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.
Here lie the causes for my actions To begin with I believe that in a totalitarian state there could exist a free judiciary. In the course of time I realized that most of the Party Leaders, and in particular the SS leaders, found the very essence of the judiciary an obstacle in their party.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
I did not wish it to be true that there should be no way to save my Fatherland from such a dangerous development and therefore I clung to Hitler. In so doing I found myself in the company of many clever people in all spheres of human activity in Germany and abroad. As to whether my reforms in the administration of justice has been called rightly a Nazi reform by the prosecution, which called itself National Socialist, but which aimed at excluding the influence of all members of the SS and the Party from the administration of justice and which contains not one word against Jews or foreigners, but on the contrary claimed the entire administration of penal justice, including that for foreigners and Jews, that for the judiciary. With confidence I leave it to the Tribunal to decide that question.
I do not ignore today that my life-work which has eaten up my nervous strength was bound to fail; nor do I ignore that my aims were at times in contradiction to the practice of life and my own attitude, but is it not always like that in the life of human beings that just because there are such abuses and just because at times one self is weak one takes that very circumstance for a cause, to set up postulates which have an aim and a direction, but which we cannot immediately, particularly in war time, put into effect, as the power of conditions is stronger than we ourselves. And how far the power of the SS and the Party had extended I only realized in 1942 when I went to Berlin and when I got an insight into conditions in the Reieh. That Hitler himself was a despot and that he put me together with a man who showed himself to be a tool, without any will of his own, of Bormann and Himmler, that was my tragic misfortune.
I had to experience one set-back after the other. At the very beginning of my work by the well-known SD report by Himmler in October 1942, which prophesied that I would soon resign, I was compromised in the whole of the Reich and the only positive point which kept me was the hope and the confidence of the German judiciary.
There are two charges of the prosecution which they made in Court No. III, Case No. 3.their final plea that I want to answer now, How can tha prosecution from my speeches in Hamm and Lueneburg, of tha latter of which tha text does note even exist, conclude that I was in favor of exterminating the Jaws?
Both speeches exclusively relate to degenerate criminals and incorrigible criminals. In tha usage of tha German language, they are asocial elements and for those elements I demanded, according to my own prosecution document a judicial authority. And tha second charge is that I am a liar.
Tha Jewish pogrom in 1938, they say, had been on quite a different scale in Hamburg from tha way I had described it. As to how tha Jewish question was handled in Hamburg, that you can see clearly, not only from a prosecution document, but also from tha affidavit by a man whom tha British after tha surrender made tha mayor of Hamburg himself half Jewish. I am speaking of Mayor Petersen.
That in my struggle I was placed in outward contact with wrong, that lay in tha vary nature of tha thing. I assume responsibility for every action of my own. Tha consequences which now tha whole German people bear justify that formerly landing parsons too bear tha consequences. But I am of tha opinion that crimes which were committed by my biggest enemy behind my back cannot be charged to me. As soon as I heard of them I draw tha consequences.
After 16 months, in 1943, Himmler, Thierack and Bormann finally made ma unemployed. I was 47 at tha time. Without overestimating tha power of my personality, tha road for tha wishes of those man concerning tha administration of German justice now lay open.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Lautz may now address tha court.
DEFENDANT LAUTZ: At tha beginning of tha prosecution's oral presentation tha Chief Prosecutor emphasized that tha role which tha defendants are assigned to in this proceedings is new for us. That is true, as far as this refers to tha position which we now have to hold before this Tribunal. Apart from that, we public prosecutors are wall familiar with tha role of defendants in criminal proceedings.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A man like myself who in thirty-five long years became acquainted with the fate of men in detention houses, in court rooms, in penal institutions, and on the way to the place of execution knows very well the tragedy of this role and who under the official robe has preserved a human heart, will the better recognize that not blind zeal for prosecution, but much rather wisdom coupled with human understanding are best designed to serve the aim of true judicial administration.
The German public prosecutors in their overwhelming majority recognized this and that also in the Third Reich. Therefore, none of the charges made against me here I feel to be more unjust than that by raising malicious indictments I had done injustice for the sake of injustice. I trust, however, that these proceedings have shown how unjust this charge is. The office of a public prosecutor is a very hard one. It is easier in peace than in war time, but it became incredibly difficult during a war, which is without example in history and which has left our Fatherland, which meant everything to us public prosecutors, in ruins.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Mettgenberg may address the Tribunal.
DEFENDANT METTGENBERG: Your Honors, novel, alien, and unaccustomed, as it was to the previous speaker, so is to me the situation in which I found myself for months in as an imprisoned defendant in the dock, and that is what the prosecution said when this trial opened; novel, alien, and unaccustomed were to me many many things that occurred in this trial, a trial which concludes today.
All the same I, for my part, have tried to make my contribution to the correct carrying out of these proceedings; with complete frankness I have described my past career, and I have given you my views concerning the points with which the prosecution has charged me. There is nothing I have to hide.
Now at the end of this trial the prosecution deemed it necessary, I believe without regard to the evidence, to ask of you Court No. III, Case No. 3.that you should convict me for having committed war crimes.
It may be that that is the duty of the prosecution. It is not for me to arrive at a judgment about that. The prosecution must take the responsibility for their motion.
My defense counsel has asked you to acquit me. I too ask you to acquit me, but, Your Honors, I ask you for more than that. As far as I am informed it is in accordance with your legal views to acquit a defendant if there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt. I am of the opinion, and please do not think me arrogant, that I may expect you to find that there is no reasonable doubt as to my innocence. Even after careful and conscientious examination, such as I have given to my own past, I believe I am justified in making this request.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant von Ammon may address the Tribunal.
DEFENDANT VON AMMON: I have nothing to add to the statements made by me on the 1st and 4th of August under oath in the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Joel may address the Tribunal.
DEFENDANT JOEL: I wish to remain silent.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Rothaug may address the Tribunal.
DEFENDANT ROTHAUG: Prosecutor King in his final pleas mentioned a death sentence passed by a French court against a president of a court against a president of a court in Strassburg. May I refer to the fact that this involves a so-called "in absentia" sentence in which the defendant had no opportunity for his own defense whatsoever because at that time he was in a German internment camp and by sheer accident happened to read of it in a newspaper.
I served my country throughout my life and in whatever job I was assigned to, in faithfulness, with a pure heart; and without malice. Seen from my present position you right consider this wrong and you could say I and all those who surrounded me, should have been more suspicious of developments as they took place. This prognosis in retrospect is just as convincing asit si cheap. Nobody in our position at that time could be of the opinion that the State could be accused of illegality and that the war that it waged was a war of aggression as is demonstrated today to all the world. Therefore; it is no accident and no excuse that; apart from the flood of personal defamations which I received from the circle of my previous friends and assistants I am now anxious to prove to you that both in the service as a judge and prosecutor I applied the laws of my country in the manner in which they were intended; to the best of my conscience and belief. We were guided by the practice of the Supremo Reich Court and went the same way which was taken by the remaining 60 to 80 special courts in the Reich. We were no specialists in crimes against humanity; and proof has been furnished in one single case that in any connection we had applied an illegal method. Extermination thoughts were not represented in my sphere of work; nor did we ever hoar anything about the fact that in the field of justice they played any part at all. We know of shoot ings of people who had been sentenced only to prison terms.
That was openly reported in the newspapers. Apart from that, these proceedings applied to four people who, under my presidency, had been sentenced to imprisonment - among them, the Eisenberger case, mentioned here. But I myself only heard of the inner connections of these events here when internal official files of the public prosecution became accessible to me. We saw and judged the facts in a different light. The country was an area of warfare. I experienced the terrors of Verdun. As far as misery was concerned, they cannot be compared with the effects of one single bombing attack lasting 45 minutes on the civilian life of this city. The principle of war which threatens life itself had been made a principle of life. We therefore understood, guided by this point of view, that the laws required harsh proceedings in the case of crimes which exploited conditions of war, and that habitual criminals, violent criminals, and saboteurs of all kinds, in view of the decreased security of the conditions as they existed in the country, had to be held down. If, on the other hand, we are told that thereby we had supported a war of aggression carried on by our government, then we can only say: "We did not know it." Once war had come, the life and existence of millions of peoples was involved, and therefrom the derived the ethical justification for severity against individuals which stood in no proportion to what was at stake. The logical calculation of war in regard to life is that hundreds of thousands of people are sacrificed to save the lives of millions, and this principle was transferred to the entire public life. In the field of criminal law this was tied to the concept of guilt. And that was how our work our activity, thus was understood. If today we are no longer understood, and if attempts are made today to judge our actions as criminal, this is not very surprising in view of a world which does not look too far below the surface of things. For the catastrophe has made all our actions appear in the destructive light of "in vain". This qualification which also applies in the field of morals, disguises all connections which might speak in our favor in the question of humanity.
This is the tragedy of cur case and we are convinced that Your Honors will not fail to see it.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Barnickel may address the Tribunal.
DEFENDANT BARNICKEL: May it please the Court: The great Frenchman Honore de Balzac, for whom I have had a great respect since the days of my youth, puts into the mouth of one of his characters, these words: "I believe justice to be a development of a divine idea which is suspended above the world." That idea, whether one shares it or not, is certainly very beautiful. It remains beautiful even if one can no longer tell that justice has that divine origin. We jurists whom fate had condemned to work in the Third Reich -- and I am by no means referring only to us who are here -- I am referring to all of them-we know what was the matter with the Administration of Justice may have worked, I believe, one must view it, in connection with the fate of the German people. Professor Jahreiss, to whom all of us in this trial listened with interest, once coined the phrase that for decades the German people had not known a normal life. Every single one of us experienced that himself. If I may make it more clear from the example of my own life, I want to read a few sentences from my diary for the last time. This is an entry which I made on the 9th June 1942, and I wrote it under the influence of a Swiss novelist, the title of which is, "Amadeus", and I quote: "When I thought about it for longer as to what I liked we much about "Amadeus", this occurred to me: It is peace. The peace in which these people live, and in which they can develop. Peace which, to us Germans, has become something quite strange because since 1914 we have not had it. Before that time we, too, lived in such an atmosphere, but since then we have always had war, or at least a pressure which amounted to war. 1914-1918 there was a war on. In 1919 an intermediate phase set in. From 1922-1923 there was the inflation. From 1924-1927 there was the deflation. From 1928-1929 there was a brief recovery. From 1930-1932 there was a financial crisis and a continuous poletical crisis.
From 1933-1939 the German people were moulded into a new cast by force. From 1939-1942 there was war. From 1942? Still war.
"I am now 57 years of age. For 18 years I was a child. 28 years after that were war years. For 11 years there was a real life. And these were the years of development -- of immaturity -- years of struggle years of suffering and poverty. But in between there were also many happy years."
That is how I looked at my life at the time. And it was similar for every average German citizen. Every normal German longed for peace, for peace, which had become something quite strange to us, and every German has that longing deep in him, just as I myself -- but it was not within his power to achieve that peace. We saw it merely like a ghost. But, the same fate which individuals have, is the fate of the spiritual institutions of its nation. And the Administration of Justice, too, shared our fate, it too was hemmed in as war and political violence which were foreign to its nature. No wonder that at the end of that last period of 30 years justice, too, had been wrecked, just as millions of people and their lives have been wrecked! Let us hope that from that destruction, new life and new culture will develop. For, after all, so far every generation has lived on the ruins, which were left by its predecessors and built its houses from those ruins. Lot us hope that what we see in Germany at this moment is already part of reconstruction and no longer of destruction, and also, I hope, that we -- as Balzac put it -- one day again shall be able to believe that Justice is the development of a divine thought which is suspended above the world!
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Petersen may address the Tribunal.
DEFENDANT PETERSEN: Your Honors, World war I signified a deep cut into the history of the German people. There existed the great danger for German of being swamped from the east. It was in the hope to prevent this that I joined the NSDAP. Germany was to become a bulwark against Bolshevism, a pillar of Western culture.
I once entertained the great hope that National Socialism would contribute its part towards this end. I do not want to describe my disappointment; the part led past stations of terror. In all my actions I was guided by the ideal of fulfilling my duty and of serving my country. It was solely my of whether conscience that formed the basis for my actions, irrespective I was an officer, SA-Leader, State counsellor, or only an honorary assistant judge of the People's Court. I have nothing further to add this. My conscience is clear. Therefore, I am calmly expecting your verdict.