[405]The two original Nuernberg laws, the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, were both announced at Nuernberg on 15 September 1935. The second law is reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 180.[406]This document is reproduced earlier in this section.[407]Other extracts from the testimony of the defendant Klemm are reproduced above in sections V C 1 a, V C 3 b, V C 3 d, and below in section V F.[408]Concerning the earlier phases of Klemm’s activities, see the footnote appearing at the beginning of the extracts from Klemm’s testimony which are reproduced above in section V C 3 b. There was still a fourth phase to Klemm’s activities, for in January 1944 he was appointed Under Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice.[409]Hess landed in Scotland on 10 May 1941.[410]1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, 1 December 1933, part I, page 1016.[411]Reproduced above in section C 3 d.[412]Reproduced above in this section.[413]Reproduced above in section C 2 a.[414]Reproduced below in subsection E.[415]Reproduced above in this section.[416]Circular letter of 10 March 1944, reproduced above in this section.[417]Reproduced above in this section.[418]Further extracts from Rothaug’s testimony are reproduced in sections V C 1 a, V C 1 b, V E, and V F.[419]See the opinion and judgment in the Katzenberger case (NG-154, Pros. Ex. 152), reproduced earlier in this section. Rothaug was presiding judge in the Katzenberger case.[420]These were all prosecution witnesses and none of their testimony is reproduced herein. Their testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript as follows: Dr. Karl Ferber, (31 Mar, 1, 3, 8 Apr 47), pages 1312–1315, 1319–1466, 1576–1630, 1665–1746; Irene Seiler, (26 Mar 1947), pages 1025–1057; and Armin Baur, (23 May 1947), pages 3598–3606.[421]Extracts from the pertinent article in “Der Stuermer” concerning the Katzenberger case are reproduced above in this section (NG-270, Pros. Ex. 155).[422]Further extracts from the testimony of defendant Rothenberger appear in sections V C 1 a, V C 2 b, and V C 3 a.[423]Reproduced in part in section V B. This document was also introduced as Document, Rothenberger 3, Rothenberger Exhibit 3.[424]Reproduced above in this section.[425]Document NG-392, Prosecution Exhibit 373, is not reproduced herein. It is a situation report of 5 January 1942 from defendant Rothenberger to defendant Schlegelberger. The item of this report concerning privileges of Jews in court proceedings is the following: “VII. The lower courts do not grant to Jews the right to participate in court proceedings informa pauperis. The district court suspended such a decision in one case. The refusal to grant this right of participation in court proceedings informa pauperisis in accordance with today’s legal thinking. But since a direct legal basis is missing, the refusal is unsuitable. We therefore think it urgently necessary that a legal regulation or order is given, on the basis of which the rights of a pauper can be denied to a Jew.”[426]Document NG-1106, Prosecution Exhibit 462, reproduced in part above in this section.[427]Reproduced above in this section.[428]In January 1944, at Thierack’s request, defendant Klemm was made Under Secretary.[429]Document NG-1656, Prosecution Exhibit 535, above, earlier in this section.[430]Further testimony of defendant Rothenberger denying knowledge of “final liquidation” measures of Poles and Jews is reproduced in section V C 3 a.[431]Complete testimony is recorded in the mimeographed transcript, (9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 Sep 1947), pages 8510–8548, 8559–8805.[432]From these official files only the opinion and sentence of the Nuernberg Special Court has been reproduced herein. See Document NG-457, Prosecution Exhibit 201, reproduced in part above in this section.[433]Actually only the first two of these three exhibits are affidavits. Document NG-650, Prosecution Exhibit 229, is an affidavit of Associate Judge Dr. Franz Gros. Document NG-635, Prosecution Exhibit 235, is an affidavit of Associate Judge Dr. Theodor Pfaff. Gros and Pfaff were the two associate judges sitting in the Kaminska-Wdowen case with defendant Oeschey. Both were called as witnesses before the Tribunal. (Gros, 30 Apr 1947, tr. pp. 2826–2882) (Pfaff, 27 May 1947, tr. pp. 3642–3650). The third mentioned exhibit, Document NG-2245, Prosecution Exhibit 635, is a newspaper clipping of 25 August 1942. None of these three exhibits and none of the testimony of Gros and Pfaff is reproduced herein.[434]Associate Judge Dr. Franz Gros. In addition, the second associate judge was also heard. See footnote 2.[435]Decree concerning the Administration of Penal Justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, 4 December 1941, reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632.[436]SG 256/1943 is the file number of the Kaminska-Wdowen case. See Document NG-457, Prosecution Exhibit 201, reproduced in part above in this section.[437]Counsel refers to the two associate judges in the case, both of whom testified in the justice trial.[438]Reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 193.[439]Decree of 5 September 1939, reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 188.[440]Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 and 16 September 1947, pp. 8841–8962.[441]Reproduced above in this section.[442]Decree of 1 July 1943, reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 685.[443]The defendant Altstoetter, as this time a Ministerial Director, was Chief of Department VI of the Reich Ministry of Justice. Department VI was concerned with civil law; commercial and economic law; racial legislation; public administrative law and international law; international law and international treaties; constitution of the courts; and administration of civil law.[444]The State in its capacity as carrier of rights and duties of a financial-legal nature.[445]Document NG-900, reproduced above in this section.[446]Lieutenant General Rudolf Lehmann was head of the armed forces legal section. Lehmann also had the title of judge advocate general (Generaloberstabsrichter) and Ministerialdirektor. Lehmann, whose name comes up in ensuing documents, was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment by Tribunal V in the High Command Case. Extracts from Lehmann’s testimony concerning the Night and Fog decree appear near the end of this section and more lengthy testimony by Lehmann on the same and related subjects appears in the materials on the High Command Case, United Statesvs.Wilhelm von Leeb, et al., Volumes X-XI, this series.[447]This decree was the Night and Fog decree (1733-PS, Pros. Ex. 303) reproduced immediately below.[448]This implementation decree is contained as the enclosure to Document 669-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 305 reproduced below after the Night and Fog decree.[449]Distribution appears at end of document.[450]Sometimes referred to as Document 665-PS. See transcript, 21 April 1947, page 2440.[451]Defendant Schlegelberger testified that he signed the proposed executive order and that it was the same as the draft submitted in the document book, i.e., the draft enclosed hereto. See extracts from the testimony of defendant Schlegelberger reproduced later in this section.[452]SS General Pohl, Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office, and a number of his subordinates, were tried in the Pohl Case (United Statesvs.Oswald Pohl, et al., Vol. V, this series).[453]Request addition of case, as soon as available settled. [Signed] Ebersberg 12 Sept.[454]Document NG-232, Prosecution Exhibit 308, reproduced earlier in this section.[455]Goebel was president of the Essen Special Court and also held the title of District Court Director.[456]Itemsaandbcrossed out in original document.[457]Bracketed excerpt is part of handwritten note partially illegible on document.[458]The enclosures were not a part of the document received in evidence.[459](in the case of Breslau as of 31 March 1944)[460]This document was introduced in evidence during the cross-examination of defendant von Ammon. See extracts from his testimony reproduced at the end of this section.[461]Complete testimony appears in the mimeographed transcript (23, 24 Apr. 47), pages 2586–2643.[462]This affidavit is not reproduced herein.[463]Extracts from the testimony of the defendant Schlegelberger have been reproduced above in several sections, including IV E, V B, V C 2 A, V D 2, and V E.[464]Reference is made to the draft contained in Document NG-077, Prosecution Exhibit 306, a letter of 16 December 1941, from the Reich Ministry of Justice. This document is reproduced earlier in this section.[465]Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit., volume I, page 232 and following.[466]Special jurisdiction of the SS was established by a decree of 17 October 1939, entitled “Decree on Special Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings against Members of the SS and Members of Police Formations on Special Tasks.” This decree (Klemm 29, Klemm Ex. 29) is reproduced in section IV B.[467]Judge Harding refers to Article 1 which with other parts is reproduced as Document Klemm 29, Klemm Ex. 29 on page 190.[468]This decree is reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 205.[469]The entire testimony appears in the mimeographed transcript (1–4 Aug 1947), pages 6377–6473.[470]Document NG-988, Prosecution Exhibit 510 consists of over one hundred mimeographed pages, dealing with the organization of Departments III, IV, V, and VI of the Reich Ministry of Justice. It is not reproduced herein.[471]Document NG-232, Prosecution Exhibit 308, reproduced above in this section.[472]See, for example, Document NG-205, Prosecution Exhibit 328, a secret directive of 21 January 1944, reproduced above in this section.[473]Document NG-077, Prosecution Exhibit 306, reproduced above in this section.[474]Document NG-232, Prosecution Exhibit 308, reproduced above in this section.[475]This exhibit is a draft dated 16 December 1941 which was later published as an executory decree on 6 February 1942.[476]Document NG-486, Prosecution Exhibit 337, not reproduced herein.[477]The testimony of defendant Mettgenberg appears in the mimeographed transcript (31 Jul–1 Aug 1947) pages 6235–6271; 6274–6362. The testimony referred to is not reproduced herein.[478]Document NG-205, Prosecution Exhibit 328, reproduced above in this section.[479]Document von Ammon 4, von Ammon Exhibit 2. This affidavit, except for the parts quoted, is not reproduced herein.[480]Document NG-269, Prosecution Exhibit 319, reproduced above in this section.[481]Document NG-255, Prosecution Exhibit 314, reproduced in part above in this section. The report referred to here is not reproduced herein.[482]Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Lehmann are reproduced above in this section.[483]Document NG-232, Prosecution Exhibit 308, reproduced above in this section.[484]Document NG-255, Prosecution Exhibit 314, reproduced in part above in this section. This letter referred to here is not reproduced herein.[485]Document NG-077, Prosecution Exhibit 306, reproduced above in this section. Note entry on document indicating that it was dispatched.[486]Document NG-253, Prosecution Exhibit 317, reproduced in part above in this section.[487]This note is a part of Document NG-253, Prosecution Exhibit 317, reproduced above in this section.[488]Document NG-486, Prosecution Exhibit 337, not reproduced herein.[489]Roemer’s testimony appears in the mimeographed transcript (24 Apr 1947), pages 2652–2672.[490]The testimony of defendant Lautz appears in the mimeographed transcript (23–25, and 28 Jul 1947), pages 5761–5775; 5781–6054.[491]Pastor Martin Niemoeller, Protestant clergyman in Berlin-Dahlen at the time of his arrest.[492]Robert Hecker was an official of Department V (which dealt with the execution of court sentences). The chief of Department V was defendant Engert. The entire testimony of prosecution witness Hecker is recorded in the mimeographed transcript (18 Apr, 9 and 12 May, and 7 Jul 1947), pages 2363–2386, 3047–3083, 3111–3114, and 4823–4870.[493]Document NG-737, an affidavit by Hecker, not reproduced herein.[494]Document NG-1886, Prosecution Exhibit 546, reproduced above in this section.[495]This letter was written before the promulgation of the Decree concerning the administration of penal justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories of 4 December 1941, reproduced as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632. The first four sections of the decree also applied to Poles domiciled or residing in Poland on 1 September 1939 “and who committed punishable acts in any part of the German Reich other than the Incorporated Eastern Territories.” (Sec. XIV.)[496]GewVVO, abbreviation for “Verordnung gegen Gewaltverbrecher”—Decree against Violent Criminals—dated 5 December 1939. Article 1 of this decree makes the death penalty mandatory for acts of “armed violence” as defined therein. The decree is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 193.[497]VVO, abbreviation for “Verordnung gegen Volksschaedlinge”—Decree against Public Enemies—dated 5 September 1939. Article 4 of this decree makes the death sentence possible but not mandatory. The decree is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 188.[498]Reference is made to the articles of the Reich Penal Code defining treason. The provisions of this code concerning “high treason” and “treason” were amended early in the Hitler regime by the law of 24 April 1934, “amending provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure.” This same law established the People’s Court with competence in treason cases. Provisions of this law defining treason are reproduced on page 169 as a part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, and the provisions establishing the People’s Court are reproduced on page 23, as part of the same document. Article 91 of the Reich Penal Code, as amended by the law of 24 April 1934 reads, “(1) Whoever established contact with a foreign government or a person acting for a foreign government with the intention of causing a war or forcible measures against the Reich or other serious disadvantages to the Reich, will be punished by death. (2) Whoever established contact of the kind described in paragraph (1) with the intention of causing serious disadvantages for a national of the Reich, will be punished with hard labor for life or for not less than 5 years.”[499]Article 2 of the Reich Penal Code, as amended by the “Law Amending the Penal Code” of 28 June 1935, introduced the principle of “creation of law by analogous application of penal laws,” and declared punishable any act “which deserves punishment according to the fundamental idea of a penal law or the sound sentiment of the people.” Extracts from this amending law are reproduced on page 176, as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112. Article 91, paragraph 2, of the Reich Criminal (Penal) Code, as amended, established the principle that intentional causing of “serious disadvantages for a national of the Reich” in connection with a foreign government was treasonable. This provision, however, did not go so far as to declare that acts against “ethnic Germans of foreign nationality” could constitute treason against Germany. Hence, the discussion of Article 2 of the Reich Penal Code as amended with its provision for punishment “according to the fundamental idea of a penal law or the sound sentiment of the people” and the “creation of law by analogous application of penal law.”[500]This decree of 4 December 1941 is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632.[501]Concerning the “nullity plea,” see section V C 1 b.[502]The decree of 5 September 1939 is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 188.[503]The relevant provisions of this law are reproduced on page 231 as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112.[504]The various articles of the Reich Penal Code mentioned in this sentence are all contained in the law of 24 April 1934, amending provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure. This law amended numerous articles of the Reich Penal Code. It is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 169.[505]This decree, entitled “Decree concerning the Administration of Penal Justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories,” is reproduced as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112, on page 632.[506]Political organization founded by the Austrian Government in 1934 after the dissolution of the Social Democratic Party and the National Socialist Party.[507]Reference is made to the “Law on Insidious Acts against State and Party, and for the Protection of Party Uniforms,” Document 1393-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 508, reproduced in section IV-B.[508]Reference is made to the “Decree concerning Special Criminal Law in Wartime,” 17 August 1938, the relevant provisions of which are reproduced on page 184, as part of Document NG-715, Prosecution Exhibit 112. Article 5 of this decree is entitled “Undermining of Military Efficiency.”[509]All italicized parts in this portion of the document are handwritten in the original.[510]Bracketed text is crossed out in original document.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[387]Reproduced earlier in this subsection.

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

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

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

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

[392]Reproduced earlier in this section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[404]Reproduced earlier in this section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[411]Reproduced above in section C 3 d.

[412]Reproduced above in this section.

[413]Reproduced above in section C 2 a.

[414]Reproduced below in subsection E.

[415]Reproduced above in this section.

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

[417]Reproduced above in this section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[424]Reproduced above in this section.

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

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

[427]Reproduced above in this section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[441]Reproduced above in this section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[449]Distribution appears at end of document.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[456]Itemsaandbcrossed out in original document.

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

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

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

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

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

[462]This affidavit is not reproduced herein.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Index Next