THE PRESIDENT: Does that explain it?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That still does not explain this bastard page on page which seeminly has come from nowhere. As I said, I'll attempt to clear up the confusion by continuing to read the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that you are reading more of it with the hope that the rest of it will straighten this out?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor, that was my understanding. The document really does fit together in a proper manner with proper reading, except that I am unprepared to explain why, after a clear expression of the Court sentence on Page 114, the next page should state something entirely different about the carrying out of a death sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem more regular to make your investigations out of Court and then to bring it to our attention.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We'll withdraw the document, Your Honor, and present it at a later time when we can straighten this out.
Before we leave Book 3-E, there is a document, NG-633, which was distributed separately and properly belongs at the end of book 3-E.
May I inquire if Defense Counsel have copies of 633?
This document is an affidavit reading as follows:
"I, Adolf Paulus, former Senior Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg, at present resident in Bayreuth, hereby declare on oath:
"I was born on 15 April 1904 at Landshut. In 1929 I passed the government examination and was appointed Second Public Prosecutor in Landau-Pfalz on 1 January 1931. In September 1932 I was transferred to Aschaffenburg as Senior Judge of the District Court, councillor of local court, on 1 August 1935 as Senior Public Prosecutor to Amberg, and in March or May 1940 as Senior Public Prosecutor at Nurnberg. On 1 December 1942 I was assigned to the office of the Public Prosecutor at the Special Court in Nurnberg. I was attached to this until I was drafted into the Wehrmacht on 5 February 1945. I was a Party member from 1 May 1933 until the end of the war."
Skipping to the next paragraph:
"In the course of 1942, the Chief Public Prosecutor Dr. Schroeder repeatedly approached me in order to win me as a technical adviser for the office of the Public Prosecutor with the Special Court.
I have always urge on Chief Public Prosecutor Dr. Schroeder to desist from it, and I did so myself before my appointment on 1 December 1942. White Dr. Schroeder in form times acceded to my requests, he told me on 1 December 1942 that in any case he had to appoint me as technical adviser to the office of the Public Prosecutor, as there was no longer any other Public Prosecutor available. The reason for which I always refused to work in the office of the Public Prosecutor was due to the personality as well as the method of conducting the trials of the former director of the district court Rothaug. I did not know of these things from my own experience at that time, but from description made by some of my colleagues. "Today I am in a position to give the folio positive description of Rothaug: He is a man of outstanding intelligence. He has a talent of communicating his opinion to others suggestively. As far as he is concerned, only his opinion is the correct one. He does not allow other people's opinions. The main feature of his character is a complete lack of self control and dependence on his momentary moods. He once explained to me his habit of making political, ideological or philosophical speeches during the trials by saying that it was only possible in this manner to make the audience comprehend the verdict. He also demanded that the Public Prosecutor expound such viewpoints in his speech.
"As to the director of the district court Oeschey, I always had the impression that he strove to imitate the methods of Dr. Rothaug. From accounts of a colleague -- as far as I remember it was the Senior Public Prosecutor Dr. Herold -- I know that Oeschey, as a Senior Judge of the district court did not as yet have the character he showed later on as President of the Special Court. Oeschey was, moreover, thoroughly susceptible to other people's opinions, at least to a much higher degree than Dr. Rothaug.
"With regard to the Lopata case, in that trial I was merely deputy prosecutor. I admit that the death penalty pronounced in this case was a severe punishment. As far as I remember, the death penalty was proposed by by the Public Prosecution because Dr. Rothaug told me that after the production of the evidence, the court would recognize the death penalty.
It remained for the Public Prosecutors to follow the instructions of the Reich Ministry of Justice and to propose the penalty in accordance with the verdict which was expected. The fact that the court applied Article 4 of the ordinance against parasites is due to the fact that the Reich Supreme Court had, in no uncertain manner, expressed in its decree that this ordinance should be applied. I can not deny, however, that the decree of the Reich Supreme Court did not compet the Special Court to pronounce the death sentence. The court, according to the decree mentioned, was free to pronounce a term of imprisonment. Rothaug was very severe towards foreigners and, in the case of Lopata, exceeded by far the 'sound sentiment of the people'."
Skipping to the end, we find: "Nurnberg, 15 January 1947, /signed/ Adolf Paulus, Senior Public Prosecutor."
The Prosecution offers this document as Exhibit Number 180.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May we at this time turn to Document Book 3-G.
May I inquire if the Court and the Defense Counsel have copies of 3-G?
I believe Dr. Schilf indicated that he did not have his.
I wonder if I may inquire of the Tribunal, in view of the fact that some of the Defense Counsel do not have Document Book 3-G with them, whether we should proceed now or wait until they return from their offices?
THE PRESIDENT: I think they should be present when we proceed. I wonder how long it will take.
MR. KING: I think it is only a matter of a minute or so while they go up and get them.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll suspend for just a moment or two until they return.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their scats.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 181, the prosecution will now introduce the Document NG-155, which is to be found beginning on Page 10 of the Document Book 3-G.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it by your numbering then, that you will disregard the number of NG-337 and treat it as withdrawn entirely?
MR. KING: I did not confer with Mr. Wooleyhan before he left the courtroom as to what his intentions in the matter are. I think that perhaps since he is not here that we had best follow his suggestion, Your Honor, and withdraw that.
A moment ago I said the Document NG-155 begins on Page 10; actually, we will begin reading from Page 11, the Case of August Bonness.
IN THE NAME OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE
In the case against the publisher August Bonness, of Potsdam, born on the 3 June 1890 in Dessau, at present in custody pending trial in this case oh the charge of undermining the fighting morale and of giving encouragement to the enemy, the first Section of the People's Court, in its principle session of 15 February 1944, the fallowing taking part, as judges:
"-- There follows a list of judges which we will omit readings "has ruled as follows:
In the year 1943, especially in August 1943, in front of members of the Potsdam Civilian Club and of an employee of his publishing firm, the Defendant made repeated attempts through defeatist talk at undermining the German will to resist. He did the whilst advocating among other things the abolition of the National-Socialist Government.
In this way he was serving the interests of the enemy at the same time.
The defendant therefore is sentenced to death.
He has lost his civic rights for ever.
His property is Confiscated."
We turn now to Page 12 in the English, and begin reading at the bottom, which appears to be the first full paragraph on the bottom of that page. "This Civilian Club was particularly exclusive up to World War I, only high ranking civil servants and officers being accepted without difficulty, while members of the independent professions were only admitted by way of exception.
This closed circle only became less exclusive after World liar I, when the Club was in need of money and therefore attached importance to member who were well-off. It was for this reason that the defendant who was wellto-do was not admitted until 1920. And the Potsdam Civilian Club, too, which at that time had 300 members, while in 1943 it had only 65, had always been patriotic until World War I. It was from this time on, it seems, that a change gradually came about at least in some of its members. These people still rested on the laurels which they had perhaps won under the impire and therefore thought themselves entitled to the privilege of special treatment. They lacked contact with the people as well as the fighting spirit. They had kept silent when their emperor Wilhelm II came to an inglorious end in the Netherlands and also when Judaism; Marxism; and later Communism began to raise their heads with increasing insolence and power. They had stood aloof disapprovingly when the National Socialist movement sprang up from the heart of the people and the least they did in these days to show sympathy was: on one occasion for the "Stahlhelm". In spite of this they were at first astonished; and then more and more irritated, when national socialist reconstruction went on without them and when people left them, quietly on one side still clinging to their yesterday, and did not give them the places of honor they expected. Of course they did not dare express their irritation loudly for the Nazis were not to be trifled with. Besides it was evident to everybody who was not a hopeless die hard that national socialism had led the German people with gigantic steps out of misery and humiliation to take up its position in the world again. They had to admit as well that the new German Wehrmacht in its battles in Poland, Norway, France, in the Balkans and in Russia was at least equal in efficiency to the old one and that it was even superior to it in rapidity of action and in its annihilating encircling battles. But when later set-backs occurred, as cannot be avoiked in any more lengthy war, set backs which in Russia were due to a period of exceptional cold such as had not been experienced for 100 years, and in the East and South to the base treachery of the House of Savoy and the Badoglio clique, the senile heads began to war and shake and bleat. "Why, if it had not...., if it were not...." And now these old gentlemen would crouch together over their morning and evening drinks at the Club table, their courage wavering more and more as their anxiety increased, waiting for every alarming rumor which somebody would bring into their isolated worlds In peace-times one can overlook such bleating at insignificant club-tables, when those drinking seek to let the air escape from their beer- and wineinflated bellies, exchanging their witless gossip exclusively among themselves.
Should such diehards be inaccessible to all reasoning, there is a good remedy in peact time: to put them into cold storage and ignore them until they die. The main thing is to win over progressive-minded youth, senil weaklings can be ignored and left to their absurdity.
But in war it is different, in particular in a war which is already in its fifth year, and which demands the greatest sacrifices from everybody on the front as well as at home. There are many whose knees shake and the most foolish gossip is sufficient to depress them entirely, especially if these responsible for the gossip belong to the highest circles of society. Besides this there is the danger that such old mischief-makers will not only spill their poison at their club-table, but that they will try out its effect on their relatives, employees and other acquaintances too.
Now ever if it has not been established that all these members who used to sit with the defendant round the Civilian Club-table, griped in the same mean, anti-national manner as he, they did nevertheless listen quietly, to his talk and mostly they gave no answers or only made feeble opposition; they warned him ail right, but not because of the object-treason of such talk, but rather, as they put it, because one might be caught by the Gestapo for such gossip. Those old gentlemen were, it appears, fully aware of the fact that the remarks represented a danger to the state as well as a crime, and they did not do what would have seemed perfectly natural to any real German to punch the odious bitcher's lousy trap or, if they had not the courage to do so, denounce him at least to the Gestapo to shut him up.
The defendant entered this circle in 1920."
We turn now to Page 15, under the heading: "The Facts."
"In the summer of 1943 at a meeting in the Civilian Club as well as in the presence of his employees, the defendant is said to have talked in a way calculated to undermine the morale, particularly in 4 respects as established in the main proceedings of the trial.
He said:
1. ) That the Fuehrer had provoked and hurt Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin to such a degree, that it was impossible to bring them together at a conference table for peace negotiations.
2. ) That the National Socialist Government ought to be replaced by a group of patriotic Germans, particularly German officers, who would form a military dictatorship.
3. ) That when this group had concluded the peace negotiations, it should be replaced by a monarchy, that is, Prince Louis Ferdinand, second son of the former Kronprinz, should be the monarch.
4. ) That Mussolini bad resigned on purpose so that a separate peace should be concluded with the enemy powers through his successor.
"Whereas, during the preliminary proceedings, the defendant clearly admitted after repeated interrogation that he had spoken badly at several club meetings, as well as in front of his employees ROSENTHAL and STOLZENBERG, he denied everything during the main session in court. He tries to explain his former depositions, in spite of their exactitude even as to details, by the fact that during the interrogation he was altogether confused: When the defendant insinuated that it the said interrogation he was dealt with in a particularly harsh manner and when the presiding judge retorted that according to the information he had gathered from the Gestapo such a statement was a lie, and that the female recording clerk who had attended that interrogation was at hand to be heard as a witness the defendant no longer dared produce statements pointing at mis-treatment. The two witnesses BOETTGER and BROEER who both attended meeting at the club the latter being a member of the board of directors in the Civilian Club had made equally exact statements at the preliminary proceedings in respect of these 4 remarks of the defendant, and their statements all coincided with each other. During the main session they too pretended they were quite confused at the previous interrogations and withdraw their farmer depositions. Then vigorously remonstrated with, BOETTGER gradually lost himself more and more in such contradictions that soon he did not know where he was himself and sheed that obviously, advanced degree of selecosis in this old man of 71 made it impossible to admit him as a useful witness BROEER, when seriously remonstrated with, changed his attitude again and declared now that his deposition before the Police, to the effect that the defendant had made his remarks on various occasions, were correct.
In addition to this the witness colonel von STUEMER, an East African veteran of the greatest merit affirmed that the defendant had made the remark 2 and that remark 3 also might have been made, but that Fie no longer remembered it. The remark about MUSSOLIMI had been made in August, the others before that. And here one of the defendant's lies broke down, for he pretended that he had been travelling all the times from the middle of June 1943 onwards and had not been any more in the Civilian Club. In reality he was in Postdam during August 1943 for several weeks.
The witness ROSENTHAL, who was employed as a correspondent in the defendant's firm also declared that the defendant repeatedly expressed his anxiety as to an unfortunate end of the war and affirmed that he had said the Fuehrer could not meet his opponents any more at the conference--table on account of mutual provocation and he would therefore have to be replaced by a group of German patriots, in particular old officers.
The court could not have any doubt that these it remarks had been made on different nights, at the club meetings, and that remarks 1 and 2 had also been made in front of ROSENTHAL. The witness BROEER states that the defendant was warned repeatedly by himself and others that he should abstain from such mischief - making lost he be caught by the Gestapo.
Talk of the kind under 2) and. 3) can only make people wonder how an experienced man, and the head of a great publishing house, could deal out such childish nonsense. The idea of the same adversaries as in 1918, who then overthrew the Hohenzellerns and sponsored the public, now allowing the republic on the contrary to be replaced by a military dictatorship of all things and later by a now Hohenzellern monarchy, and the idea of STALIN sponsoring such a turn of events, is so absurd that only a morbid brain could possibly grasp it. But there is no question of the defendant's soundress of mind being impaired, for he is an extremely clever business man. His odious gossip originates merely in a greatly exaggerated c raving for attention and in his hatred of the NSDAP which rejected him and quite rightly for being a former high-grade freemason.
His entire past as related above shows the defendant to be a "Jack-cf-alltrades" who takes up everything and joining in whatever promises him a dazzling role in the public eye, - a man who tries his sails according to which way the wind blows strongest, who is now "deutschvoelkisch", now "deutschnational" then Jewish-liberal and who finally tries to creep into National Socialism.
But that this talk, childish as it may have been in itself, could have a highly danger us effect and fall on fertile ground is demonstrated by its repeated acceptance at the club-table.
The old gentlemen mostly remained silent, some of them would nod and others would even declare that from the theoretical point of view the matter might be discussed. The provocations were thus apt, at least in the case of these old gentlemen, to paralyze the spirit of resistance against the attacks of enemy powers, and the spirit of defense and self-preservation. If such remarks are to be qualified punishable as "undermining of the morale of the Armed Forces", they must have been made "in public". Beth the People's Court and the Supreme Military Court of the Reich agree in their conception that the intention of the gossiper or only his consciousness perhaps that he was addressing a larger, and not narrowly exclusive circle of persons simultaneously or consecutively is sufficient to establish such a case. As the proceedings, have shown quite clearly there was permanent fluctuation in the attendance at club gatherings. Besides this, each member was allowed to bring guests and furthermore the members, apart from the fact that they all belonged to the Club, were mostly strangers to each ether, so that there can be no talk of a firm, small and closely - intimate circle of friends, There is still the fact that besides his gossip at the Club-- table the defendant, made his odious remarks in front of his employee ROSENTHAL too, thus obviously showing that he was only too glad to seize the opportunity at hand to impress the man with his philosophy, which was certainly childish out which was dangerous too on account of the risk of its spreading.
In order to exonerate himself the defendant has now brought forward proofs that he always sponsored both the old and the new Wehrmacht as well as the technical Emergency Service or the Union of Service Troops or the S.A. He also claims that he always talked to party-leaders in a sense which showed positive acceptance of the state. The Court accepted this statement as true, since the picture of the defendant we have sketched above as a Jack-of-alltrade is only completed by these interrogations. The defendant was far to smart to make himself unpopular with Party Leaders or officers of the regular army by mischief-making.
The punishment.
It has thus been shown that all the requirements are fulfilled for the establishing of the crime of undermining the defensive spirit as they are laid down in the law (Par. 5 1 if the Special Military Penal Code). In normal cases the law prescribes capital punishment, and only permits prison terms in less serious cases. In the present criminal case there can be no thought of a "loss serious case". The person concerned is a business-man owning a fortune of approximately 1 Million Marks as well as a taxed not income of 150,000 barks perannum as he himself assessed it in the lost years, a person who should feel grateful to the present government for permitting him so large a benefit. If such a leading businessman misuses his commercial reputation to destroy patriotism in old officers and public servants and, what is worse, to use his defeatist influence on an employee who is defendant on him, he must be exterminated as a source of infection in the German people. Thus only the normal punishment for the undermining of the defensive spirit to undermine the united will of the German people for self-defense he also committed the crime of proenemy activity (Per 91 b Penal Code.) The punishment had however to be chosen from the paragraph on undermining of the morale spirit of the defensive Armed Forces which provides the heavier punishment.
The proceedings have shown that this captain of commerce puts his money and his business above the welfare of the fatherland. Justice therefore take them from him and use them to a better purpose for the good of the German people. The court has consequently conliscated the defendant's property excepting, however, a certain amount to be left to the defendant's wife for her maintenance and that the workers and employees keep their positions.
It goes without saying that such an infamous crime, by which the monarchist in 1943 tried to stab the front-line soldier in the back is just the same cowardly way as the Jew and Marxist did in 1918, will cause the offender to lose his civil rights for ever."
That is signed by two names representing the judges. It will be noted from the portions of the opinion which we have just read that it was the case first heard before the 1st Senate of the People's Court on the 15th of February 1944. The case was next heard before the People's Court on 8 July, before the Special Senate of the People's Court, at which Dr. Freisler presided. We also wish to read certain portions from that opinion; from that verdict. May I inquire at this time whether the Court would like us to proceed with the rest of this document tonight; it should take approximately fifteen minutes, which would be twenty minutes to five. If the Court is willing, we are willing to proceed and complete this document.
THE PRESIDENT: We will utilize the four minutes that remain; you can go a little further.
MR. KING: I am now about to read from page 21 in the English text, from the opinion-verdict of the Special Sinate People's Court,which was heard on 8 July, 1944 NG-155 -
"August Bonness who after attending high school (Gymansium) entered the business of his father as publisher and managed this business later on for a long time independently, is in a good financial position. He estimates his yearly income at 150,000 Reichsmarks.
He did his duty during the First World War, received the Iron Cross Second Class and was finally also promoted to the rank of officer. For organizational cooperation he received the Silesian Eagle. He was always interested in the German defense idea, established several veterans associations, was active in them and created the well-known Museum of Tin Soldiers in Plassenburg Kulmbach, which according to him now consists cf over 250,000 tin Soldiers and which represents historical events in true-to-life dioramas. BONNESS attached special significance to the fact that among these tin Soldier exhibits there is also a true-to-vature representation of the Nurnberg Party Rally and the Act of State of Potsdam.
August BONNESS says that he had always been a very nationalisticallyminded person, points out that he was business manager of the citizens" council of Postdam during the time of the collapse after the World War and that he was a member of the "Stahlhelm" until it was incorporated into the NSDAP.
He further states that he sympathized with the Nazi Party even before the seizure of power and he submitted documents which show that since 1931 he gave material support to the formations of the Party. From 1933 on he also supported the formations cf the Party and contributed considerable amounts for collections, which, however, was to be expected in view of the size cf his income.
He did net become a member of the Nazi Party or of one cf its formations. But that would have been impossible, because he was freemason of 6th degree.
Bonness' enterprise numbers about 200 staff members. Bonness emphasized that he took special care cf his staff, ever and above the requirements. Thus he took out an insurance for them which provided for considerable payments (2000 Reichsmarks to 15000 Reichsmarks) to the individual staff members after they had served in his enterprise for a certain period.
"Although all of this - except for his former freemasonry and his not being a member of cur Party or of one of its formations - would lead to the conclusion, that, especially now, in this battle of destiny for our people he would be an example of a man with strong principles, on several occasions, he made strong undermining and defeatist statement."
I think I can complete what I want to read in two minutes. I turn now to page 27, of the English text, the second fall paragraph from the bottom of the page:
"By such continuous defeatism Bonness turned himself at the same time into a tool for the propaganda of cur war enemies. For the weakening of our inner stability and of our strength fer resistance and fighting in general as well as the shaking of our belief in victory is one of the main 'weapons' on which air enemies reckon. A man like Bonness knows too that such undermining of the morale aids the enemy.
"The man who does such a thing, and in the fourth year of war, reveals himself as a traitor to nation in its struggle and has lost his honor forever. He must be punished by death without any possible merits he may have acquired being taken into consideration. For treason allows of no compensation by merits, as would naturally be possible if only mistakes had been made. The safety of the Reich demands this punishment; the soldiers on our fronts demand it. They must be assured that no 1918 reoccurs behind their backs. This punishment is necessary because defeatism easily becomes a disease. and it is especially necessary in this case because Bonness is a man in a high position whose duty it is especially to set an example.
"Under the protection of the Reich Bonness earned a great deal and was able to acquire a considerable fortune. Nevertheless he has betrayed our Reich and our nation. It is only just that this fortune be confiscated. No consideration has to be taken either on close defendants who should not suffer guiltlessly and unnecessarily because of Bonness' treason. For Boness has no children and his wife, according to his own statement, possesses property amounting to about 100,000 Reichsmarks" And this is signed by Dr. Froisler and Dr. Schlomann.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this time until tomorrow morning at 0930.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 28 March 1987 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 28 March 1947, 0930, Justice Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you please ascertain if all of the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all of the defendants are present in the Courtroom with the exception of the defendants Rothaug and Engert who are absent through illness.
THE PRESIDENT: A proper notation will be made.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution has announced that of the number there will be heard as witnesses tho former Oberlandesgerichtrat Goeringer and the former Oberlandesgerichtsrat Gerber from Nurnberg. The subject under evidence has not boon stated but I assume that the two witnesses will be examined about events which concern my client Rothaug. The two witnesses are of tho greatest importance for my client. My written motion of 21 March and at this trial before the Tribunal has pointed out that it makes things very difficult for my client if these important witnesses are heard in his absence. Naturally I cannot guage whether it is absolutely necessary that the case Rothaug ms being dealt will now. I would ask tho Tribunal to decide whether those important witnesses must be examined at this juncture or whether a way could be found to examine these witnesses two weeks later?
MR. KING: May it please the Court. I believe tho prosecution is already on record as to its wishes in this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all may we inquire whether the testimony of these two witnesses will relate to the defendant Rothaug?
MR. KING: Defense counsel assumes correctly; they will. The testimony in part will relate to the defendant Rothaug. We have previously stated to the Court and to defense counsel outside of court that we would permit, so far as we were concerned, any amount of time that ho deemed necessary, either during or after the time that the witnesses testify so that he could confer with his client in so far as it was necessary because of what these witnesses had said.
It's going to seriously jeopardize, even make it impossible to present this evidence if we have to wait for another month which, according to the testimony of the prison physician, is the time that will elapse before the defendant Rothaug may be expected back in Court. May that reason we do not at this time make a counter suggestion in addition to the ones we have already made.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question? Does your offer include the idea that the daily transcript of testimony could be put into the hands of the defendant Rothaug and his counsel and that they would be permitted to cross examination after the defendant Rothaug has actually seen the verbaty transcript of the testimony against him?
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor. When defense counsel first approached Mr. Wooleyhan and myself on the proposition a week ago we suggested that possibility. We said that we did not see how his client could be harmed under the circumstances that we proposed which were, one, that he would be, so far as we were concerned, entitled and permitted to have a copy of the transcript and such recess, at least so far as cross examination of the witness was concerned, until that transcript had been examined by his client.
JUDGE BRAND: Thank you.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, the difficulty of this suggestion from the prosecution is mainly that the German transcripts are only received by us after considerable delay; at least six, even more days pass until the transcripts reach us. If it is certain that the transcript on this examination reach me quickly then I am in agreement with the suggestion of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: We will not rule on this matter until the beginning of the afternoon session today but we will rule on it today so that arrangements can be made well in advance.
It might be well to have an estimate on the part of the prosecution as to how rapidly the German translation can be produced.
MR. KING: Your Honor, that is not under the control of the prosecution We have absolutely nothing to do with the processing of the transcript itself. We receive our copy of the English in the same manner that the Secretary-General docs and while we might add our weight to that of the Court requesting expedition of the production of the German transcript, we are, certainly not the controlling personnel in the distribution or production.
JUDGE BRAND: But we do understand you to offer that defense counsel may have opportunity to read the German translation of the daily transcript of those oral examinations and their after to have the opportunity to cross examine?
MR. KING: That's correct.
JUDGE BRAND: Regardless of when the transcript and the German translation reach them?
MR. KING: That, of course, is signing a blank check, your Honor, but I don't think under the circumstances we can state it any differently.
JUDGE BRAND: Perhaps the Court can help in getting those transcripts to the defendant in a hurry.
MR. KING: That would be appreciated.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter will be ruled upon at 1:30 in the afternoon. proceed with your prosecution.
DR. KING: At the close of the session yesterday afternoon the prosecution was in the midst of presenting the Document NG-155 which will become Exhibit 181 when formally offered in evidence, which is the case, as the Court will recall of on August Bonness and it involves two appearances before the Peoples Court on charges of malicious utterances which undermine the defensive fighting strength of the army. I wish at this time to correct an inadvertence which has been pointed out to me this morning by one of defense counsel. He recalls that I said regarding the second of those appearances by Bonness before the Peoples Court that it was before the Special Senate of the Peoples Court.
That, as can be seen by referring to the opinion verdict itself, is not the case. The second hearing was before the First Senate of the Peoples Court, both of then being heard before that Senate. One in February and the other in July of 1944. We completed reading of the second opinion verdict on page 23. We now invite the Court to turn to page 38 of the English text. That is a letter dated, Berlin, 24 February 1944. This letter refers back to the first opinion before the First Senate of the Peoples Court. This is addressed to the Reich minister of Justice, care of the Senior Public Prosecutor -- I should say, care of the Senior public prosecutor Dr. Franke or his deputy in office. It concerns the death sentence against the publisher August Bonness of Potsdam. I read only the last two paragraphs of that letter:
"Enclosed I am submitting the proceedings concerning the publisher Bonness who on 15 February 1944 was sentenced to death by the First Section of the People's Court of Justice. The sentence is in keeping with the proposal of my substitute at the session.
"The condemned is in custody pending execution of the sentence at the prison of the District Court in Potsdam. I have ordered his transfer to the penitentiary at Brandenburg (Havel) Goerden.
"A clemency file will be submitted later."
That is signed by Lautz.
May I ask the Court to turn now to Page 41 of the English text. There are marginal notes on this document, which is a letter from the Reich Minister Thierack to the Party Member Stuertz. Those marginal notes I shall not read. This is dated 25 September 1944 to Gauleiter Stuertz, "Re: Criminal case against the publisher August Bonness of Potsdam for undermining the morale of the Armed Forces.
"Dear Party Comrade Stuertz?
"On 8 July 1944 the People's Court sentenced to death the year old publisher august Bonness of Potsdam for undermining the morale of the armed forces. I refer to the facts as contained in the annexed copy of the sentence.
"I now have to decide whether the sentence is to be carried out or whether it is to be suggested to the Fuehrer that the sentence be modified. For the following reasons, I consider that exceptionally a reprieve could be granted to the condemned."
We now skip to the last paragraph of that letter on the following page:
"In view of the nature of his remarks and considering the personality of the offender, I do not think his crime so hideous as to make the execution an absolute necessity, I therefore intend to suggest to the Fuehrer exceptionally that the death sentence be converted into penal servitude for eight years, but before doing so, I should like to have your opinion on the case as soon as possible.