This was sebt by order of department IV -- initialed "W" at the very end of the document. It is dated, Berlin, 1942. Now there is a initial SCH at the bottom of that, dated 11 November 1942. We do not contend those are the initials of Schlegelberger.
The Prosecution offers this as Prosecution's exhibit 359, the document NG 327.
DR. BEHLING: There must be a mistake in as far as this document is concerned. The defendant Schlegelberger was not in office at that time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I believe we said that we did not contend that those were the initials of Schlegelberger.
JUDGE BRAND: Were you referring to those initials at the bottom of page 156?
MR. LAFOLETTE: Yes. The defendant was not in office in November 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence. We will adjourn at this time until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0930 hours tomorrow morning.
( A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 23 April,1947 Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al, 23 April 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington Marchall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 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, you will please ascertain if all defendants are present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendants Rothaug and Engert, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the proper notation be made.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, we will begin with document book V-C.
On page 158, and 160 to 161 of the German, is an instruction by the defendant Schlegelberger dated the 22nd of July 1941, addressed to the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal except Prague and the Reich Governor for Bohemia and Moravia, and to the President of the Court of Appeals in Prague.
It is simply an instruction that in the future in sentences against Poles -- we won't use the words "loss of honor" or "deprivation of civil rights of honor", but simply refer to the sections of the Criminal Code.
The Prosecution offers to introduce into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 360, the document NG-509.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Turning to page 160, the document 664-PS, the Court will recall, was introduced yesterday, as Exhibit 348.
I turn now to document NG-341 on pages 161 to 165 of the document book. In the first place, the first page of this document to be read is page 165, which is also page 165 of the German book. It is a letter from the Chief Civil Administration in Alsace to the Chief of Administration Alsace in the Department of Justice, attention of the Attorney General at Karlsruhe, on the subject of what disposition should be made of the bodies of the defendants who had been sentenced to death and executed. I think I said it was dated 1943, the 19th of March.
They do not consider it feasible to turn the remains over to the family. This could only be done if the execution takes place in the old Reich, and asks for the agreement of the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Thereafter, the Attorney General at Karlsruhe directs this letter to the attention of the Ministry; it reaches Westphal, and on page 164 the document discloses that the initial of the defendant Joel as of 12 April 1943, indicates that it was called to his attention.
The Prosecution offers to introduce into evidence document NG-341 as Prosecution Exhibit No. 361.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF (Counsel for the defendant Joel): May it please the Tribunal, following the statement by the representative of the Prosecution that document NG-341 bears the initial of the defendant Joel, I have to make an objection. The initial probably does not mean Joel, but Jaeger. This misinterpretation occurred once before with another document. A comparison of the reproduced initials will show this beyond doubt.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I don't intend that my remarks and observations should be binding. I have no reason to doubt that counsel would make a mis-statement on that subject, so that as far as the initial "Joel" is concerned, I don't contend that at all.
I still offer to introduce the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: We next turn to document No. NG-682, which is at page 167 of the document book, 168 to 175 of the German. This covers pages 167 to 173 of the English book. This document clearly speaks for itself. It is a report of various activities with reference to the prosecution of cases.
The subject matters are:
The National Czech Separatist Movement Polish Separatism Austrian Legitimism Political Catholicism The Czech Legion Naroda Obrana Polish Separatism; and Treason in the West.
The document itself does not, on its face, disclose its source. I rely on the certificate of the document which accompanies the document and states that it is made up of extracts from reports by the defendant Lautz.
DR. GRUBE (Counsel for Defendant Lautz): May it please the Tribunal, in our document book there is no accompanying letter included which was just mentioned by the representative of the Prosecution. Also, the photostatic copy does not show any covering letter.
Apart from that, may I point out that this photostatic copy apparently consists of various reports that are compiled here. In all cases these are fragments. One cannot see any date nor from whom the document came. That this document is a compilation of various reports can be seen from the fact that for instance in this photostatic copy the pages 5 and 6 appear twice, in every case, however, in a different form and dealing with different matters. There is no information as to when this report was made and by whom, at least not from this copy. Therefore I object to the submission of this document.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Perhaps I should make myself a little clearer. I quite agree that there is nothing in the German document book disclosing where this document consists of excerpts from a speech by the defendant Lautz. There is nothing in the English document book which shows it. There is nothing in the photostat which shows it, but there is the certificate of the keeper of the documents of OCC, which comes under the -- or rather, which certifies validity and depends upon the Coogan affidavit to some extent and the Niebergall affidavit as to where these documents came from and what they were. Originally it was in the Berlin Document Center. I pass the certificate to the Tribunal for its observation. It is the customary form of certificate.
Very frankly, I think the certificate is sufficient. If the certificate isn't sufficient, then there is nothing in this document to identify it. I have to rely on the certificate. I am offering it as Prosecution Exhibit No. 361 - 362, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There was something said about a covering letter.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Oh, a covering letter. The translation probably came through wrong, or Dr. Grube misunderstood what I said. I am referring to the certificate which accompanies all of these exhibits -- every one of them. I have made that quite clear now, and that is the reason I went back through it. Let the Tribunal see that certificate.
THE PRESIDENT: This certificate has this expression, excerpts from reports by Lautz. What is the authority for that statement?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I take the position that this Tribunal has, by its previous rulings, accepted the certificates made by this Document Center of OCC. The source of these documents comes from captured documents or documents which were found after documents had been captured. That they were original German documents or original statements found in the offices of the various ministries, I think, is clearly covered. Now, if they were and there is validity to the source of obtaining them, then I think this Tribunal is obligated to accept as valid that certificate.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will accept the document and admit it in evidence, but it must be stated at the same time that without some further evidence of its applicability to Lautz we will not so regard it, but we will accept it as having some probative value as it relates to the facts stated in the document.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, because I may be obligated to report and discuss the Court's ruling on this matter with superiors of my own, I would like permission to withdraw the document and not offer it as an exhibit under those limited conditions. I move the Court that I be permitted to withdraw the exhibit and that the ruling of the Court then be considered as not -
THE PRESIDENT: If some further evidence can be shown---
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Well, I would like to withdraw the exhibit, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The next document is Document No. 370. It runs from Pages 174 to 179 of the English book, 176 to 181 of the German book. In this connection it is more effective to read Page 175 first in understanding this document.
The Attorney General at Prague addressed a letter to the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court of Berlin asking for a ruling on the matter of posting notices in the case of death sentences in the Protectorate. That letter was dated 18 February 1942. Thereupon the Chief Reich Prosecutor on 26 February 1942 addressed a letter to the Attorney General in Prague on this subject and also apparently a covering letter to the Reich Minister of Justice. The letter to the Attorney General at Prague begins on Page 176 and 177, and the letter to the Reich Minister of Justice is dated 26 February 1942. All of this is in the document book.
I judge, by attempting to make an intelligent analysis of this thing, that Page 178 is a second sheet or a notations sheet to follow Page 174. It might be said by way of explanation that these papers are found, they are sent to translation, and the translators, not being legal men, apparently reassemble them in a way that we would not reassemble them were we to put them together ourselves. I don't think it detracts from this document for me to indicate the way I would read it. But of course it doesn't add anything to the document, either. It just makes it more understandable.
I would like to read from Page 176, a sentence that is not too long. This is probably at the bottom of Page 178 of the German book. It is a new paragraph beginning:
"On the morning after the execution of the death sentence I shall send the German text which is to be made public by posting and give the location where the criminal act has been committed through the teletype of the Gestapo to the Chief Public Prosecutor in Prague or Bruenn."
That is all I care to read. That is part of Defendant Lautz's letter. Then on Page 178 a matter marked "Note". I would like to read the second paragraph under the first note. That should be on Page 180 of the German book.
"In the case against Mecir and Vignati the Staatssekretaer Dr. Schlegelberger has authorized that for the seem expected numerous executions of death sentences against Poles and inhabitants of the Protectorate for attempted high treason, these shall not be posted up in Berlin and will also not be published in the newspapers."
The Prosecution offers as Prosecution Exhibit No. 362 the document No. NG 370.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
From Pages 180 through 188 of the English book, 182 to 189 in the German book Document NG-419 has previously been admitted as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 127. We will pass that.
THE PRESIDENT: You give that no separate exhibit number at this time then?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I don't offer to, Your Honor, because it is in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the exhibit number?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The former was 127.
On Pages 189 to 198 is Document NG-686x; that is 198 to 191 in the German book. That consists of a letter from Dr. Meissner to the defendant Schlegelberger, dated 13 of March 1942. I'd like to read two short excerpts. On Page 189, 190 of the German, I read this -this is about the second sentence in the English:
"I personally share your opinion that the Fuehrer's decision of September 1940 has become obsolete in the meantime and that there exist how no longer any fundamental objections against the execution of pronounced death sentences."
Then there is a notation on Page 190 which is self-explanatory, but I ask the Court to pay particular attention to it in reading the exhibit. I conclude that it is a notation made by the recipient of the letter. I may be wrong.
The prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 363, the Document NG-686.
DR. BEHLING: Behling for the defendant Schlegelberger. In the case of this document, we are concerned with a copy of a letter from Meissner addressed to the defendant Schlegelberger. It cannot be seen whether this letter ever was at all sent, and beyond that there is a discrepancy between the German document book and the photostatic copy which I have before me. In the German document book, in the case of the second document, there is an address on the top addressed to UnderSecretary Dr. Schlegelberger. That is not in the photostatic copy.
Whether that address is also in the English document book, I cannot see at the moment. Besides, it cannot be seen by whom and to whom the information on Page 2 is directed; that is to say, by whom it was written. Since this document, therefore, has no probative value, I object to its admission.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, there is one thing that I would like to inquire about at this time -- purely for my own information and not for the purpose of making any charge of bad faith against any one -- but I'd like to know: we have been advised in the Prosecution's office that Defense Center is getting two photostatic copies of the documents as part of the distribution. I'd like to inquire whether that is a fact.
JUDGE BRAND: Wouldn't the proper place to ascertain that be from the Defense Information Center? It may be there, as has been the case previously, and yet counsel may not have had it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I don't say that this is conclusive, but I'd like to know what they find. Second, with reference to the discrepancy between the English document book and the German document book, I don't know what address Dr. Behling is speaking of, but at the bottom of the photostatic copy where it appears in the English --(Dr. Behling presents book to Mr. La Follette) -- it is addressed only in the German book. It was there transcribed at the top, and in the English book at the bottom. It is on the photostat.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection, therefore, as made will be overruled.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The document may be admitted as Exhibit No. 363.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document No. NG-189 is found at Pages 191 and 192.
THE PRESIDENT: You said "189"; it should be "198."
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I beg your pardon. On Pages 191 and 192 of the English book and 192 to 193 in the German book, there is a letter dated November 5, 1942 from Freisler to Thierack having to do with the administration of German justice in the Protectorate, and a discussion which Thierack had with SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Daluege, who happens also to be the active Reich Prosecutor.
The Prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 364, Document NG-198.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document NG-356 runs from Pages 193 to 202 of this document book and has been previously admitted as Exhibit No. 184.
Before I go any further with this Document NG-683, I very frankly state to the Tribunal that it does not contain the signature of the defendant Lautz. It shows on its face that it is a copy of a letter addressed to the Chief Public Prosecutor of the People's Court, 3 of October 1942, to the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin. It has the same form of certificate as the Document 682; that is, a certificate by the keeper of the Document Center at OCC. There is, of course, this difference: that this document -- the photostat -- shows that it's a copy from the Chief Public Prosecutor of the People's Court to the Reich Ministry of Justice. There is evidence in this record to show that the date shown on the document -- 3rd of October 1942 -- is when the defendant Lautz occupied that position. I shall offer the document, pointing out those exceptions. If Dr. Grube wishes to make an objection, I think I will wait for him to make it now before I make any comment on this document.
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for defendant Lautz) May it please the Tribunal, as such, I do not have any objection against the submission of this document, but I ask the Tribunal to make the reservation, as has been decided before, by which the document will not be used as evidence against the defendant Lautz, because it cannot be seen from the document that he was the author of this report.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If the report was made by subordinates in his office, it was still made by the defendant Lautz. It is true that there is no copy of his signature, but as submitted in other documents, which were copies originating in his office, they were considered as having probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is not tenable.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I offer this Document, NG-683, as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 365.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be admitted in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Document NG-318 contains the signature of Westphal; dated Berlin, 8 August, 1942; and has to do with the argument that was going on at that time as to who was to dispose of the executed Poles who were charged with political crimes; and who was to dispose of the bodies of those who were not criminal prisoners. This seemed to be a matter of great importance -- this disposition of corpses. Nothing is said about how the men got to be corpses, but that wasn't any concern here. There is a reference in here to the fact that the defendant Joel telephoned a request of Westphal to SS Gruppenfuehrer Mueller and General von Bomhard. The Prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 366 the Document NG-318.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Document NG-329, if your Honors please, is the last document in Book V-C, found at page 209 of the English text and pages 212 to 213 in the German; This is dated Berlin, 27 August, 1942, and is sent to Ministerialrat Joel for information; and again, it treats with this matter of disposition of corpses -- which seemed to be piling up quite a bit.
I would like to read from page 210 of the English book, which apparently begins at the bottom of page 212 of the German. "I should appreciate it if only one authority, as far as possible with the superior state police office, would be entrusted with this task. A separation of Polish criminals into political and non-political culprits can hardly be carried out. The penal law for Poles being a political law, which serves the political pacification of the Eastern territories, all condemned ought to be considered more or less as political criminals."
Then skipping down now to the last paragraph. There is a sentence with reference to the RSHA; it is the last sentence in the document. "The Reich Main security Office has ordered the superior state police office in Posen, upon my request, to accept, for the time being, the corpses of the executed and condemned as before, until a definite settlement of the question of competence."
I attach some significance to this over-whelming importance of the competence of who is to dispose of the corpses. The Prosecution offers as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 367, the Document NG-329.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, Miss Arbuthnot will continue the presentation of the Prosecution's case from Book V-D.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: If your Honors please, the first document in Book V-D is document NG-300, which is pages 211 through 218 of the English and 214 through 226 of the German. This is a letter together with minutes of a conference and a draft of a decree in connection with the legal status of Jews. The conference -
THE PRESIDENT: We don't have your page -
MISS ARBUTHNOT: It is the first document in Book V-D, page 211.
JUDGE BRANDT: We don't have that; we were not told to bring that book this morning; we brought Book V-B.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: I think perhaps we could wait a few moments while we get the book.
JUDGE BRANDT: You are all through with Book V-C, are you not?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor; I may be required to come back to it, but other than that, I am through with it. We are through with V-B, too.
THE PRESIDENT: Did I understand you to say you were also through with V-B?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: We finished V-B yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Thank you. Beginning again with the identification of NG-300, which is the first document in the book, pages 211 through 218 of the English and 214 through 226 of the German. This is a letter, together with minutes of a conference and a draft of a decree in connection with the legal status of Jews. The conference was held on January 15, 1941, and attended by officials of the Ministry of Justice, who it was reported reserved their attitude on several questions until further discussion with the Minister; Schlegelberger became Acting Minister of Justice in the latter part of January 1941. On page 211, the middle of the first paragraph, we find the statement that the "Minister of the Interior, in agreement with the chief parties concerned, suggests now that all Jews of German citizenship, no matter whether they emigrated or not, are to be declared as stateless."
The second paragraph, on the same page, says:"In connection with this question a draft was discussed, which provides that the property of those Jews, who live abroad and who became stateless, should be confiscated by the Reich."
On page 212 the first full paragraph:
"The chairman points out that a distinction between persons of German citizenship according to racial or national points of view had not been known in Germany prior to the issuance of the Nuremberg laws. The Nuremberg laws created the term 'Reich citizen' for those citizens who had full rights, and provided that only citizens of German or related blood could become 'Reich citizens', but not Jews and persons who were not Jewish but of other than German blood."
At the bottom of that page in speaking of members of the protectorate; in the middle of the paragraph we find the statement that:
"If, however, those persons who cannot change their nationality but are foreign nationals of related blood should be made mere protegees, and thereby be excluded from German citizenship then it would be impossible to have the Jews who are not of related blood, retain the German citizenship."
On page 213 -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Before you pass this point, we note that you made the statement that Schlegelberger came into office the latter part of January, but this conference was held the 15th of January.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Yes, that is true, however, at several points in this document it states that the representatives participating for the Reich Ministry of Justice reserved their opinions on this matter for further conferences with their superiors in the Reich Ministry. Therefore, I presume that this matter was a continuring matter, and since Schlegelberger came into office immediately after this conference that he had knowledge of it.
On page 213, at the top of the page, we find the statement that:
"Therefore the Reich Ministry of the Interior suggests, and hereby withdraws the earlier drafts, to takeaway the citizenship from all Jews of German nationality, no matter whether they live in Germany or abroad, and to declare them as stateless persons. Excepted from the loss cf German citizenship should be only those Jews who live in a privileged mixed marriage."
On pages 217 and 218 we find the draft of the decree concerning the property of Jews living abroad who have lost their German citizenship, and this decree makes provisions concerning confiscation of property of Jews.
Document NG 300 is offered as Exhibit 368.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next document is NG 424. This appears on page 219 through 221 of the English and 227 through 229 of the German. This is a letter dated 31 July 1942 from the Foreign Office to the Reich Ministry of Justice, together with a note from the Ministry of Justice dated 15 August 1942 concerning the methods to be used in the confiscation of Jewish property abroad, and in connection with foreign Jewish property in the Reich. This correspondence was also during Schlegelberger's term of office.
NG 424 is offered as exhibit 369.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next document which is NG 616 appears on pages 222 through 239 of the English and pages 230 through 249 of the German. This is a report by the defendant Joel, at that time Chief Public Prosecutor. The report being made in February of 1939 from Nuernberg. This report was made:
"Measures for the aryanization of Jewish real estate, with particular cooperation of Notaries Public and the Magistrates in charge of Land Registry in Nuernberg and Nuernberg-Fuerth."
The manner in which such transactions are carried out is discussed generally in this report and specific examples are given. At the bottom of page 225 in the English, and page 234 in the German we find:
"In the meantime the aryanization in Fuerth was handled in the following way: SA men would pick up Jews, town councillor party-comrader Sandreuter and the leader of the vocational group of the province of the German Labor Front Nagel would negotiate with them in the town hall, while the notaries public Kleim and Maier were busy in another room of the town hall where the Jews were seen brought before them.
Sales were effected by entering 10% of the legal assessed value as the purchasing price while mortgages were redeemed and the costs had to be paid by the Jews themselves. Later they proceeded also to aryanize mortgages, that is, the Jews received 10% of the mortgages value as a compensation for the cession. Subsequent reductions in the purchasing prices also occurred. This happened in the case of purchasing contracts which had been drawn up before 9 November 1938, but which had not yet been legalized in the Lend Register. Even in deeds which had already been legally entered in the Land Register such reductions of purchasing prices occurred."
On pages 228 and on 235, we find statements to the effect that the defendant Schlegelberger has no scruples against the legalization of the instrument by the Land Registry, and the activities of the Land Registry of Fuerth are therefore approved by the competent authorities.
Attached to Joel's report are copies of letters written by authorities in Fuerth. One cf these letters appearing on page 232 cf the English book, and 240 of the German book -- in the third paragraph we find the statement that:
"The contracts submitted have the outward form of purchasing contracts with conveyance. In view of their fixed purchasing prices and of the accompanying circumstances, their essential nature, is however, that of a forced expropriation, carried through either without or only with slight compensation. The legal judgment of these contracts can, of course, not be made on common civil law principles, the contracts being legal acts which, as a result of the sovereignty of the Party, are not subject to control by regular authorities."
JUDGE BRAND: What pages were you reading, please?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: On page 234. In the fourth paragraph we find:
"Notary Public Dr. Keim in Fuerth, Bavaria, and public notary inspector Hoffman acting with notary public Dr. Maier in Fuerth, Bavaria, have announced that even instruments will be submitted for preliminary entry, which do not contain the consent of all Jewish co-owners in the case of existing co-ownership.
Allegedly these are cases in which the co-owners are living abroad or out of town and therefore the coowners accessible in Fuerth did not produce the corresponding powers of attorney. It is hoped by the appropriate authorities, that the co-owners abroad will send the corresponding powers of attorney later to the co-owners here simply out of concern for their fate. The preliminary entrees shall be made now and the submission of the powers of attorney or the consent shall not be waited for."
The last report in the file of this document which appears on page 237, is a description of the negotiations and sale of Jewish property to SA Oberfuehrer Koenig, and subsequent resale of that property on which Koenig made a neat profit of 75000 marks.
THE PRESIDENT: On what paragraph on page 237 do you find that?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Page 237 is a report concerning the negotiations and sale of the property.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you stated on that page there was reference to a transaction involving 75000 mark profit. In what paragraph do you find that?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: You will find reference to the 75000 mark profit on page 239. It is still in the same report at the end of the first full paragraph.