BY DR. LINK:
Q. Witness, you have stated here in the cross-examination about ten minutes ago that there were mostly, there were primarily murderers, or did I misunderstand you?
A. Well, if you consider it in the legal form, then there were manslaughter; that is what I meant, murder and manslaughter; cases of murder and manslaughter; there were mostly manslaughter, emotional cases of manslaughter; arson was also there; I remember one serious case of arson, but mostly there were rather serious cases, serious offenses; bloody offenses.
Q. Now another matter, witness in order to avoid a misunderstanding. You said this morning that in 1935 Amberg was changed from a prison for inmates who had previous convictions to a penitentiary for such who had no previous convictions, who were serving their first sentence.
A. From 1939 on -- when I came there in 1929 -- until 1935, it was a prison for repeated offenses, but all of them were people who had several previous convictions. In 1935 it became a penitentiary only for first offenders. Therefore, in order to speak in the language of an official of the penitentiary, there were people who well worth to take care of because their previous life had been clean.
Q. I put this question, Father, because the second half of the first page of your affidavit you emphasize that these people who had been punished for the first time were people who had at the most a punishment or sentence of one-half years.
A. That should be previous convictions.
Q. They were not prisoners who were supposed to stay there only one-half year; that can be seen clearly from the individual cases you have just described.
A. Yes. We in the penitentiary had people there from one year to life; that was a wrong impression on the part of the person who wrote it down; by people with previous convictions or no previous convictions, we don't mean people who had no convictions at all.
Q. Excuse me, I wasn't mistaken on it?
A. People with first convictions; we don't mean people have no previous penalties at all such as we find it very frequently in cases of murders, but also people who had punishment for penalties or offenses previously, that changed. The Ministry modified that decree that dealt with the term individuals with first convictions; that is, for instance, when the old previous conviction amounted to not more than one-half year, they still considered the man with the first conviction; did you understand?
Q. Yes, I knew that; I just wanted to clarify it. The next question is the following; The question of the treatment of Poles. You have stated that the Poles had not come voluntarily from their homeland to Germany. Would you conclude from that; you concluded that from the fact that they were prisoners in the prison, in the penitentiary at Amberg?
A. Yes.
Q. I agree with you as far as that goes, but I want to ask you if there was not a misunderstanding in answering the question of the Prosecution. Could you say that those Poles who were in Amberg to serve a sentence, or those who after heir sentence at this time had been on the basis of the decree concerning the Poles, were not released, that before that time, maybe years before that time, when they had come to Germany as Poles from Poland, that they didn't come voluntarily?
A. I told you most of these people were brought in from the penitentiary at Schiratz, and that was in Poland. Therefore, I presume that these people had not been brought from Germany to Schiratz, but that these people had been convicted in Poland, and through the penitentiary Schiratz were brought to us.
Q. Yes, I see; that is clear. Your description of the regrettable conditions of the Poles in the penitentiary, especially their lack of food, their physical condition apparently; their apparently bad physical condition; do you remember that very well?
A. Yes, very well.
Q. In that connection could you tell us whether those conditions wore consequences of the treatment at the penitentiary of Amberg, consequences of the Administration at that penitentiary or, depended upon the condition in which they were brought in?
A. These Poles were not treated any differently in the penitentiary than the other residents asmuch as I know. We had two wardens who were brutes, and repeatedly beat the Poles; the superintendent prohibited that, and these two wardens were later sent to Dachau; one I believe was turned over to the Poles later; but serious mistreatment, by that I mean brutal beatings so that a man cannot get up again, such as happened in the concentration camps, no, that I cannot remember. If one just gave the other one, if one just gave a prisoner a blow in the face, that was a very serious matter, so it was not the consequence of the treatment at the prison. Food, of course, was scarce. I was told that they received the same food as the Germans did, but there was something else according to the decree concerning Poles "which I did not happen to know in detail. These people could be held to work longer hours than the Germans, and, have to work longer hours; as much as I know, on the other hand, the main reason that I expressed in my statement was in my opinion the long absence from home; that they were thrown out into a different world, without having any ground, under their feet; bad and insufficient food for a long time, and that in the younger years of their lives when good food is particularly needed, so they lost all their resistance.
Q. May I summarize the statement by saying that the treatment, including food, of the Poles of those who were in the penitentiary at Amberg was principally not worse than that of the Germans, the German inmates; could one say that with that limitation concerning the longer hours of work?
A. Well, yes, but of course that as essential.
Q. Couldn't you state that elderly from your own knowledge?
A. I couldn't state it clearly because, as you know, I wanted to be quite precise; I would have to been in the kitchen because there they weighed the food by grams, and those were the people who can actually tell us.
I could not say precisely whether they got exactly the same as the Germans, and I was only told by the man in the kitchen that they got the same as the others did.
Q. All right. Did you perhaps hear any complaints from your Polish colleagues about this point?
A. That I could not say; no.
Q. Then I have one last question, Father Wein. In your affidavit, on the page before the last, that is page 3, at the end of the first third, of the page, there is a mentioning that Engert was a crazy Nazi. I am not interested now in information which you may have received from others; I only want to ask you whether, from your observations, you could state any facts which would justify, which are likely to justify that judgment?
A. I know only one thing, that at that time when he came to Amberg, or maybe it was later, I cannot say that with certainty, that he made a speech in the town hall about Nazi questions; but he came from Berlin. In other words, if a man comes from Berlin and speaks in the town hall of a city of about 60,000 inhabitants, then he certainly isn't a small-fry Nazi.
Q. Then, in your opinion, he must be a crazy Nazi if he is not a small-fry Nazi?
A. Well, if you consider that so important, then I may be able to correct that, but we don't make too much of a difference there. If a man is a big Nazi, then he is usually a crazy Nazi, because the entire idea was crazy.
DR. LINK: I have no more questions.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the witness be excused? I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
MR. KING: First, may I say that Defense Counsel has completed the examination of the Document NG-265, which was offered as Exhibit 392 prior to the lunch recess, and it will now be handed up to the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the document that was so obscure--that was-
MR. KING: No, Your Honor. That was the document which was of considerable length and Defense Counsel wanted to examine it.
We asked that it be submitted after lunch.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As to exhibit 393, which was a dim photostatic copy, we will endeavor to supply a better copy, but at the moment I am not able to say whether that will be possible. The next exhibit, 397, will be document NG-434, which is to be found beginning on page 76 of the English text and on page 82 of the German text. This is a letter from the President of the Court of Appeal in Bamberg, dated 1 March 1941, and addressed to the State Secretary, Dr. Schlegelberger. The letter is a report, and two paragraphs of which are concerned with the Euthanasia Program. I think it is of sufficient interest, those two paragraphs are of sufficient interest to be read at this time. The writer Buering, has the following to say: I read from the third paragraph in the letter beginning on page 79 in the English text and page 83 in the German:
"The liquidation of the insane is still a subject which is being heatedly discussed. Whatever one's attitude towards the elimination of human beings unfit for life may be, such a measure must depend on a series of safeguards which tend to exclude every abuse and every mistake as well as humanly possible and above all the order for such a measure which must deeply interfere with the right of the individual and the family must be based on public law. So far such a law has not been issued. Throughout wide circles of the population there is a great unrest caused by this state of affairs and that, not only among follow-citizens who count an insane person in the family.
"Such conditions arc untenable indefinitely in a state, based on law because they involve numerous dangerous uncertainties and cause the most absurd rumors which, in turn, are a source of continuous and considerable uneasiness of the population."
Then it goes on to state that the people are commenting on this in one way or another.
That is all of this document which we wish to call attention to at this time, and we, therefore, offer the document, NG-434 as exhi bit 397.
DR. BEHLIUG: The photostat copy which we have before us and Which shows the letter, which the President of the District Court in Bamberg sent to the defendant Schlogelberger, docs not prove for a fact that the letter reached the Under Secretary, the then Under-Secretary, Dr. Schlogelberger. In particular it cannot be seen that Schlogelberger actually read that letter. Therefore, if it should be used as evidence against the defendant Schlogelberger, then on the part of the Prosecution it would be necessary to prove that Dr. Schlogelberger actually received that letter or at least got knowledge of the contents of the letter. However, if the evidence should only be presented to characterize auditions at that tine, then I have no objections against it.
THE PRESIDENT: That question has been before the Tribunal many times. The document will be admitted.
MR. KING: With the document which has just been introduced, just offered, NG--434 as exhibit 398, I neglected -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Exhibit 397.
MR. KING: 397, excuse me. I have neglected to call the attention of the Court to a second letter which is also part of that document. It is written also by Duering, dated 2 January 1941, and it was addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner. In that letter, on page 84 of the English text, that is approximately 90 in the German text, there is reference to the Euthanasia Program. It is to the general effect that people arc talking about it, and that there is fear on his part that high ranking church officials are becoming concerned.
The next document, NG-582, which is to be found on page 86 of the English text, and on page 91 of the German text, will be when introduced, exhibit 398. This is a letter from the Attorney General of Duesseldorf, dated 30 March 1941. It is addressed to Dr. Schlogelberger, and it concerns the peoples feeling so far as the Attorney General was able to gather from letters and rumors that have reached him on the Euthanasia Program.
We offer the document NG-582 as exhibit 398.
It is clear from the photostatic copy that this letter is not complete. It is not complete for reasons that the original which we have is not complete. And, the document which appears in the English book reflects the condition of the photostatic copy of the original. So, NG-582 will be offered as exhibit 398 as an incomplete copy of a letter from the Attorney General of Duesseldorf to Dr. Schlegolberger.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that this was the best copy that was found or captured.
MR. KING: I cannot give you the complete story on that particular letter at the moment. I can only guess at whet happened, and I do not think you would be interested in that.
DR. BEHLING: We are concerned with this letter, apart from the fact it is not complete, but there is no signature. One does not know, therefore, whether it was sent out by the Prosecutor at Duesseldorf or who signed it, and whether this is an official document at all.
MR. KING: Your Honors, I think it is quite apparent from the form of the letter that it was sent by the General Prosecutor's Office in Duesseldorf, since the letterhead is from that office.
THE PRESIDENT: It is marked "registered"; did you observe that?
MR. KING: I beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: It is marked "registered"; did you observe that?
MR. KING: Yes, that appears on the original. It is quite true because it is incomplete, does not show a signature, but from the fact that it does show quite clearly on the original photostat, the letterhead of the Attorney General in Duesseldorf. I think that is, at least, a presumption that it came from that office. We are not saying that it was actually signed by the Attorney General or Generalstaastanwalt, because that we do not know. We only say that is a presumption that it came from that office, and of course, it is quite clear that it was addressed to Dr. Schlegelberger.
JUDGE BRAND: Does the photostat appear to be a photostat of an office copy of the original?
MR. KING: It is very difficult to tell; if I were to venture a guess, I would say it is a photostat of the original, since there are pencil lines showing on either edge of the margin, as one underlines - underscores - a particular sentence in a letter received, but that is certainly not evidence, because it is only an observation has no real evidentiary value.
DR BEHLING (For defendant Schlegelberger): I also ask to take into consideration that this letter does not have any receiving stamp, any public stamp, of the Ministry of Justice. It is the custom, in general - it was the custom that every letter that was received by the Ministry of Justice had that stamp on it. That stamp roads: "Reich Ministry of Justice", and then there is the date, and in the third line, the inclosures that may have come with the letter. Since that stamp, which had to be there, in every office, is missing, I believe that in the case of this document we have here a copy, which may have been found in Duesseldorf, and under certain circumstances may represent this draft of a letter which was intended by the General Prosecutor, but does not give us any certainty that the letter in question was, in fact, sent to the Ministry of Justice, and would then be Undersecretary Schlegelberger. Therefore, I do not consider it to have any probative value.
MR. KING: I can not say this particular copy was not found in Duesseldorf, but in the files of the Ministry of Justice in Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: As a captured document, it has probative value, however incomplete; less value, of course, than if it had the signature or the stamp on it. But under the rules, being a captured document, it will have probative value, and it will be received for what it is worth.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 399 we introduce the Document NG684, to be found beginning on page 88 of the English text, and on page 94 of the German. This is a letter dated, Graz, 5 February 1940, from the General Public Prosecutor to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin. We are particularly interested in the two paragraphs appearing on page 89 of the English text, and at the top of page 96 in the German. The two paragraphs appear in the English text right under the parenthesis "page 3 of the original." The General Public Prosecutor in these two paragraphs makes the suggestion that since Gypsies have become a real problem, that they be subjected to universal sterilization. That is all of this document to which we call particular attention at this time, and we therefore offer NG-684 as Exhibit 399.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 400 we introduce Document NG-387, appearing on page 91 of the English text, and on page 98 of the German text. This is a letter from Dr. Rothenberger to Dr. Schlegelberger. It is dated, Hamburg, 4 July 1941. We are at this time particularly interested in the second paragraph of that letter. I would like to read the second paragraph in its entirety. Dr. Schlegelberger speaking:
"I was confidentially informed of the draft of the law of April 1941 concerning the treatment of asocial elements according to this law, the custody of these persons is exclusively in the hands of the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) and so the sterilization insofar as the decision of this office as to whether a person is asocial, has been declared binding on the Eugenics Court.
I consider so extensive a disregarding of a judicial authority very dubious, and I propose that the Municipal Court, consisting perhaps of a judge, a physician, and a representative of the police, should decide whether an asocial element should be kept in life-long custody or should be sterilized."
We offer the Document NG-387 as Exhibit 400.
MR. KING: Did your Honor rule on the admissibility of 401? Did you admit it - 400, I mean?
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next Exhibit, 401, will be the Document 4055-PS. It appears on page 93 in the English text, and on page 101 in the German. It consists of several letters the first of which is a letter... I was about to read the letter on page 93... I think I should actually read the letter on page 94 first, since it appears to be an earlier date... there seems to be an interposition of letters. The first letter, on page 94, is from Dr. Schlegelberger to Dr. Lammers, in which Dr. Schlegelberger says that he has been informed about the result of a meeting on March 6th regarding the treatment of Jews and descendants of mixed marriages. He also notes that he is expecting a copy of the official transcript of the meeting, and after the transcript comes he expects to discuss it further with Dr. Lammers.
On page 93, letter of March 18, 1942, from Dr. Lammers to Dr. Schlegelberger, in which Dr. Lammers says he will be glad to discuss the question with Dr. Schlegelberger, and will do so upon his return to Berlin.
The next letter, or document, in the general document which bears the number 4055-PS, is a monograph, or letter, from Dr. Schlegelberger to a number of individuals whose names are set out in the heading on page 94 of the English text, and the top of page 103 in the German text. The monograph is dated 5 April 1942, is listed as a secret Reich matter, and it is headed, "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." I would like to read several portions of that document at this time. Starting with the paragraph numbered two, at the top of page 104 in the German text, in the middle of page 95 in the English:
"With regard to the treatment of Jewish descendants of mixed marriages of the first degree, I agree with the conception of the Reich Minister of the Interior which he expressed in his letter of 16 February 1942, to the effect that the prevention of propagation of these descendants of mixed marriages is to be preferred to their being thrown in with the Jews and evacuated. It follows therefrom that the evacuation of these half-Jews who are no more capable of propagation is obviated from the beginning. There is no national interest in dissolving the marriages between such half-Jews and a fullblooded German.
"Those half-Jews who are capable of propagation should be given the chance to --"
JUDGE BRAND: "Choice", you mean.
MR. KING: "Choice", yes, excuse me. (Continuing) ".... should be given the choice to submit to sterilization or to be evacuated in the same manner as Jews. In the case of sterilization, as well as in that of evacuation of the half-Jews, the German-blooded spouse will have to be given the opportunity to effect the dissolution of the marriage.
I see no objection to the German spouse's obtaining the possibility of divorcing his sterilized or evacuated spouse in a simplified procedure without the limitations of Par. 53 of the Marriage Law."
That is all of this document that we wish to specially call to the Court's attention at this time, and we therefore introduce the document 4055-PS as Exhibit 401.
Was 401 admitted in evidence, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't know it had been offered. It will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: With the exception of one or two pending matters in Book VII-A, the presentation of Exhibit 401 has completed the Book VII-A. We are not quite ready to proceed with the Document Book VII-B.
THE PRESIDENT: You say with the exception of one or two matters? Oh, 629-PS, I guess.
MR. KING: VIII.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be only one, so far as I can see.
MR. KING: There is one document which we will present on which we have had difficulty in procuring it, and I also want to produce a better photostat copy of Exhibit 393. These are the two matters. We are not quite ready to present Book VIII-B.
However, before we leave the matter of document presentation I would like to offer in evidence two documents about which there has been discussion in the past. They both concern the Book III series, III-D, in fact.
The first of these documents is the transcript to the People's Court film. As the Court will recall, the official transcript of that session did not include the English version, or in fact any version of the analogue that took place. Shortly after the presentation of the film, I inquired if the Court would be willing to receive a transcript of that film as a document, and the Court indicated that it would. We now have ready a document which we have styled NG-1019-A. The question is raised what document number or what exhibit number this document should be given. The film was Exhibit 192, and I wonder if the Court would be willing to consider a violation of its own precedent so far in giving this document the exhibit number of 192-A. I think it would be the first "A" exhibit that we have had so far in the Prosecution's case, but I think it would facilitate reference if it were so styled.
THE PRESIDENT: I see no objection to it being given that number and letter. We have separate exhibits so that if we want to send for it, we can do so.
My suggestion was, for the record, that we see no objection to having this given a sub-number with the addition of the letter "A", but I think it is very important to always give every document a separate exhibit number so if we ever have to send for it, we will be able to send for it with less confusion.
MR. KING: With Your Honor's suggestion in mind, we offer, therefore, the document NG-1019-A as Exhibit No. 192-A.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
Will that transcript be furnished to the Bench?
MR. KING: I believe, sir, it has been.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes; thank you.
JUDGE BRAND: What book were you planning to put that in?
MR. KING: I think that should go at the end of III-D. That seems to be a convenient place.
I now call attention to one other document which we have discussed and have delayed offering pending the processing. I refer to document NG-1249, which is the Fuehrer Information Bulletin which the witness Solf referred to and in fact read into the record at the time she testified here more than a week ago. The document has been processed, English copies have been made, and I now offer the document NG-1249 as prosecution Exhibit 402. I suggest that it be placed in Document Book III-D following Exhibit 192-A.
A note has just reached me -
JUDGE BRAND: What Exhibit do you offer that as?
MR. KING: No. 402.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: A note has just reached me from Mr. Lafollette. It appears that the witness which we had planned to hear this afternoon is momentarily not available, and Mr. Lafollette has asked me to ask the Court to recess for the rest of the afternoon.
Presumably the witness will be available tomorrow morning at the opening of the session.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will be able to endure the additional time. We therefore will recess at this time until tomorrow morning at 9:30 o'clock.
(At 1455 hours, 28 April 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 29 April 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the Matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 29 April 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, will you please determine if all the defendants are present in the courtroom?
THE MARSHALL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the record show that all the defendants except Engert are present, and that he is absent temporarily upon his own request.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, I would like to have the Marshal call the witness Ancker, who is outside.
THE PRESIDENT: He may be called.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The witness will speak in the German language.
EBINGER ANCKER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repealed the oath)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If the Court please, it ask that the witness be furnished the Exhibit 204 in the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: Hand it to the witness.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LaFOLLETTE:
Q. You will state your name, please.
A. Edinger Anckor.
Q. And just before we start further questions, will you wait a few minutes after I have finished my question before you answer, and then speak slowly; that is to help the interpreters and the court reporters. Will you tell the Court briefly where and when you were born; your education and the extent of your legal education, and experiences, please.
A. I was born on the 22nd of February, 1909, in Kiel; I grew up in Kiel and Hamburg; I attended the Humanistic school, followed the classical course in Kiel and Hamburg. In 1928 I matriculated; from 1928 until 1933 I was a working student; I studied law and political science in Hamburg, Vienna, and Berlin. In May, 1933 I took the first legal state examination; in 1933 I became referent at a court of the Oberlandosgericht, the District Court of Appeal in Kiel. In December 1933 I was taken over into the Administration until 1936; I received my training at the Landratsaemter office, and police officers, mayor's office and the government of the Province of Schleswig. In December 1936 I made my state legal examination and I passed it with good. Immediately thereafter I became government assessor, from January, 1937 until February 1938 at the Landratsamt office in Altenkirchen Westerwald, a general representative of the Landratsamt. In March until December 1938, I was an agricultural expert referent, the Oberprisidium of the Province of Brandenburg, and the office was located in Berlin. January until December 1939 I was assistant referent in the personnel division of the Reich Ministry of Interior: from December 1939 until May, 1940 I was a soldier; I was trained in a replacement battalion; for a short time I was detailed to duty, then I was declared unfit for military duty, and was detailed to the office of the Reich Commissioner, the Reich Commisar for the occupied territories in the Netherlands, in the Hague.
I was referent for personnel matters, department heads; until December, 1941 I served in that capacity. In January, 1942 until March, 1944 I was assigned to the party chancellory, Gruppenleiter, group leader for the Reich Ministry of Interior, and several other ministries belonging to it. From May, 1944 on, I was again a soldier in the Waffen SS; my last rank was Untersturmfuehrer. In October, 1944 I was seriously wounded; in May 1944 I was arrested in the Field Hospital; for nine months I was interned; after being discharged from the internment camp, until August, 1946, my injuries sustained during the war were treated, were under treatment; from the 15th of September, 1946 on, I was an apprentice for a carpenter in Heide Holstein.
Q. And that is generally the general character of what you are now doing; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you were at the party chancellery from January, 1942 until March of 1944?
A. Yes.
Q. And from the Ministry of Interior?
A. Yes, the Ministry of Interior had detailed me for that; they had assigned me to that work.
Q. And during the time there, of course you were then actually a representative of or employed by the Ministry of Interior, working at the party chancellery; that was the way it worked?
A. That is not quite correct.
Q. Will you tell the Court just what was the relationship?
A. We were the experts, Sachbearbeiter of the legal division, of the party chancellery; in our field we were experts or specialists; that is, formerly we were members of a party office; that did not alter tho fact that we were civil servants, civil servants of our ministry, and as a result we conducted ourselves as such -- as civil servants.