What cases the Main Reich Security Office had in mind in this connection is not clearly apparent. The stipulation can, however, only be interpreted in the sense that the police, for reasons of their own, did not want the prisoners to be turned over to the Justice authorities, and withheld them from these in order to let them, disappear in a concentration camp. The justice court can in no way be held responsible for these prisoners, who were never brought to it and of whom it knew nothing. The commmander of all the concentration camps were informed of the decree of the Reich Main Security Office by means of a circular order. It could not be seen from this whether NN prisoners were imprisoned in the individual camps, particularly in Mauthausen, Flossenburg and Auschwitz. Even this upsets the attempt ot the Prosecution to connect the justice with the atrocities committed in these camps. This much for the general consideration of matters dealing with NN. Now I shall turn to the activity of von Ammon himself, in his position as expert in Department IV of the Reich Ministry of Justice. The position and responsibility of an expert in the Ministry has been thoroughly described in this trial. Let us test the evidence showing the extent to which von Ammon was actively involved in the NN operations: First of all, the usual division of duties in the Ministry also affected NN affairs. In NN affairs, too Dept. III was charged with "penal legislation", Dept. IV with "criminal procedure" and Dept. V with "care of prisoners". Therefore Dept. III was alone responsible for the introduction and amendment of NN regulations, as was Dept. IV for the supervision of the trial procedures and Dept. V for the reception, quartering and return of the prisoners. Therefore von Ammon cannot be connected with the documents presented by the prosecution, which pertain to the introduction and legal construction of the NN process.
His work was limited to the field assigned to Dept. IV, i.e. the supervision of the trial procedures themselves. This did not preclude, of course, that things worked out by the other departments would be sent to him for his information, and he had to determine whether his department was interested in them or whether his department had any objections to them. It is true, that for this reason his name appears on a large number of documents. Thus far there is nothing to show actual collaboration. The documents he wrote himself are almost entirely discussions of questions that rose in practice. We can see in the documents how von Ammon handles things according to routine office methods, first getting the opinions of other interested departments and forwarding every more important question to his superiors for decision. The prosecution has especially stressed the circular order contained in prosecution Exhibit 319. The facts are: The circular order, which was signed by 15 members of the different departments, does not alter the legal provisions that pertained to the NN process, It only comprehensively explains the questions which had arisen for the courts and public prosecutors in practice. The content of the individual regulations in no case exceeds the necessary requirements for absolute secrecy? In so far as the secrecy was not directly endangered, the alleviations that von Ammon mentioned on the witness stand, were provided. The opinion of the prosecution, that the executed persons were buried in unidentified graves, is not correct. Actually the graves, which were recognizable at all times, were marked and only the placing of the name of the dead person on the grave was forbidden. The delivery of the corpses to the Gestapo was, as is evident from Exhibit 332, the result of an order which had been valid for the whole sphere of the administra-tion of the law since 1939. Contrary to this general instruction however in the case of NN--prisoners the giving-up of the dead body for dissection had been forbidden by a circular order. Exhibit 311, contrary to the opinion of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, is not a letter of the defendant von Ammon, but a report of the Senior Public Prosecutor in Essen to the Ministry of Justice of 20 August 1942 in which he asks for advice as to the question of execution in NN-casos arising for the first time in the anticipated case of these death sentences.
The defendants Mettgenberg and von Ammon have already discussed the prosecution Exhibit 334 in detail in the witnessobx, This letter of the Chief Public Prosecutor in Kattowitz contains the suggestion that prisoners allocated to the armament industry should still bo employed even after the reason for their custody in accordance with the administration of the law has ceased to exist. According to the proposal they were to be treated as police prisoners but were to remain in their previous place of work under the supervision of the administration of the law. The prosecution sees in this proposal which, moreover, was never put into practice a violation of the Geneva Convention concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. It overlooks in this respect the fact that all NN-cases always affected civilians only. In so far as it is evident from the letter that in the Kattowitz district NN-prisoners were actually allocated to armament factories while remanded in custody pending trial or serving a sentence, the allusion to the fact that provisions of international law limiting the employment of civilian prisoners arc not evident, might suffice. The defendant v. Ammon did not himself make arrangements for this employment nor was he competent to do so. In closing I should like once more to summarise briefly von Ammon's collaboration in the NN-cases: He did not collaborate in the creation of the legal NN-provisions. The activity in his Dezernat (Sphere of activity) was necessarily the outcome of the situation not created by him and which he had no possibility of changing. To the extent of his limited authority he tried to avoid hardships and in examining the meting out of punishment kept within more charitable bounds. In spite of the resistance movement which was gaining strength he stressed the fact that there was no question of the administration of justice becoming more severer. I refer in particular to his behavior in the rescue action affecting 130 prisoners among whom there were 30 NN-prisoners on which the witness Roemer gave evidence on oath.
And now for the legal evaluation of his collaboration in the NN-proceedings.
In his activity can say any active participation at all be seen in the sense of II 2 of the Control Council Law? Whatever dements of crime may be imputed in the sense of the indictment, his activity is not to be classified among the forms of particip tion mentioned in 2 a-d. I can, in so far, refer to the legal deductions of colleague Haensel. The participation also that under - d must refer to the crime itself. He who does not collaborate in the crime itself, who is merely not unaware of its existence and acts with due regard to the resultant situation, cannot be a participant in the crime. Otherwise the circle of those responsible in opposition to the previous administration of justice of the Tribunals - would widen out to infinity. In the cases of many a basis for their activity which was not in accordance with the law was offered. Only he who has participated in the plan or the execution of the crime itself, that is, only he who caused the crime acted in a guiltty in the criminal sense. Aside from the Night and Fog complex the Prosecution has not offered any notable evidence. The meeting mentioned in Exhibit 545 was merely attended by von Ammon in the company of his Department Chief Vollmer. The measure of his participation in this meeting is shown by the fact that he made the record notes for his Department Chief.
In von Ammon the Prosecution sees the National Socialist activist, whom they connect with his sphere of work in this his basic attitude. Little need be said by me in appreciation von Ammon's personality: This ministerial officer embued by the duty imposed on him by his office, who only joined the party in the year 1937, is certainly no revolutionary Hitler adherent; even though - as a member of the Bund "Oberland" during his student years - a rifle was pressed into his hands on the occasion of the Hitlerputsch. The picture of his real character gained during the proceedings and shown by the affidavits of personalalities who already due to their positions give a guaranty for their objective judgment, is clearly evident.
It will be the key to the understanding of his intentions and actions.
The case of the defendant von Ammon does not evidence the facts of a war-crime or a crime against humanity, either objectively nor subjectively. I ask you for a verdict of "not guilty".
DR. SCHILF: Your Honors, may I take the liberty to indicate a few corrections of the record? The English Transcript of the Final Plea for Klemm is before me, and may I ask you to make the following amendments?
Official Transcript, English version, Page 9888: The seventh line from the top. It is not to red "17th of January 1944;" but rather "27th of January 1944."
The next correction is on Page 9913; Line 16 from the top. Instead of the name "Gluettgen"; it should read "Hagemann." "Hagemnnn" is to be inserted into this portion of the record.
The following is Page 9922; third line from the bottom, before the new sentence, the following is to be inserted: "With the exception of the cases Riedel Prosecution Exhibit 144."
And now the last that I have to say pertaining to Klemm refers to Page 9942, the 19th line from the top. It should not read "Klemm Exhibit 59" but rather it should read "Klemm Exhibit 70."
That is all pertaining to Klemm, and now one correction for Mettgenberg. Here, unfortunately, I am not able to indicate the page of the English version of the Transcript. This pertains to an interpolation, that is the third, before the paragraph III. Klemm Exhibit so is mentioned, which is to be changed to Klemm Exhibit 82.
This is all. Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that all of the final arguments for all of the defendants are now closed. You may address the Tribunal in behalf of the Prosecution, which has been allowed one hour and thirty minutes for closing.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors. As I recall the events of a few minutes ago, Dr. Brieger indicated that there was a mistake, and the matter, that I objected to, can be stricken from the record, With that understanding I have no further comment to make on that matter.
Also, it is probably needless, but I ask to be permitted to observe that it is not pleasant for lawyers to sit either as judges or to prosecute as prosecutors other lawyers. There is an understanding in a community and in the profession, Nevertheless, it is my personal conviction, which I feel I have earned the right to express as an individual, that there is to be and will be no development in the world unless we face squarely the necessity of man living together without the scourge of war. We also know today that whether a government be one which is called totalitarian or one which is considered to be democratic, that the waging of a war today requires a unification of effort of every person in a community to an extent which was undreamed of even twenty-five years ago---certainly fifty years ago, and unquestionably a hundred years ago, Consequently, it seems to me that we must face the facts in the world in which we live and recognize that you wage war today with many weapons;
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
and if there is to be any value, in my opinion, arising from the trial of twenty-two defendants, one in absentia, by the International Military Tribunal, for the hope of the peoples of the world wherever they may live, it is the value which arose out of the declaration which I consider to be true, that the waging of aggressive war at the time it was waged, was an international crime. If this was not true, all that the IMT judgment would have done would have been to result in the conviction of certain individuals under circumstances where a conquering power could have arbitrarily said there are so many f these people who are guilty, we will do without a trial or we will have an arbitrary determination of guilt and dispose of them.
But, IMT in my opinion was more. It is true that the world has not reached the point where jurisdiction is vested in any tribunal by which to try crimes which are crimes of international law because they are crimes against the human beings who occupy the earth, but so long as the conduct of the trial is one which is full opportunity for adequate defense, we need not be disturbed at this time about the failure f a competent tribunal in the sense that we understand competent from our national law experience, but it seems to me that it does follow that where the waging of aggressive war has been declared to be a crime, that it must follow that any persons within the government which has waged aggressive war, who with knowledge of the fact that aggressive war is being waged, take a consenting part in or are Connected with a plan or enterprise to wage that war and to secure to the aggressor the benefits thereof, must be held to have acted with an instrumentality for committing the crime of murder or the crime of imprisonment, whatever that instrumentality may be in support of that act.
It is interesting to note that twelve men were convicted of crimes against peace by the IMT, and that five men were only convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity; namely, Kaltenbrunner, Frank, Sauckel, Speer, and Bormann; and of these two, Kaltenbrunner and Frank Court No. III, Case No. 3.were not indicted for the crime against peace.
It is also interesting to note that Streicher and von Schirach were found guilty only of crimes against humanity.
Now, I fail to see when this evidence establishes, as I believe it does establish, that these defendants in support of this criminal act used within their spheres of competence the judicial machinery to secure and make fast the so-called benefits or achievements of that wrongful act, that their connection with the crime or their taking a consenting part in it is any more removed than that of Kaltenbrunner or Frank; or, of Streicher or von Schirach, provided always that the evidence is sufficient to establish that relationship. But as a principle of law it seems if the world is to benefit from this thing, if we are to go forward, then as much as we may individually feel that certain of these defendants would within their hearts possibly have rather not acted as they acted, yet millions of people died and they shall continue to die unless we hold to the standard that no matter how much we may regret or how much we may be capable of understanding the conflicts, that the only standard which will insure to mankind a possible cessation of this thing called aggressive war is that we shall say that when you participate in it or you take a consenting part in it, you must be held responsible, If we do not say that, then what hope is there for man against an organized society, no matter where it may arise, which may again engulf the world.
And for myself, and I am sure I speak for all those who desire something better in this courtroom, judges, defendants and Defense Counsel and spectators; for myself no matter if the standards of guilt to which I am pleading here may be standards which some day I might have to come up to, I ask for them as something which in my firm conviction is to, establishment of a standard which may act act a deterrent to that which we have seen, so that men, some day on this earth -- I don't know whether they will turn to what we say here the standard for which I ask here ten years from now, or twenty years from now, or, may Court No. III, Case No. 3.be, until fifty or one hundred years; but, if what we ask for is sound -- that if you participate in an act which is calculated to guarantee to an aggressor the fruits of his aggression, if you take a consenting part in it, if you administer any part of that nation's government in a way calculated to guarantee or to acquire or to hold on to the efforts of a wrongful, felonious act, then you must be found guilty in the eyes of the world; otherwise, men who do such acts will feel free to do so in the future, and there can be no safeguard and no standards raised here, to which we may repair, worthy of the efforts which we have all made here.
I will now just briefly like also to refer to the standard which the Prosecution presented largely in its Appendix II by which the relationships set out in Law 10, Article 1, paragraph 2, are to be interpreted. Unfortunately I have not had the benefit of but a short time to peruse the first fourteen pages in English of Dr. Haensel's work, to which I know he put all his sincere efforts, but I do not believe that the Prosecution can be charged with attempting to set up any Anglo-Saxon standard of relationship to crimes which reacts detrimentally to these defendants or which reacts detrimentally to the concept that this is an international tribunal with which the Prosecution is in full accord, be have simply offered to the Tribunal for its copsideration certain rules based upon apparent logic and reason, by which liability for a criminal act may be determined. Certainly the words consenting part in or connected with a plan and enterprise cannot just be left up in a vacuum, apd what we have tried to do by our appendix is to offer that which appeals, we hope, to the Court's concept of reason and a proper interpretation of inferences to be drawn from facts and from relationships to criminal acts which gives some intelligible meaning to words which are not codified, and by which there is no fixed international standard to measure or interpret. And to that extent we wish to make it clear to the Court, certainly to the defendants and their Counsel, that we have offered these things as aids so that the Court No. III, Case No. 3.Court may make its own interpretation of this language which needs interpretation, we have not attempted to prove or bind the Court in its acceptance or rejection of that which we have offered to fix some standard which is unfair or which is not legally sound or intended as an artificial disadvantage to any defendant in this dock.
I think, Your Honors, if I talk any longer I would be consuming time. It may be that Mr. King might need a few minutes to be prepared, but it is better that we have silance than that I talk whan I have no more to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you notify Mr, King, please.
MR. KING: The Prosecution will not, and indeed could not, call the Court's attention in the brief time which we now have, to all of what we believe are misinterpretations and misstatements of facts which various defense counsel have made throughout the past weak of argument.
We should like to point out a few of these, with the additional thought, which is probably unnecessary to express to this court, that all of these oral arguments should be read critically, keeping in mind the documents which are in evidence. This is all we ask, and we are sure that the court in fairness to both sides will do that.
We first call the court's attention to the argument on behalf of the defendant Joel in which it was implied that the IMT took into consideration the alleged fact of von Naurath's honorary membership in the SS and found him not guilty of membership in that organization. This court, of course, knows that no defendant in the IMT was charged with being a member of the SS, the SD or any other criminal organization for the very reason that the IMT itself by its judgment, found such organizations to be criminal. In the verdict the IMT mentioned as an example, that Kaltenbrunner was a member of the SS, but it did not dettermine what defendants were or were not guilty of membership in the SS, for the reasons we have stated -- that they were not so charged.
As another example of misinterpretation, we refer to the argu Court No. III, Case No. 3.ment for the defendant Lautz in which it was stated that a French Court, in a decision contained in Lautz Ex. 166, had held that superior orders was a defense under Control Council Law 10 and had acquitted a defendant who used that defense.
This, of course, is a misinterpretation of the opinion as can be readily seen from reference to this exhibit. In the first place, the acquitted and other defendants were tried by a French Military Court pursuant to the French Penal Code and the Military Penal Code since the acts were committed in French territory under the jurisdiction of French courts. Law 10 was nowhere referred to in the verdict. The statement, therefore, that the defense of superior orders, which is barred by Law 10, was applied to the benefit of a defendant in that case is not true. We note in passing, that the President of the Strasbourg Special Court in this case, however, was sentenced to death.
As still another example, we would like to point out that in the argument for the defendant Petersen several references were made to the lay membership of the People's Court which we think re vire much close examination. It was alleged that the lay members of the People's Court were not enthusiastic Nazis and, in fact, many were members of the anti-Nazi underground movement. There is considerable evidence before this Court which suggests how lay members were nominated to the court, as well as the names and positions in Party organizations held by them. We would like to refer to just a. sampling of this membership to show that any implication that lay judges were not as enthusiastic Nazis is the rest of the Government is simply not in accord with the fact.
Here are a few of these names: One George Bruno Jedicke, SS Gruppenfuehrer, Higher SS and Police Chief, Sector Host; August Meyesner, Gruppenfuehrer, SS, Higher SS and police Chief Belgrade; Fritz Katzmann, SS Gruppenfuehrer, Higher SS and Police Chief of the Upper Vistula Sector; Richard Hildebrandt, Obergruppenfuehrer, at present a defendant in Case 8; Victor Brack, sentenced to death in the medical Case.
These and many other names are from Prosecution exhibit 51.
The argument for the Defendant Petersen also referred to the lack of voting power on the part of the lay judges. The fact is, as this Court knows, a lay judge on a people's Court had exactly the same voting power as a professional judge. In a court made up of five members, three lay judges and two professional judges had a total of five votes -- one for each judge. Although the vote was secret, it is common knowledge that a two-thirds majority for any decision against the defendant was required. It is thus obvious that the lay judges as a group on a court had considerably more power than the professional judges, and, indeed, that we the reason for placing key Nazis as lay judges on the People's Court. It would have indeed been ridiculous and a waste of time to appoint judges and then give them no voice in the decisions to be reached by the Court.
Any impression other than this which this Court may have gained from the argument of the Defendant Petersen is not in accord with the evidence.
The Defendant Klemm has referred to Prosecution Exhibit 252 which, as the Court well knows, is a list of clemency decisions passed on by Klemm and others in the Reich ministry of Justice. We are now told in the argument of Defendant Klemm that he did not decide doubtful cases and that this has been the consensus of testimony by witnesses before this Court. Without reviewing extensively such evidence, we merely refer to prosecution-Exhibit 441, which is the affidavit of witness Altmeyer in which Altmeyer discusses in detail the doubtful cases which Klemm decided, and after describing four says: "And there were many more which Klemm decided." We doubt that the Defendant Klemm will deny Altmeyer's testimony in this regard.
In this connection, we would also like to refer to a further reference made in the argument of the Defendant Klemm to Prosecution Exhibit 252. The Court will recall in the oral argument for the Defendant Klemm it was stated that the reports, beginning on page 5 of the document, were made on 17 January 1944, and that there was no connection with the death sentence reports for January 17, 1945, which began on Page 7 of the document. The conclusion drawn from these two assertions was that while the reports of 17 January 1944 were made to him, Klemm, the reports of 17 January 1945, which contained many doubtful cases, ware made to Thierack. Now, the fact is that the defendant Klemm is desperately attempting to take advantage of an obvious typographical error in the original document, which is in evidence before this Court. The reports which begin on page 5 -- and for which Klemm admits responsibility -- are dated Wednesday 17 January 1944. A reference to a calendar will show that the 17th of January 1944 was a honday and the 17th of January -- as stated in this report -- was in 1945. In addition to this, the individual cases 10582.
1, 2 and 5 of this list of reports which is erroneously headed 17 January 1944 specifically refer to file numbers for the year 1945. These facts are certainly as clear to the Defendant Klemm as they are to this Court. And yet, on the basis of this thin subterfuge, he has vainly tried to avoid responsibility to clemency decisions passed on doubtful oases on this same day of January 17, 1945.
I should like to interpolate here one sentence. If we understood Dr. Schilf correctly this morning, he made a correction to his closing statement by stating that the date "17 January 1944" should read "27 January 1944." I only "ant to point out in this connection that the 27th of January 1944 fell on a Thursday -- and not on a Wednesday.
Continuing: In further reference to this exhibit, as Exhibit 252, it was stated in the oral argument for Defendant Klemm that no case in this exhibit referred to Allied airmen. The fact is that Case 22, of 21 June 1944, which appears on page 89 of this exhibit, shows that Klemm ordered the quashing of cases brought against the defendants Brustedt and Schoenwald for stealing equipment from the bodies of "dead Allied fliers." Finally, in connection with this exhibit, we wish to refer the Court to Footnote 120, on page 79 of the Prosecution's Closing Statement, We believe that this tabulation merits a critical examination by the Court, especially in view of Klemm's attempted denial for responsibility of the doubtful clemency cases which he decided on 17 January 1945.
Finally, we would like to refer briefly to statements made in the Closing Argument for the Defendant Oeschey. We ask this Court to examine critically many of the conclusions reached in this argument. For one example, it is stated that Oeschey, as a judge, kept clear of any connection with offices alien to the Justice Administration --- such as the SD, SS, Gestapo and the RSHA. This Court knows that Oeschey's relations with the Gauleitung of Nurnberg and his personal relations with Gauleiter Holz constitute a connection with offices alien to the Justice Administration, which are at least on the same plane with the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo -- if not on an even higher level.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
(MR. KING for the prosecution, continuing) In closing, the prosecution wishes to call attention to one vein of thought which has been apparent in the testimony of all of these witnesses.
Without exception, each of them has pointed to certain individuals which, through their intervention, they were able to remove from the concentration camp, to remove from prison, to save from being indicted, or in some cases, to assist the defense in the prosecution of a difficult case. We think that many of these statements were made with the possible hope of mitigation, but we think that there is another conclusion which perhaps may have been overlooked, which can be drawn from the fact that aid was given in such cases, time after time by many of these defendants.
The further conclusion to be drawn is that the defendant who was in a position to get an individual out of a concentration camp, must by very virtue of that fact, have been in a position to get him into the concentration camp, These defendants, each and every one of them, as individuals, occupied an official position, had tremendous personal powers which they could exercise in a given direction if they so desired. The fact that they could use this personal power to remove a person from a concentration camp on a request from a friend, to have an indictment quashed, or have the indictment fail to materialize, is further proof of the same fact.
We think in consideration of the known harshness of the laws which permitted a range of penalties, that this personal power of the defendants must also be taken into consideration by the court in reaching its final judgment. With the statutes before them, with the range of penalties and possessed of a power, of a personal power, the defendants were able to exercise not only the intent and spirit of the law, but their personal inclinations, and as we have shown, and as they have so testified, occasionally, these personal inclinations ran in reverse, but not often.
We think there is a conclusion to be derived from this state Court No, III, Case No. 3.ment of the fact.
The prosecution is finished.
THE PRESIDENT; When the Tribunal recesses in a few moments, it will recess to reconvene in the larger courtroom for tha convenience of those parsons who desire to hear the final statements to be made personally by such of the defendants as desire to be heard.
It is our recollection that provision was made that such de fendant might have 10 minutes for such a statement. In this connection it should be borne in mind that tha defendants were given almost unlimited time, - some of them occupying the witness stand under oath for many days, in the earlier portions of the defense case. We are, therefore, not depriving the defendants of their full opportunity to present their views under examination by their own attorneys, That opportunity they have already had, Consequently, the purpose of the afternoon is not to again review, in any detail, the evidence which may have been presented.
We feel that tha further opportunity which is granted, out of regard to what we understand to be a custom in Germany, but which is not tha custom in other countries, including tha United States, namely to permit oral, unsworn statements by tha defendant himself, that practice is dona out of regard for tha customary procedure which may have prevailed in this country.
We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon. We will reconvene in Room 600.
(Court in recess until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 18 Oct.
1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the defense counsel arrived at an agreement as to the order in which the Defendants desire to speak?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the same order in which they are seated, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The record will show that the defendants have already had the opportunity to testify at length under oath, and they are now accorded the privilege, in each instance, of making an unsworn statement for the benefit of the Tribunal.
We will hear the first defendant. Dr. Schlegelberger.
DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER: These words of Pope Gregor VII are world-famous: "I loved justice and hated arbitrariness; therefore, I die in exile."
I feel confident that your judgment will save me from that fate. But I, too, in imprisonment could not overcome the bitterness of being rewarded for my hard struggle for justice by this time of shame and misery. The charges and insults of the prosecutor do not apply to me. My life is not compatible with the intention of crime. The attempt to destroy the alleged myth around my person by showering abuse at a man who has aged honorably was bound to fail. The Goering affair was been cleared up as completely unexceptionable. The connection between it and my draft of a law, and my resignation, is based on a freely invented malicious construction which lacks all foundation. In spite of my high age my defense was easy for me. All I had to do was to tell the Tribunal the truth, I have done so in the firm conviction that truth will be victorious, and with the undaunted pride of a clear conscience.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Klemm may address the Court.
DEFENDANT KLEMM: The Prosecution wishes to claim that I am not worthy of credibility.
In extensive evidence it endeavors to combine a very few positive points and make combination which lack all foundation, both in factual and political connection. Distortions and arbitrary additions are supposed to serve this purpose. In the cage of Sonnenburg it is said that Heckef had stated that Hansen had said that Klemm did not feel comfortable in connection with this matter. Not a word to this effect is to be found in the transcript of Hecker's testimony. Although in cross-examination Hecker clearly deviated from the agreement as he described it in his affidavit, the prosecution maintains the agreement although there own witness, Eggensperger, denied it. And now another final example. Heydrich's directives to his police agencies to take Jewish women into custody is presented by the prosecution as being an agreement with the judicial administration. There are many more examples which I could add to those already given by the prosecution this morning, but please lot me say only the following. Due to the propaganda of the State we were convinced at the outbreak of the war that justice was on our side, and we felt that a dictatorship could not and would not permit its cards to be shown. And, finally, we are not here charged with crimes against peace. To what Mr. King said regarding Prosecution Exhibit 252 let me add the following. The list of 17 January 1945, containing reports on death sentences, deals with a list of the Minister, fop it contains doubtful cases, and from that I gathered after I had already seen from the photostat, that there were several dates on the top of the list, that it could not be my list. Even if both lists dated from 1945, the same is on Pages 154-157 in Document Book, according to which separate reports were made to me on individual cases and on death sentences to the Minister. If the prosecution bases its case on the testimony of the Witness Altmeyer, this, testimony has been refuted with overwhelming clarity by the testimony of Hartmann, Frankel, and Erhanrd, and the prosecution fails to see that in his cross-examination the witness Altmeyer in particular had to deviate from his affidavit.
The prosecution mentioned furthermore a case where proceedings were suspended. I remember the case distinctly. An airplane had been destroyed, and from the wreck objects had been stolen which had already bees partly destroyed by rain and fire. The proceedings were suspended because subjectively, it could not be proved that theft had been committed. The prosecution has failed to show what this theft from a wrecked airplane had to do with lenching of the aviators. All in all, the result of the statements of the prosecution is as follows: In this trial it was not only German justice of the past years that was indicted, but the Continental system of justice--a system in which for many decades the tie with the law and the norm of the state was the only task of the jurist. Before 1933 I had been educated in this school of thought and trained it. What large and factual opportunities were open to me I used in favor of justice wherever I could do so. To revoke laws and norms which had existed for years, was not in my competence.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Rothenberger may address the Tribunal.
DEFENDANT ROTHENBERGER: I was a National Socialist, and in that respect I distinguish myself from those who, for ten years and more were placed in leading positions in the Third Reich, were placed and today say that they were not National Socialists. When I realized that National Socialism had destroyed the very values for which I had lived and for which it had promised to work, I decided, with all my energy, to influence the development of National Socialism in the sphere of justice. I did not want to be a hanger-on ("Mitlaeufer") It was not my way to contend myself with tactical maneuvers or withdrawals, which gradually would have brought about an undermining of the administration of German justice. The struggle for the idea of the judiciary within the framework of a totalitarian state I made the focal point of my life. And, therefore, I considered myself to be under an obligation to declare today that the German judge and his judgment, since 1933, were subjected to excessive attacks from the Party and from the SS, without being given any backing from the leadership of the Ministry.