Q. I recall that you stated on direct examination, that you did not cash the check for 100,000 Reichsmarks which you received when you left the services as Acting Minister of Justice. Is that correct?
A. I did not understand the question. Would you be so kind to repeat it?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Did you desire to ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT: I recall that the money was still in the bank.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: At that time I was not here, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what you said?
Q. The 100,000 Reichsmarks are still in the bank?
A. Still in the bank.
Q. Did you ever make an attempt to use that money for your personal use, for the acquisition of any property?
A. I know at what you are driving, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. That is fine.
A. I should like to answer the following. I believe that all germans and even many Americans know the great life story of the greatest of our poets and writers, Goethe. It is balled "Dichtung und Wahrheit". (Truth and Fiction). From your question, I should gather that you were only told fiction about it so far, and I am very happy and fortunate to have the opportunity to tell you the truth now.
Q. We can look this over together. I will hand you Document NG--391which I would like to have identified as Prosecution Exhibit 524 and we will talk about it. You have before you a letter which is dated January 14, 1944. You addressed it to Dr. Lammers. Also accompanying that was a letter of the same date which you addressed to the Fuehrer as "My Fuehrer". I assume that was the Fuehrer of the German Reich, Adolf Hitler.
First, I would like to ask you to explain this sentence, "My original intention to issue an order for a Himmler object cannot be fulfilled." What was a "Himmler object."?
I understand the translation is bad. What kind of an object is it?
I am very sorry, it is a very bad translation. I do not want to mislead, and I want the record to be straighten out. I understand it say a "certain object", not a "Himmler object". Maybe you would enlighten me though as what a "certain object" that you wanted to issue an order for it.
Q Now I am more confused than ever. I am advised -- maybe you can tell me -- that in your own handwriting it is written "Himmler object" . Is that correct?
A No, no; it means a certain object, a certain object.
Q Then you are the victim of my kind of handwriting, Dr. Schlegelberger. Will you tell me what object -- Will you describe what your original intention was for this "bestimmtes object"?
A May I say something in connection with these matters?
Q Yes.
A There is a whole story, or a whole novel, or a whole fiction behind these letters, assertions which have to be considered definitely in connection with the following:
After I had left my office I was pushed out of my apartment in Berlin because that apartment was needed for the storing of furniture of a high Party functionary. I then moved into a small bungalow which I owned, but since that could not be a permanent place of residence, I made an attempt to acquire a small garden plot in Baden. I went to a real estate agent, and he wrote me the following:
"It is absolutely no use trying to acquire real estate because, according to prevailing provisions, a private individual can only acquire such a piece of real estate with special approval from Hitler. Therefore, until you bring that written approval, I can not even look around to acquire any real estate for you."
Therefore, I had to try to obtain that approval, the right for which approval was reserved to the Chief of the State. I had no alternative but to make an application of that kind and file it via Minister Lammers.
If I write there in my letter to Lammers that I can not carry out my original intention to obtain the approval, then that should explain the fact that, in a quite unusual manner, I had asked for blanket approval, because the normal way is that one looks at a piece of real estate first, one selects it, and then one asks for approval. However, I could not do that, for the reasons which I have stated.
Subsequently, as I have stated, I approached Hitler, through Lammers, and, of course, in order to get his approval, I had to put those points into the letter that were needed to achieve that purpose. The first one was in connection with the donation which I received. The second was to state my worries about my sons who were in the armed forces. I assumed, as far as I knew Hitler's temperament, that that would make an impression. Apart from that, I emphasized, in fact, that I personally had sufficient funds at my disposal in order to purchase that piece of real estate, which should be nothing else than a modest place to live.
I think that should be sufficient for the moment.
Q Yes, but the term "estate" is used, end you use the words "manage with agricultural experts" , so this would be a little larger than a garden plot, would it not?
A The question is only that Hitler reserved for himself the right of approval, so that not the smallest piece of lend could be withdrawn from agricultural production. The question as to whether it was one piece more of garden plot or a small agricultural enterprise was beside the point; the main thing was that I had to get that approval to buy that real estate with my own funds.
Q Yes.
Then there is a letter in this file of 3 February 1944, which says that you are in reduced circumstances and have to carry your own coal. Is that true? I mean, that is what someone else writes about your situation.
A I did not understand; the 3rd of February?
Q Yes, the 3rd of February, 1944. It is signed "Kritzinger"; there is a notation. What is that supposed to mean? It says "As I was informed in the Reich Ministry of Justice...."
A Yes.
Q Yes. Now, you read there that it says you are in reduced circumstances and have to carry your own coal.
A Yes.
Q But I believe you said just a minute ago that you had money other than this hundred thousand Reichsmarks with which to buy this estateor were you just saving?
A I think we have experienced periods of time where one could not get everything for money. First of all, one could not get labor for money. That has nothing to do with it; it was impossible to get labor.
Q Yes. Now, were the conditions at that time that in order for a man to acquire either a garden plot, or an estate which is not a garden plot, he had to show his ability as a farmer to handle that line? That was the rule, was it not?
A I have said already that in general one had to see that no land should be lost for production. Therefore, it had to be seen that one cultivated the land, or had people that could do that.
Q Yes, and so you stated in your letter that you were from a family of Salzburg farmers, is that right?
A Yes, that is right.
Q That would indicate your qualifications to farm it as an agriculturist, would it not - some qualification?
A I believe that would be jumping at conclusions, because that would only mean that I had a special interest and a special inclination for agricultural things.
Q Yes.
AApart from that, at my age I could not do much agricultural work any longer.
Q But I think we agreed very early in this cross-examination that it was true that your father was a merchant.
A Yes.
Q Yes.
A To make that clear, I am a descendant of an old Salzburg family which, in the 18th century, for religious reasons, was chased out of the Salzburg country and settled in the East of the German Reich.
My ancestors, however, were farmers in the Salzburg land.
Q Yes. Now, Dr. Schlegelberger, here is a letter of the 4th of April 1944, signed by Lammers and addressed to you, in which it says that " the Fuehrer has decided to be of assistance to you in the planned acquisition of the agricultural estate." You didn't find it necessary to use this hundred thousand Reichsmarks for that, or did you ever acquire the estate?
A I have already said that I had sufficient money.
Q Did you get the estate that you asked Hitler to help you get?
A No; no. I did not acquire it; unfortunately, not.
Q But the arrangements had been made end Hitler had agreed that you could get it, yest? So Dr. Lammers writes you.
A The last thing I heard about that matter was that letter which you just put to me of the 4th of April 1944.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question right there?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Surely.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q I don't quite understand you. You said that you were given a hundred thousand Reichsmarks. You did not return the instrument; you did not give it back?
A I put that money in the bank; I did not return it.
Q Was it in the form of a check when you received it?
A In the form of a check, yes , sir.
Q And you deposited it in the bank?
A Yes.
Q And in the letter of 14 January 1944, addressed to the Fuehrer, you refer to the fact that you would like to use this endowment. What did " this endowment" refer to? The letter of 14 January.
A Yes, I am just looking for it.
Q Did "this endowment" mean the hundred thousand Reichsmarks?
A I would also use this hundred thousand Reichsmarks, then, for the real estate deal.
Q That is what you meant to say in the letter?
A That is what I meant to say, but Mr. President, may I add this; in order to make sure that there will not be any misunderstanding? That was written in order to get Hitler interested in the whole matter.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Doctor, I would like to go back , now, to Prosecution Exhibit No. 75, which is Document NG-102, English Document Book 1-C , and it begins at page 46, or rather - I am sorry - it begins at page 43 in the English and 46 in the German.
Briefly that was the series of letters and correspondence beginning in May 1942, which contains your proposed method of handling clemency matters after Hitler's speech of April 26, 1942. Do you remember?
A Yes, it is a question of confirming the sentences.
Q Yes. On May 6, 1942, you wrote Dr. Lammers --addressed the letter the Reich Minister Dr. Lammers:
"Dear Sir:
"During our last conversation, I already told you that I intended to propose to the Fuehrer the introduction of a confirmation of judgments passed; a plan to which you agreed," I am leaving cut a sentence; I don't think it is necessary.
It's in the record here.
"Today I am transmitting to you an open letter to the Fuehrer along with draft of the decree requesting them to the Fuehrer.
"Copies for your files are attached."
Then on the same day, May 6, 1942, you wrote to Hitler, and you started the letter, "My Fuehrer," and you stated, among other things:
"If you, my Fuehrer, could decide by signing the attached draft of a decree to transfer to the Reich Minister of Justice this right of confirmation for cases in which you do not want to decide yourself, the following would be achieved:"
Then it lists a technical analysis of the decree, as you see it. Then I go to the last paragraph of your lettered addressed, "My Fuehrer," cf 6 May, 1942, which roads, in the English Text:
"Therefore I believe that if you, My Fuehrer, will agree with the draft, I could assume the responsibility that the punishment awards of the courts will not lead to complaints any more."
Now that followed the speech of Hitler on April 26, 1943. Do you recall writing that letter?
A Yes.
Q On the 12th of May, 1942, in this same exhibit and document, you write again to Dr. Lammers, and this time you say:
"Dear Reich Minister Dr. Lammers:
"With regard to your request, I am sending you today some material from which I think follows that a Reich Minister of Justice controlling criminal justice cannot dispense with the possibility not to confirm a judgment. I may add that when the draft of the decree was already under way to you, Reichsmarshal Goering explained to me in detail at a visit in Karinhall that he and the sphere of Wehrmacht justices sector Luftwaffe, could only overcome the difficulties of heterogeneous legal administration by this confirmation, and that in his opinion is was definitely necessary to introduce the confirmation also for civil justice."
Then I am going to skip a sentence and I'd like to read the last paragraph of the letter:
"I would be especially grateful to you, dear Reich Minister Lammers, if you would present the matter to the Fuehrer again. I have the hope therewith that if the Fuehrer rejects the present handling of criminal justice, and on the strength of your argument knows that the confirmatory proceeding is the only safe and remedy, he will not withhold this remedy for the Reich Minister of Justice.
"With best wishes and Heil Hitler, "Yours very sincerely, (signed) Dr. Schlegelberger."
As I recall your testimony, it was that Hitler had been very abusive to you in his speech of April, 26, 1942, and that after that you had made up your mind to resign. Is that what you testified to?
A Yes. I have said that I wanted to make it clear whether these attacks were directed against the Administration of Justice, and that in that case I was determined to let matters to a break to withdraw from my office.
Q Now I know that you said in 1941 that Goering; had said to you that he would never forgive you and Dr. Guertner for centralizing justice is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And now when you desired to have a conversation with Goering, would you go to Karinhall or would he come to the Reich Ministry of Justice, as a rule?
A No, no. In such eases when Goering wanted to speak to me, he called me up and asked me to come and see him. Goering at that time dealt with a case in which he wanted to have a legal opinion. That was why he wanted to talk to me. Oh that occasion, we came into that conversation.
Q Did Goering agree to support your plan at this conversation you had with him between May 6th and May 12th, 1942, or do you recall?
A I take the liberty to explain that. I told him what my plan was and he told me. "But that is the only possibility to handle these things, and that I could not get anywhere in my field if I did not have that right of confirmation."
Q Now in May 1942--about that time during May and June 1942-Reichsmarshal Goering would have had the capacity to be a very strong ally, did he not?
A That could be stated in that general way, and new in retrospect I could not state for any particular month because the relations between Hitler and Goering changed continuously. And with Goering it might have been similarly. It depended upon the question in what temper Hitler was met.
Q On about the 8th of May 1942, do you recall receiving some documents or some evidence involving some apparently quite shady transactions of Herbert Goering from Reichsmarshal Hermann Goering?
A I can't imagine what your thinking of. In May '42, transactions by Goering?
Q Well, I will read some of this file and then hand it to you and you may read it. It might help.
"The enclosed two bundles of reference files of attorney-at-law Dr. von Birckhahn--"
If Your Honor please, the prosecution has asked to have Document NG-670 marked for identification as Prosecution's Exhibit 525. On page 14 in the English, it says:
"The enclosed two bundles of references files of attorney-at-law Dr. von Birckhahn were submitted to state Secretary Dr. Sclegelberger on 8th May 1942 by the Reich Marshal. The record can be found in the Adjutant's Office (first public prosecutor Ebersberg) of the state Secretary.
"The files should be kept under lock and key.
"To be resubmitted on 1 June, 1943."
And then on Page 15, I find here a communication dated Berlin 29th of May 1942, marked: Acting Reich Minister of Justice, addressed to the Reich Marshal of greater German Reich, the Minister President Hermann Goering.
"Your Honor, "I am deeply indebted to you for your letter of the 8th inst.
I will continue to keep for a year under lock and key the files of the deceased attorney-at-law von Birckhahn in connection with the criminal proceedings and various civil law-suits against Pieper, and then have them destroyed after the removal of any deeds of execution and documents which may be among them.
"Assuring you of my special devotion, Heil Hitler!
"Your respectfully (signed) Dr. Schlegelberger."
Do you recall that correspondence now?
A No. Well, I have to admit that I have no recollection of that case.
Q You find it also there as I have read them, do you not, in the document?
A I have read it, yes, yes.
Q And on May 12, 1942 you did write Dr. Lammers that you had visited with Goering at Karinhall, is that correct?
A I said before already that Goering asked me to come to see him because he wanted a legal opinion in a case. That may have been in May.
THE PRESIDENT: We have reached the time for the recess. We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 1 July 1947.)
FRANZ SCHLEGELBERGER - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. La Follette, before you continue
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has received the report of medical experts concerning the condition of the Defendant Engert. As medical reports made for the understanding of medical men, we have no criticism of the reports. None of the reports, however, answer the questions which the Tribunal considers to be questions which should be answered by medical authorities. We are unable to appraise the technical language used in these medical reports, and are unable to determine from them the answers to the simple questions on which the Court must be informed. We have prepared three questions, and we think that the experts who have examined the defendant Engert should be able, from the medical standpoint, to answer these questions so that the Court may be advised. The question will be re-submitted to the experts.
We have just prepared the questions, and they are still in the English; we will read them and if Defense Counsel, or any of them, desire a translation thereafter, it can be furnished. Concerning the physical examination of the defendant Engert -
Question I: Is the defendant Engert physically able to come to Court and be examined as a witness?
Answer: Yes ________. No _________ .
If the answer to Question I is in the affirmative, then answer the following:
Question II: Would the present condition of defendant Engert be rendered worse by reason of attendance in court for examination?
Answer: Yes ________. No _________.
Question III: If the defendant Engert should attend Court and be examined as a witness, is he mentally capable of understanding the nature of the charges against him and of giving a fair presentation of his defense with the aid of his counsel?
Answer: Yes ________ . No ________ .
I take it that it is clear the blanks will be filled in accordance with the conclusions of the experts.
Now, pending our further consideration of a further report, it should be made clear that we are not excusing Counsel for the Defendant Engert from attendance upon the Tribunal, and that we consider it their duty to attend and to defend as they deem necessary for the protection of all rights of the defendant Engert. That is as far as the Tribunal is ready to go at this time.
As to these medical reports, and for the benefit of such, if any, of the gentlemen present who can understand then, I assume there will be copies available. The originals, which are in my possession, will be put in the custody of the Secretary General.
You may proceed.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
I ask the Secretary General if Document NG-670 is back on your desk. I wonder if you would send it back so the witness may have it for a few moments longer.
THE PRESIDENT: I might add that the medical reports by the German experts are in German. They can be examined without any translation.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Do you find on page 9 of the English translation, Dr. Schlegelberger -
A Yes.
Q A sentence which reads this way -- the defendant referred to, of course, is a man by the name of Pieper. "The defendant also goes so far as to maintain that so considerable an admixture of private interests in the official activities of a civil servant is intolerable and reflects unfavorably on the integrity of the personality of Herr Hermann Goering and hence on his credibility." I also find on page 11 in the English, the reference to the distribution of valuable presents I July -A-BK-13-3-Sampson (Int.
Wartenberg) to Herr Ministerpresident Goering.
"As the distribution of these presents took place over a rather long period of time, the Herr Ministerpresident could certainly not conclude that a certain group of industrial magnates had the obvious intention, by means of these gifts, to gain the goodwill of the Herr Ministerpresident and thereby obtain commercial advantages in the bargain." I also find on page II of the English translation - in one case the defendant is accused, in his own opinion, to be sure, unjustly, of having done harm to the Winter Relief Work. In this case the indictment stated that the defendant was allowed a. perfectly free hand; both Herr Hilgenfeld and Herr Albert Bormann had relied upon each other, each assuming that the other was supervising the defendant.
I also find it stated, although I can't exactly quote it for you here, but you will find it in this document, that Goebbels had opposed the Winter Relief Fund, and that Goering, as Prussian Ministerpresident, I believe at that time - it may be Reich Minister President - had supported it. In view of your correspondence with Hermann Goering, did he discuss with you the contents of these papers that you agreed to hold?
A I looked at the document more closely during the recess, and now I can state the following from my memory. On the occasion of my visit in Karinhall, Goering told me that he had from the office of the deceased lawyer von Birkhahn received working files; that he had nothing to do with those matters; and he wanted to put them into the custody of the Administration of Justice. Now, the situation is as follows: The files of deceased lawyers are kept for sometime; the files of deceased notary publics must even be kept in the custody of the Administration of Justice; and certain time limits have been set for their custody. Therefore, I did not oppose that these files were sent to us. The Ministry of Justice was the correct authority, and the files were kept there until such a time as the prescribed time limit had expired. About the contents of these files, Goering did not speak to me.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Now was it customary that files of that kind should be kept under lock and key?
A I said already that the files of the notaries had to be kept that way, and the files of lawyers were, as a rule, kept for some time.
Q Yes. Under lock and key?
A I assume so.
Q Now we discussed yesterday the Prosecution's Exhibit 197. That was a Fuehrer Information Sheet dated 1942, or described as 1942, NR-66, Berlin, 3 July 1942. This was in answer to a question submitted to you by Dr. Brieger; the attorney for the defendant, Cuhorst. May I hand this to you?
As I recall, you stated that that could well have been only the work of a Referent and was not official. Am I stating about what you said correctly?
A Yes.
Q After seeing the photostat of the original which is printed, does that change your opinion? In other words, would the Ministry have printed the mere opinion of a Referent which was not to be considered as a final word?
A Well, that question has been discussed already during the course of this trial. There is a misunderstanding here if the representative of the Prosecution thinks today as he did in the past that this is a printed piece of paper. This is not printed, but it has been written on a special typewriter. It is nothing but another memorandum written on a typewriter, and this is also written on a typewriter which I had them buy especially at the time because Hitler could only read such large print, so the outside appearance does not give you any information as to its nature.
Q I believe you said yesterday that you didn't believe that any such case had been decided. May I ask you this: you also don't think that any Referent in your office while you were running the Min Court No. III, Case No. 3.istry would have just manufactured the facts of a case without having some source of information, do you?
A No, I certainly do not think so, but what I suppose happened is that here there was somehow a mistaken interpretation of his sentence, because I cannot imagine that such a sentence was pronounced at all.
Q But if there was other testimony that such a sentence had been pronounced by the Special Court at Stuttgart, then the mere form in which you find this document wouldn't lead you to conclude that such a sentence had not, in fact, been pronounced there?
A I didn't quite understand your question.
Q Well, the mere form in which you find Exhibit 197 which you say is merely a typewritten document, that doesn't necessarily mean to you that there could not have been such a case decided in Stuttgart, does it?
A No, no. Certainly not.
Q Yes. Yes. Thank you. Did you ever read "Mein Kampf", Dr. Schlegelberger?
A Yes, I have.
Q In the 1930 edition, second German edition dated 1930 at page 651 I am advised that Hitler discusses the difference between a follower and a member of the NSDAP; that the English translation of what he says reads as follows:
"A follower of a movement is one who agrees with its aims. A member is one who fights for these aims. Accord is based only on the recognition of the aims, membership on the courage to stand up for them and to spread them. Propaganda must, therefore, constantly endeavor to win new followers for an idea, while the organization must take great care that from among the followers only the most valuable ones are made members. Hence, it follows that the number of followers cannot be too large, but that the number of members may more easily be too large than too small."
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Do you know whether Hitler had any change of opinion between the time that he wrote "Mein Kampf" and the time that he ordered you to become a member in 1938?
A Well, I would like to say the following about that: in large spheres Hitler did the opposite of what he said in his book, so per se from this book you cannot conclude at all what he actually thought and wanted. Perhaps I may mention a very small example. For instance, he emphasized that the abuse of the democratic time would have to be abolished, that civil servants were selected only according to Party membership.
Now we experienced it that he and his associates did the very thing that he fought against in his book, so you cannot conclude anything from that.
Now, Mr. Prosecutor, this is how I understand your question, namely, whether Hitler by appointing me, so to say, a member of the Party testified that I was not only a follower but an especially valuable follower and should, therefore, become a member.
Q I think that is inferable. I think it is inferable from what he said. Yes, go ahead.
A Now may I continue?
Q Oh, yes.
A I believe that your conclusion is daring but wrong, for what Hitler did, he wanted that his facade, his front, looked well, and it did not suit him that the high offices of under secretaries were still held by people who .could not be described as Party members at all.
Q I am glad to have your answer. I believe that is all. Thank you.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Cross-examination is finished, Your Honor.
JUDGE HARDING: Dr. Schlegelberger, you have testified that you favored the decree as to Poles and Jews and the taking over of NN prisoners for trial to avoid having these people turned over to the police, Court No. III, Case No. 3.is that correct?
THE WITNESS: (Nodded in the affirmative.)
JUDGE HARDING: Why was that?
THE WITNESS: May I ask you a question, namely, does this question refer to the Poles and Jews, or as I now understand it, to the NN prisoners?
JUDGE HARDING: It applies to both.
THE WITNESS: Well, that was for the following reason: from the cases of transfer about which I reported, I saw that the police was the method of power that Hitler used in order to do away with certain people without any legal procedure and I wanted to give those people a legal procedure with a regular trial.
JUDGE HARDING: Now the Administration of Justice at one time, at least, was responsible for the prosecution and trial of all crimes committed in the Reich, isn't that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE HARDING: Was there ever a prosecution with trial after September 1, 1939, for the abuse or murder of a person in the hands of the police or in a concentration camp?
THE WITNESS: I can answer that question by saying that the Ministry of Justice as far as I am informed -- that is, these matters were in the pedal sector -- interferred in every case, even in the case of abuses and concentration camps where they could actually do something about it, only since 1939 -- I don't remember the exact date -- these matters were taken out of our hands through the special jurisdiction of the SS.
JUDGE HARDING: That is, I don't believe you quite answered my question. Did the Ministry of Justice ever call or ever prosecute a member of the police or somebody connected with the concentration camp because of abuse of the prisoners or murder of prisoners in their hands?
THE WITNESS: Yes, the Ministry did so.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
JUDGE HARDING: In what cases? That was after September 1, 1939.
THE WITNESS: In any case, it did happen before September, 1939. I regret, Your Honor, that I can not give exhaustive information about this because those are events and trials which were outside of my official duty, but I can say with certainty and under the oath under which I am now that because of abuse in concentration camps measures were taken with the utmost energy.