MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I would ask that the Prosecution may be permitted to divide this cross examination. I will cover that as far as the testimony goes to Klemm and Mettgenberg, if I may.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Now, with reference to the lists which you testified about, Exhibit 252, do I understand that Klemm and Thierack each got a list on each occasion?
A. Yes.
Q. And if Klemm for some reason did not attend, then how did he have a record in his files of the decisions of the Minister of these matters?
A. No. As far as I remember, Klemm made his handwritten remarks on the lists only if he himself had attended the report.
Q. Well then, it isn't quite correct that he kept his list down there solely so that he could check on whether or not any orders sent to him by the Minister were accurate?
A. If I understand you correctly you mean that the under-secretary, when he had not attended the report, could not have information about what happened?
A. Yes, As I understood you, you said that Klemm kept these lists so that, if an order for execution came through, he could check against what his records were. Now, then, if he kept none of may kind when he wasn't there, what good was the keeping of any list for that purpose?
A. That is true. In those cases where he had not attended, he had to depend on what was told to him by the Referent who submitted the matter to him and what the Referent told him about the decision of the Minister. In those cases he had no additional way of checking as he had in other cases.
Q. The lists were made you from the various departments, IV and III they largely came from, did they not, or or only IV?
A. Only Department IV.
Q. Just pick a list there in April, 1944. Tell me how many names are on it, just the number.
A. Yes. I have the 26 of April here. There are 127.
Q. How many Referents or other workers reported on that list that you have? That indicates, docs it not?
A. Yes, the Referents changed alternately according to who was handling the individual case and of course, there were a great many who reported in connection with that one list.
Q. How many are on that list, different ones, if you can tell me without too much trouble?
A. Do you mean the names?
Q. How many different people's names are there? I don't care if a man's name appears twice, why don't count him. How many different names are on the list?
A. Do you mean on the list only the death sentence cases?
Q. No; I can all of them, please.
A. Counting quite superficially I see 25 names of individual Referents or assistants.
Q. You are still positive that those lists were made up late the day before there was to be a meeting?
A. At any rate, what concerns the heading because in that case the lady who handled it---that was Frau Pfelder of Department 4- would call me on the day before and ask me whether the undersecretary would be present and, therefore, I assume that that final question to whom the reports were to be made was decided and put on the list in the end. When the individual matters were compiled for the list in detail that, of course, I cannot say because I was not in Department 4. But I do remember that many matters were put on the list the very last moment.
Q. You testified about the order from Bormann which Thierack initialed. That is Exhibit 109, 635 PS. Did you send out the copy of that to all of the prosecutors and justice officials in Germany from the Minister?
A. Well, I see here that it is a circular decree and that circular decree went to all districts.
Q. It went to all districts?
A. Yes.
Q. And that went to your office as the undersecretary's office? That went through the undersecretary's office?
A. No. The circular decree was made out by Department 4 and was then sent out to the individual districts.
Q. You know that fact as adjutant of Klemm?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew it at the time it went out?
A. The circular decree itself I did not come to see, but I author that a decree of that kind must have been the consequence of what remark made by the Minister, the directions put down here by the Minister.
Q. And did you make trips with the defendant Klemm as his adjutant when he went into the Protectorate?
A. No, never.
Q. You never went with him to Theresientstadt?
A. No.
Q. Now, these reports that he kept a file of about Gestapo cases and delivery cf people to the SS or the Gestapo after trial, did you ever see a Jewish name on any of those?
A. No, there were no Jewish cases among them.
Q. Had he been keeping the list before you became his adjutant? Could you tell by looking at the file?
A. I became his adjutant at once when he came into the Ministry. Before that he did not have any other adjutant in the Ministry.
Q. But I said to you, from looking at this file of cases as you did, if you filed matters in ot, did you see cases from before the time that you became adjutant, in this file?
A. No, no.
Q. You testified that if the defendant Mettgenberg had gone to Mauthausen, that fact would have stayed in your mind because the name Mauthausen would have meant something to you. Why?
A. Because in 1943, together with undersecretary Rothenberger, I, myself, had been at Mauthausen.
Q. Did you make out these service trip approvals?
A. No. There were forms and they were filled out in the defendant from which that application was made. They only had to be signed by the undersecretary.
Q. They all had to be signed for every trip?
A. That is if that trip was made to a foreign country or by a department Chief.
Q. How many department chiefs were there?
A. Eight.
Q. How many trips did Alstoetter make in a year?
A. Well, here one has to destinguish between these that required approval and those trips that he had to do.
Q. I beg your pardon. How many trips did Altstoetter make that came across your desk as the adjutant of the undersecretary for approval in a year?
THE PRESIDENT: In what year?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: 1944; the year that he was the adjutant.
DR. SCHILF: I want to object to this question because it is not a question of trips made by Altstoetter but by Vollmer and Mettgenberg.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I would like to test the witness' credibility to see how many trips he approved in a year to test his ability to remember this one.
THE PRESIDENT: For the purpose of testing his memory he may answer. Do you remember?
THE WITNESS: Well, if I exclude the trips which, of course, went back between Berlin and the evacuation place, then there may have been three or four during the year.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. How many of that kind of trips in the year 1944, that your approval, did Engert make?
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I think it might be better if I repeat the last question as I remember it.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. How many such trips in the year 1944, which required the approval of Undersecretary Klemm, did Engert make?
A. As far as I remember, I did not submit any travel permit for Engert to the Undersecretary.
Q. Well, if Engert went to concentration camps and to prisons, didn't he have to have one of these travel authorizations?
A. In accordance with the practice of the Ministry, as I have already stated, every division chief had to obtain a travel authorization in such a case. However, for Division V and XV, as I have already stated, I remember for certain that I did not see a single travel authorization. I did not know whether such authorizations were issued, or if perhaps the Minister issued them directly. In any case, 1 do not remember a single one.
Q. Was Vollmer a department head in that year?
A. Yes.
Q. And was Crohne a department head in that year?
A. No, Crohne was the predescessor of Vollmer, and he went to the People's Court in 1942.
Q. But out of all those that you approved and issued in that year of 1944 you have a particular memory of Mauthausen not having been visited by Mettgenberg and Vollmer?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let me ask you about this Gestapo file that Undersecretary Klemm kept while you were his adjutant. Is it a fact that he may not have had any records before 1944 because you, as a Gestapo member, supplied him with that information?
A. But what just came over the sound system was that I was a member of the Gestapo. Did I understand you correctly?
Q. That is right.
A. Bur that is not correct.
Q. You are positive?
A. Yes, I certainly am.
Q. And if your personnel files show that, it is in error?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Gestapo or SS?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I mean Gestapo, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Then it contains an error, and I do not believe it is stated in my personnel file that I was a member of the Gestapo.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Maybe it doesn't, maybe I am wrong. I am just asking you.
A. Yes, I see.
Q. Now, let me get one thing clear. You never went to Leitmeritz with Klemm?
A. Yes, I did. Once I was in Leitmeritz when Klemm was there too. Whether we went there together, I do not remember. On the occasions when I went to Leitmeritz I always went by train.
Q. Did the train have to get clearance through Theresienstadt?
A. No.
Q. Did you know anything about Theresienstadt, near Leitmeritz?
A. No, I did not know anything about Theresienstadt.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have no further questions as to Klemm and Mettgenberg. Mr. King will continue now.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Hartmann, I would like to continue with the cross-examination pertaining to Dr. Rothenberger that we interrupted before the luncheon recess.
Did you ever meet Kaltanbrunner?
A. Yes, in Mauthausen.
Q. What year was that, please?
A. The year 1942, November 1942.
Q. You testified this afternoon, in response to a question by Dr. Schilf, that you visited Mauthausen in 1943. That was your second trip to Mauthausen, was it?
A. No, that must be in error. I made only that one trip to Austria, together with Dr. Rothenberger, and that was in November of 1942. I did not make a second trip to that district.
Q. You were appointed as assessor in Hamburg in May 1934 you testified.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Besides the regular duties of an assessor, from May 1934, what other job did you have, other principal job?
A. In the civil service? I held no other office.
Q. Don't restrict it to civil service; what other job did you have?
A. For example, I gave lectures in different administrative academies.
Q. And what else?
While you are thinking, Dr. Hartmann, I would like to ask you another question. Was there another assessor by the name of Hartmann in Hamburg in 1934?
A. No, not in Hamburg.
Q. You were the only one?
A. Yes.
Q. Now go ahead and think about the question that I asked you. What other job did you have besides that of being assessor in Hamberg at the beginning of May 1934?
A. I do not recall having done any other work. I have already testified about my membership in the SS.
Q. Yes, I know, and in connection with your membership in the SS you were a member, or at least a Gestapo Referent; that is true, is it not?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. That is not correct?
A. No.
Q. And you never heard of a Referent for protective custody matters in Hamburg, a job which was held by assessor Dr. Hartmann, who was also a member of the Gestapo? You never heard of that position, I suppose?
A. No, I never heard anything about the fact that I ever had the least connection with the Gestapo during my entire life.
Q. You never heard of Streckenbach?
A. No, I never saw that man in my life.
Q. Streckenbach?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what position he held?
A. Yes, in the Gestapo, in Hamburg, he had some position or other; I believe he was even the Chief of the Gestapo.
Q. Your memory is correct on that, he was Chief of the Gestapo in Hamburg.
I would like to show you, Dr. Hartmann, an excerpt from the Reich Ministry of Justice diary. Parts of it were submitted in the IMT as PS-3770. I have here an excerpt from that diary, page 464.
I am going to hand you that document and ask you to read item No. 4 on the second page, and will you please read it slowly so the the translators may fallow you.
A. "According to information received by the presiding counsel of the Reich Lawyer's Chamber of 20 September 1933, the lawyers Dr. Auert and Dr. Koffka, in a protective custody matter, through the Referent with the Gestapo, Assessor Dr. Hartmann, received the information that it was the general practice not to admit defense counsel to represent persons under protective custody. The present opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice is to the contrary, and that contrary opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice was submitted to the Minister of the Interior for his information. However, a final decision has not yet been issued from the latter's office."
Q. Do you know of any other assessor by the name of Hartmann?
A. No, I do not know any other assessor by the name of Hartmann from Hamburg; nevertheless, he must be another man because I am not that man.
Q. Well, we will see more of that in a very few moments. You still say you had nothing to do with protective custody matters?
A. Yes, I never had anything to do with that, never in my entire life.
May I make an explanation in this connection? I see here that this letter is dated 25 April 1935. At that time I was no longer an assessor, but local court judge, Amtsgerichtsrat.
Q. You told me not too long ago that you were appointed in hay 1934.
A. In May 1934 I became assessor, and in January 1935 Amtsgerichtsrat, local court judge.
Q. Let me ask you, did you ever hear of the case Korutz?
A. The name Korutz I am hearing for the first time right now.
Q. I don't believe so. Would you look at this document please?
( Document submitted to witness)
The document which you have is to be identified as NG-2283. It is a series of notes, letters, concerning the case against Korutz, who was a high Party member in Hamburg, and who was sentenced by one of the Hamburg judges to a jail sentence. This sentence was quashed, and among the Justice Administration people who assisted actively an that quashing was one Dr. Hartmann, I presume the same individual that I see before me now.
A. That is correct. I worked on this case in the Administration of Justice in Hamburg. However, I do not remember the case any longer. The case is dated from 1939.
Q. You have no reason to doubt, have you, that the notes which arc signed by you that appear in this sheaf of letters are notes where they carry your signature? You don't challenge any of the signatures there, do you?
A. Here, on two notes, it is typewritten underneath, "Signed, Hartmann", but there is no reason for me to challenge that I was the man. This is one of the many cases on which I was working at that time in the Administration of Justice, but not with the Gestapo.
Q. Many other cases of this kind? This was a quashing case against a high Patty official, which was induced by certain highranking members in the Justice Administration, including Dr. Rotnenberger and yourself. I ask you, were there other cases of this kind which you can remember at this time?
A. I do not recall any other cases. This case too, I no longer remember, and I would have to study the file first. Every day there were at least twenty to thirty events, and it is possible that after eight years one docs not remember one or the other occurrence that took place in the office. It is absolutely impossible to remember every tiling.
Q. Well now, Dr. Hartmann, you can answer this question simply. The odious practice of quashing sentences against high Party officials is something that you ought to remember. It is true you failed to remember this one until the document was shown to you, but do you persist in your statement that you can remember no other case of this type?
A. I cannot remember these cases because, as I have already testi fied, I was never employed in criminal cases on principle. If I appear here in this one case file, and by forwarding a case of the Senat, this can be duo only to the fact that I temporarily substituted for the Referent concerned, because now, in looking over the document, I can sec that I did not work on that case, but Amtsgerichtsrat Doppler, who was competent for criminal cases. If he was on leave temporarily, as a matter of course, then, it is natural that I, perhaps, substituted for him once for a brief period.
Q. Did you know the competent judge in this case, one Oehlkers, O E H L K E R S ?
A. I didn't got the name; the name of the judge.
Q. I shall spell it again, O E H L K E R S.
A. Judge Oehlkers, in Hamburg? I know him very well, yes.
MR. KING: At this time I would like to have identified further, two documents, the first one of which is an excerpt from the diary of the Ministry of Justice, pages 463 and 464, item No.4. We would like to have that identified, and the Exhibit number 589 reserved for that.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no document number on it?
MR. KING: No. It is a part of the same subject matter as document PS-3770.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
MR. KING: The other document is NO - 2283, for which we would like the Exhibit No. 590 reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked far identification.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, I show you at this time a document identified as NG-2251. I show you a German photostatic copy of the original. This is a note from one Bartsch, B A R T S C H an official of the Hamburg Justice Administration, in which he suggests, after a conference with Rothenberger, that certain cases pending be turned ever to the Gestapo for protective custody until the individuals come to their senses. Now, of course, if you did not hold the job of Referent for Gestapo cases, you perhaps will not recall. I ask you now, after reading that document, does it help to refresh your memory as to what position you actually hold in connection with protective custody matters? You never saw this document before? You never heard -
A. No.
Q. You never heard about the subject matter of the document?
A. No.
Q. Let me read aprotion of the document. This is after a conference with Dr. Rothenberger concerning certain cases which arc also referred to in the document:
"The cases do not seem suitable to warrant a plea for punishment. It would be well to consider, however, whether occasionally such people who do not exercise the necessary self restraint and have no understanding for the offered forebearance, especially those who have repeatedly been reported for such incidents, should be taken into protective custody and make them come to their senses. Your opinion is requested as to whether cases which seem suitable should be turned over to the Gestapo."
That doesn't refresh you recollection at all?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Who docs the letter purport to be signed by?
MR KING: The letter is signed by the individual BARTSCH, who was an assistant of Dr. Rothennerger's.
I should like to have marked for identification the document bearing the number NG-2231, and the Exhibit No. 591 reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the document be marked for identification, Exhibit 591.
MR. KING: Will you show this document to the witness?
(Document submitted to witness).
BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, I show you another document, identified by the symbol NG-2221. This is a letter from a Hamburg attorney, Dr. Friedrich Ruppel, R U P P E L, in which he refers to a case in which one of his clients was involved in 1934 or 1935, who was acquitted by the Criminal Senat,of the Court of Appeal in Hamburg, and, upon order of the Court, immediately turned over to the Gestapo for protective custody.
Does that document refresh your recollection as to what position you held at that time?
A. That is impossible, for the reason alone that the letter is dated 11 February 1943.
Q. But if you would look -
A. And at that time -
Q. Wait a minute, Dr. Hartmann. If you will refer to the body of the letter you will find the case to which the writer refers occurred in 1934 or 1933. If you road it carefully you will find that to be true.
A. In regard to this document too I can only repeat that on principle I was not employed in criminal cases; at the most, sometimes as a substitute. I have no idea of this document either.
MR. KING: May we have it marked for identification, NG-2221, and the Exhibit No. 392 reserved?
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked for identification.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Now, witness, did you, at may time during your period of work in Hamburg, ever he an of the Fuhlsbuettel concentration camp?
A. I knew that in Fuhlsbuettel, there was a police prison that was originally a prison of the administration of Justice, but one wing had been turned over to the police. That is all I know about this police prison. I believe it was called "Folafu" also.
Q. Do you recall any unusual things about the Fuhlsbuettel Concentration Camp or prison or how you want to determine it? Did you ever hear of any beatings, tortures, or durders, that were allegedly committed there by Gestapo people?
A. I heard about it only now. There was a trial about this that such occurrences happened there shortly before the surrender.
Q. I'd like to read you, witness, two excerps from the Reich Ministry of Justice's Official Diary. As I said before, this is the same document that was submitted, or this is of the same subject matter that was treated in the document FS--3770 in the IMT. I would like to read from Page 446 of the Diary, Item No. 4. I will read slowly so the translators will be able to follow.
"In the Fuhlsbuettel Concentration Camp near Hamburg, four prisoners were kept in chains for days; once, three days and nights; once, five days and nights; without interruption, in the form of a cross fixed to a railing and received only dry bread so that they almost died of hunger."
Then I should also like to read another excerpt from this same official Reich Ministry of Justice Diary which reads as follows:
"Westermann, after having been arrested, was interrogated for 15 hours. According to the report of the interrogating criminal police inspector he was gradually forced to reveal his connections with Communist circles. The dissection had clearly shown that the body had sings of the effect of considerable force on both buttocks and thighs. That this effect had a causal connection with the death was not shown by the dessection. Westermann was mannacled immediately after his interrogation to prevent suicide."
Now I ask you, witness, did you ever hear of these incidents before or any incidents similar to them?
A. No, I had no knowledge of them.
Q. Even in 1934-35, you memory doesn't serve to recollect that you ever heard of them before?
A. Well, I said already that today I no longer have any knowledge of having ever heard about it.
Q. You testified this morning, witness, that you know Dr. Rothenberger very well and you volunteered some statements on his feeling concerning the Jewish question. Do you recall, as you probably will since you were a close associate of his, when he denied Jews in the Hamburg courts the benefit of the poor laws which had previously permitted a person without funds to come before the court at state expense? Do you recall when Dr. Rothenberger denied the Jews this privilege which was afforded by law? Let me show you a document to said your memory. This document is indentified as NG-2247 which the witness is now examining.
A. Of this incident too, I could not know because on the 27th of January 1942, I was already a soldier.
Q. And when you later became Rothenberger's adjutant in Berlin, the natter never came to you attention in any other way.
A. No.
Q. May we have the document marked for indentification as NG-2247, and the exhibit number 593 reserved for it?
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for indentification.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Just one more question, witness, the answer to which you may possibly know. Do y u know what happened to Dr. Rothenberger when he came back from Berlin in 1943 or as early as 1944? Do you know what his status was after that time in Hamburg?
A. I remember from the Ministry of Justice that he was appointed as notary. Moreover, I know from private sources that in a position for which I believe he was not paid he did certain services for the Reichstatthalter, and I believe as far as I remember, they were connected with releasing people for the Armed Forces.
Yes. Since you have some knowledge of what occurred after Dr. Rothenberger returned to Hamburg, may I show you this document which is indentified as NG-2219?
A. That is the appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as notary, dated 18 September 1944. I heard about that.
Q. Yes. Now while Dr. Rothenberger was notary, you can confirm, I suppose, the fact that he was still receiving his salary for the Reich Ministry of Justice and subject to reappointment at any time? In order words, his dismissal was not final but ho was kept on as an employee. You can confirm that, can you not?
A. Yes, But that isn't seen in a correct light. An Under-Secretary is a political official and political officials arc put in the so-called Warte-Stand--inactive statue and this is provided for by law in Germany. As long as one is in this inactive status, one received a certain part of the previous salary that one received for a certain period, but this does not mean that the civil servant--the official concerned--will be taken back into the service of the State. In the case of Dr. Rothenberger, in accordance with the conditions that prevailed, it was of course cut of the question that he would have been taken back into the Reich Ministry of Justice?
Q. Yet he still continued to draw his pay from the Reich Ministry of Justice?
THE PRESIDENT: The witness answered the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, according to the legal regulations nothing else was possible. An under-Secretary could only be put into inactive statue, and as for the continuance of giving them a certain amount of a salary, that was mandatory.
Q. I have no mere further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, would you identify the document NG-2219. I didn't get that.
MR KING: The 2219, Your Honor, as I recollect, was the last document which the witness examined concerning the appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as notary.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you want it indentified?
MR. KING: Since he confirmed the fact, I think we will not ask it to be indentified or to have an exhibit number reserved for it.
Q. Two brief questions, witness, for Klemm and Nettgenberg. Dr. Hartmann, you were asked whether you went to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia together with Klemm. Do you know what was the geographical name of that part of the territory in which Leitmeritz was situated at that time?
A. It was called Sudetengau.
Q. Do you know the geographical designation of the territory in which Theresieratadt was located at that time?
A. At the moment, I cannot state with certainty whether it was in the Protectorate or in the Sudetengau.
Q. Do you know whether Klemm traveled to the Protectorate?
A. I have no recollection of the fact that Under-Secretary Klemm ever went to the Protectorate.
Q. On behalf of Dr. Mettgenberg: during the cross examination you testified about travels by Ministerial Directors. Would it have come to your attention if one of these gentlemen would have received an authorization to travel to Mauthausen?
A. Yes. That would have been moticable alone for the fact that I would have searched out this gentlemen and had a conversation with him about it afterwards, because I, myself, had been there too.
Q. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSHNEIDER
Q. May I enter the redirect of the witness Hartmann? Witness you spoke about the trip to Mauthausen. What was the purpose of that trip? Did Dr. Rothenberger say anything to you about it?
A. The purpose of the trip was first of all to eliminate the personnel difficulties which I described this morning already--to remove those with the Gauleiter; and secondly, to see the judges in the individual districts and inform then about Rothenberger's idea for reform; at the same time, to strengthen them against attacks on the part of the Party.