Furthermore, I pointed out he was very cynical concerning clergymen. On the other hand I stated that Cuhorst, particularly when he was concerned with simple people, could be very nice and kindhearted. I can remember cases where ho comforted defendants, men and women, particularly country people. Ho told them not to be afraid, but to merely tell him what had actually happened.
I refused to sign that Cuhorst liked to give the defendants a bad color. I tried to get the word "bad" eradicated. I wanted to have it replaced by "ridiculous." It is correct, however, that Cuhorst called defendants names which were regarded as offenses by these people. I do not remember any definite expressions, but I believe it is possible that he said to one defendant or another that he was a scoundrel. But those were times, when one could think like that. I am of the opinion that a judge, even if he thinks that, should not say such things because he may be considered to be prejudiced.
Furthermore, they made the suggestion I should say that Cuhorst frequently insulted the defendants in a cynical way. Here, too, I tried to say that nothing should of said beyond the fact that he frequently treated the defendants in a cynical manner, however, I was told that cynical treatment, in itself, always constituted an insult, and that expression remained in the affidavit. That Cuhorst treated the defendants cynically was correct.
Concerning the questions of motions for evidence, I have already made a statement. But the sentence on Page 2, concerning Cuhorst and unpleasant interruptions, such as making a motion for defense, stated he considered those to be obstacle, and he opposed them with a sovereign air. That, again, is not my own sentence.
Concerning this question of motions for evidence I point out, frequently, motions for evidence wore refused because there was a danger that if a witness had been examined, no further facts would be permitted. Actually, it was the intention of the Court to help the Defendant. For that reason, the Court and Cuhorst, frequently, wanted to prevent that witness from being examined because stupid things might be said which would not help him. It made it difficult for the Court to pass a more leient sentence or to acquit the defendant.
I state here that such cases actually did occur and that many defense Counsel did not understand why their applications were being refused.
When I made that statement before my interrogator, he said that I must make that statement. He told me he felt like taking me to see a psychiatrist. The indictment hod to be detailed. I also stated that Cuhorst had a very clean understanding of essentials concerning the statement by the interrogator. It states that Cuhorst had not been able to read the files properly. I had to take the part of Cuhorst and I said that that was not the case. Cuhorst, on the contray, was able very quickly to gain insight. I also stat.d that Cuhorst, naturally, did look at the files, but that it was correct his knowledge of the files frequently was inadequate.
The interrogator hold the view that Cuhorst was stupid. I, however stated that that was not at all true, and that Cuhorst, above all, in practical matters, was superior to many people.
The phrasing of the sentence that Cuhorst, through the indictment, had to be taught the essential facts, was not my own. It is correct that Cuhorst was satisfied with the general outlines of the case, but from that skeleton, he developed the case.
He was considered to bo very clever in conducting trials. I also pointed out that fact. A great many difficulties arose. Frequently, it was not possible for Cuhorst to study the files in the same way in which another judge who had more time might do. I intended to have a sentence on that point put into the transcript, and unless I am wrong, I myself, added it in handwriting at the end of the transcript, but this sentence was crossed out.
After many discussions, I did have this sentence entered. The Penal Court at Stuttgart and the Penal Senate for a long time, particularly, in smaller cases, revised their laws concerning offenses. I pointed cut and explained that Cuhorst in Berlin, for that very reason, was subjected to criticism because again and again, he revised these measures. I pointed out that the President of the District Court of appeals, Kuesner, in my memory, at least once was ordered to Berlin to explain Cuhorst's attitude.
I also know that in 1940, such discussions did take place in Berlin and that at that time, it was they were threatening to replace Cuhorst with a Prussian judge who would bring along with him a very severe attitude.
I believe I remember for certain that I told this, too, to the interrogator. I furthermore pointed out that in several cases, whose lists of cases were compiled at Berlin, which lists stated the sentence had been too lenient. There were many discussions and arguments because of that. I also told the interrogator that I read at least one case where actually a Ministerial Counselor from Berlin came to Stuttgart with such list.
The list was discussed at Stuttgard. The Ministerial Counselor returned to Berlin, and nothing was changed after that. Furthermore, I told the interrogator that in my opinion, the Special Courts at Munich, Dresden and Stuttgard, were regarded in Berlin as the most lenient Special Courts. Their reputation was bad because of that. On the other hand, I did admit to him that in Stuttgard very severe verdicts, were passed too, above all, at the time when the war became more critical. Cuhorst was the man who was the most obstinate in his attempts to put on the brake.
In connection with that question, the interrogator entered the sentence that Cuhorst had kept a balance by inhumanly severe judgments, so that even the R.J.M. saw reason to commute death sentences into prison sentences. The words "inhumanly severe" are not my own. I tried to say merely that cross verdicts had been passed. My own statements were essentially the same as those contained here with the exception of the statement concerning the support for Klautzer from the Party, which the interrogator entered.
I would like to make further corrections. On Page 4, it says that "Klaussner ...." That should say "Klautzer" --" had been considered for reacquiring his qualification as a soldier, and that the Stuttgart Court had supported that." As far as I know, on Friday morning I pointed out to the interrogator for the prosecution that that word "support of the Stuttgart Court" could not bo right, as far as I remember it; that probably that might be a typing error. Whether in February when I deposed this affidavit I said that, I don't remember now. In truth it should say that the question of reacquiring his qualification as a soldier had the support of the public prosecutor. I, myself, signed for that, and I believe that the statement containing this recommendation is with the files.
In the Schmidt case, I believe I spent a whole day opposing the judgment of the case as it is contained here. First of all, the question was, "How many field post consignments had been robbed by this man Schmidt?" First of all, I was told that he had only taken 60 cigarettes; but as I remember it, 60 cases were concerned. I do no longer remember, however, whether that is ***** 2021 mentioned in the indictment or whether that was said in the verdict.
No argued, and finally, so to speak, we came to agree on the 30 to 50 per cent basis. And these were our reasons for making it 50: the brief by a lawyer Diessem in which he defended himself concerning his plea before Glueck concerning the statement that it might have been 50 packets of cigarettes -- he gives that as a maximum. The figure 30 was arrived at because the interrogator for the prosecution made out a calculation saying that Schmidt had committed such thefts for about three months, and that, I believe, he had taken such packets about two or three times a week. That was how the figure 30 was arrived at. I pointed out that Cuhorst did not interrupt the defense counsel in a loud or senseless tone, but that for quite a long time ho lot him talk, and that in a way which surprised me. Only after Diessem had made most of his statements which were embarrassing to me too, Cuhorst interrupted him with a question which was put quietly, although in a tone of excitement. The question was: "Is the homeland not to fight?" That is all. My statement was corroborated because Diessem in his letter to Glueck made the same statement.
The sentence, "Cuhorst , who did not tolerate such a statement from the defense counsel, interrupted them and expressed his distaste", is exaggerated, and docs not represent the true facts. In that phrasing, the sentence is not my own. Nor is this sentence mine, "Cuhorst in a letter to Glueck, the president of the laywers' chamber, demanded and got the suspension of Diessem from the Special Court and the Penal Chumber as defense counsel." That results merely from the fact that somewhat English sounding phrases can be found here. Nor did I ever know what Cuhorst wrote to Glueck, at any rate, I do not remember.
As far as I know, I never read or saw the letter; nor can I testify today that Cuhorst demanded Diessem's suspension. That sentence too and that statement too were dictated by the interrogator. Insofar as my statement-- if it is to be considered as a statement and as a version of my own -- it is not correct.
As to the case of Schmidt, I said that, "Schmidt had a whole list of previous convictions." The interrogator put it to me that only two cases had occurred. I no longer knew that, and so the only thing that wont into the transcript was: "previous convictions for bogging." Today, I state that I remember that the list of previous convictions for begging was very long. I pointed out that the verdict was severe, but that it could hardly be avoided under the instructions at that time to pronounce the death sentence. I declared that the Reich Ministry of Justice had issued very stringent decrees and I pointed out that had Schmidt not been sentenced to death at the time, probably a nullity plea would have been suggested by the Reich Ministry of Justice, and that finally Schmidt would have been sentenced to death in any case. Whether that point of view in any way influenced Cuhorst, I don't know. I told the interrogator that that was merely my view. The sentence that, "that verdict could not be upheld from the human point of view"; that sentence I acknowledged finally because at that time I was of the opinion that the personal extenuating circumstances of the case might have led to justifying another sentence rather than the death sentence. I pointed out that thefts of field post consignments at that time was very frequent, and for that reason the punishment had to be very severe to act as a deterrent.
Furthermore, I made the following statement in that connection; that Cuhorst, generally speaking, held the view that death sentences which had been passed when he w s presiding judge were to bo executed; and that he refused to announce a death sentence and afterwards to support a pardon plea. That I always regretted that attitude of Cuhorst because I, myself, was of the opinion that human points of view should be considered after all concerning the question as to whether the sentence was to be executed: and in the case Schmidt, too, I regarded and declared the human reasons s so important that they should have been considered. In the Fritz case I pointed out in favor of Cuhorst that that case had been far from easy, although the Reich Public Prosecutor considered it the part of the main case and had transferred it to Stuttgart. I told him that we were not only concerned with the handing over of one so-called illegal pamphlets but that the pamphlets had been produced and distributed in several editions. As far as I remember, there had been four or five monthly issues which came out from about September 1941 to February. I pointed out several defendants were not only indicted for having passed on pamphlets, but that some defendants had also taken part in producing the pamphlets. I had long arguments to get the following sentences into the transcript; besides Fritz and Wagner were indicted with having given assistance. This work "assistance" by the interrogator, concerning Wagner, I meant in a purely exterior way for in the case of Wagner she had hidden the typewriter or duplicating machine, and she had moved the pamphlets; and at least once she had passed on the manuscript for such a newspaper. The verdict stated that she had known what was in the room; but concerning the defendant Fritz I pointed out that he was the leader of the group, and that he was the spiritual loader.
In the case of the defendant Jatzek I pointed out that Jatzek had, among other things, given shelter to a communist functionary, but I. must make corrections; I believe here that the interrogator for the prosecution mentioned that point, but it was not entered in the transcript.
Furthermore, I declared that a number of the defendants had political previous convictions, and that for preparing high treason; and that some of them had been in protective custody; and, therefore, had had a warning. The only thing that was entered into the transcript concerned the previous convictions of the defendant Jatzek; and I believe it was a mistake as to how this question was entered into the transcript. Concerning Jatzek it said he alone had previous convictions. In this phrasing that is incorrect. I told the interrogator that as far as I remembered Jatzek had been the only one who had. criminal previous convictions, that is to say, for theft, fraud, or other offenses, and that is how it can be explained perhaps that that phrasing was entered in the transcript, as it was done on page five at the bottom. I clearly stated that the others, that the other than two, that most of them had previous convictions. I was under the impression that there was a tendency to minimize the Fritz case, and I tried to represent it as it happened; I even handed the interrogator a written statement on that case which was not used as a basis for the transcript. That statement on the Fritz case is no longer in the possession of the prosecution because I took it away with me.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May the Court please, I keep hearing the witness saying that this was not included in the transcript. I wonder if he means "affidavit". I think surely he must be saying "affidavit". If he is speaking, if he is saying "transcript", then ho is making a very ineffective statement. I think he is saying "affidavit", but I would like to have him asked what he is saying.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Now, Dr. Schwarz, when you use the word "transcript" you are referring to the transcript of your testimony as carried into the affidavit, are you?
A. The word -
Q. Yes or no will answer that question.
A. There was not a second transcript which was then summarized in this affidavit, but this affidavit is the only thing which I signed.
Apart from written statements -
Q. One moment, then when you used the word "transcript" you mean "affidavit"; do you? "Yes" or "No" will answer that.
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That answers it. Now, go ahead with your narrative.
A. Concerning the question as to how Cuhorst behaved during the trial of the Fritz case, I said, that, for example, in the case of Wagner he barked at her several tines because she was talking in such a soft voice that at the best one could hardly hear what she was saying. From that arose the sentence which is not my own, and that Frau Wagner was made the particular aim of his humiliation. I an of the view that his behavior toward Frau Wagner was too severe.
Concerning the question of the death sentences which were passed, I pointed out the following fact in favor of Cuhorst. When I had finished my plea, following the instructions from the Reich ministry of Justice, I had demanded the death sentence for all defendants and after defense counsel had spoken the session was ended and the sentences were to be announced the following day. It was very late when evidence was taken, when the taking of evidence was finished. As far as I remember, it was late in the evening. I told the interrogator that after the end, when evidence had been taken, I wont to Cuhorst, to his room, and that Cuhorst reproached me severely because of the sentences which I had demanded which, in his view, were impossible. I told Cuhorst that I shared his view; that I myself did not consider the sentences justified, but I had to follow the instructions from the public Prosecutor and the Reich ministry of Justice which demanded the death sentences. Cuhorst spoke to me in a way which I had never heard from him before. He was actually furious with me and said the prosecution had got around shouldering the responsibility to differentiate among the various defendants concerning their sentences and had shifted the entire responsibility on to the court.
My only reply was that that was correct; that I approved them-correction, showed them the decrees from the Reich Ministry of Justice, which I remember for certain were signed by the Department Head Krone, and that we had to wait which made it impossible for me to avoid following the instructions. I also told cuhorst that in my view, only in a few cases the death sentence could be considered at all; and, that I was prepared, if the People's Senate would refrain from passing the death sentence, in every single case, to defend, in my report to Berlin--in every single case the fact that the death sentence was not to be pronounced. I did so in my report on the sentences to Berlin, and nullity plea was not made. When the Penal Senate passed only five death sentences instead of the eleven which had been demanded, personally I was of the view that in three cases the death sentence should not have been passed; that, at least, a pardon was necessary and that I had persuaded the Public Prosecutor Wagner to support such a pardon. That I said earlier, under those circumstances, the sentence of page 5 is not essentially correct.
THE PRESIDENT: The time has come for our usual morning recess, and we will, therefore, adjourn at this time for fifteen minutes.
(The Tribunal then took a recess.)
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the court room will find seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. witness, you may proceed with your testimony.
A ( Continued)- I stopped at the case Fritz, and by pondering on page 5 of the affidavit, I should like to say the following new: That I here refuse sentences which also are not my own, and I quote these sen tences on the bottom of page 5, " That RJM was satisfait with the sentences could be seen from the fact that they were not death sentences in the case of six defendants or that there were no decisions against that." That sentence could be my own, but the following sentence is not: Therefore, the fact that the death sentence against any defendant was a purely arbitrary measure, that proves that CUhorst had a chance to refrain from a death sentence in all cases. " As far as I can remember, I argued about that question with the interrogator. That concept could not be mine just because as it is expressed here -- it is not a logical concept. I agreed that it be put in here when I had to sign the affidavit because I was of the opinion that since it is not logical, it is useless. Because cf the fact that Cuhorst had pronounced five death sentences might have sufficed to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and the fact in the case of ether defendants no nullity plea was made does not prove that the Reich Ministry of Justice did not or could not have directed through individual cases, that it was an arbitrary matter. And then, " It proves that Cuhorst could have refrained from pronouncing the death sentence in all cases:" I have to add the following: That the decree of the Reich Ministry of Justice was not directed to Cuhorst but to the Chief Public. Prosecutor, and that Cuhorst, therefore only, indirectly could be influenced by that decree. In no way was any judge bound of it. And I know I have explained to the interrogating official that CUhorst very frequently rejected such decrees and opposed them rather vegerously.
As concerns the case Peitra on page 6, I have told the interrogator also that in this case, that I remember a case where Cuhorst had a Pole in front of him, and in spite of directives from Berlin, which I believe I remember, he did not sentence him to death, but if I remember correctly, he gave him a prison tern of five or six years.
It was a case, which I believe, was dealt with at Urach, and from Berlin it was suggested that the death sentence should be pronounced. That can be seen from the fact that I attended that meeting, as the nan who had to deal with the elemency plea. The sane as the case Schmidt where Diesem was the defense counsel. The case, as I believe, I can recall, was tried before Cuhorst. I believe I remember this correctly, out, of course, an error is still possible because many years have passed since then. However, I believe it was Cuhorst. The Prosecutor was Prosecutor Rimelin, and Rimelin during the recess before his plea approached me and asked me what he should do. It was the case of a young Pole who had committed a six crime on a young girl. And, I believe in several cases I explained to Rimelin that considering the fact of the youth of this Pole, it seemed quite impossible to plea -- to request the death sentence, and that I would take the responsibility to tell him in the name of the generous court or for him, whom I deputized, when I told him that aside from the fact that a death sentence was normally required, he should plead for a prison term, And, we all agreed with Rimelin to plead for seven years, which for the case, as I have to admit was still a considerably severe sentence which I could net quite approve, but we took into consideration if the sentence would be still more lenient we had to expect a nullity plea, and the Pole, in a retrial would have been sentenced to death. Therefore, we were under some sort of duress. The Special Court agreed, and as much as I am remember, even reduced it by one or two years. I mention this case as an example for the fact that Cuhorst did not have the death sentence as his aim, but he was also accessible on other considerations.
In the case of Neins Niemiz on the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7, I have to admit that I made pencil notations on the written sentences which have already been discussed, but I also emphasize that after the sentence:
"According to which the Special Court, that is, to say, Cuhorst, had added one year in the penitentiary because the case had happened in his residential district", after that sentence, by my own hand, a question nark was put in parenthesis, and that by doing so, I wanted to underline that I did not consider it sufficient reason -- I considered it possible to use that reason, but I did not consider it sufficient reason to increase the measure of the punishment. I do not remember any more whether it Was on my own initiative that I wrote that sentence, that additional phrase on the sentence or whether the senior Chief Prosecutor Bogen Reider with whom I got in contact with at that time, whether it was how who had told me that.
In the Case of Priest Fussen, I emphasized in favor of Cuhorst that the sentence was contrary to my own plea, which was for five years penitentiary; that sentence was pronounced for only three years prison. That the Special Court disregarded the attempt at violation which was mentioned in the indictment. On the other hand, I also described how that entire file proceeded, took place quite dramatically as far as the bench was concerned, how the various pieces of evidence wore piled up, that Fussen had celebrated a sort of mythical wedding with Margarethe Wagner, and that the evidence pointed --- such as a ton hat, a deaths-head, Were piled up on the bench, also a whip which Was allegedly used to beath Wagner. I also emphasized that the sentence Was nullified later on the Oasis of a nullity plea, and that Fussen received a prison sentence of eight years. Originally I believed that the sentence had been pronounced by the Special Court of Nurnberg where the proceeding had been transferred by the chief prosecutor, but I later had to be corrected to the extent that it was the Special Court in Frankfurt.
I have also pointed out that the proceedings were not public; at least, not in the technical sense, although the affidavit reads that the case had been tried before the public. I believe I can remember that I pleaded for exclusion of the public for moral reasons, and that Cuhorst agreed to that. I base my recollection on the fact that in cases of that kind, as a matter of course I used to plead to exclude the public, and I cannot believe that I made an exception in this case; furthermore, the fact that Cuhorst, on principle, refused to admit a representative of the clergy of Rothenburg to the session. When the public is excluded before German courts it is still possible that individual listeners who have a technical interest, that is, students of law, could be admitted to the session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Again I am not clear on what I hear. Is this statement the witness is now making, an accounting of his memory, of things he said to the examiner at the time he was examined? I cannot tell exactly from the translation. I think the character of this proceeding makes a good deal of difference as to whether he is now remembering something, or whether he is professing to testify to something he wanted inserted in the affidavit. I cannot tell.
THE PRESIDENT: Because of the peculiar situation that was created Friday afternoon, it was the intention, and it is still the purpose, of the Tribunal to permit this witness to tell anything of a favorable nature concerning the defendant Cuhorst, and so we are not limiting him.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I think perhaps you are misunderstanding. I am not asking that he be limited. I am asking that he make clear whether he is now testifying as to what he remembers as of this moment, in the box, whether he is new testifying as to something that he thought of when he was being examined, and was not included in his affidavit. I have no objection to his testifying. I cannot tell, I cannot hear what is going on. I would like to have him say that definitely.
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite true that this last statement of the witness is now pertaining to something which he says indep endently of anything that occurred in the course of that examination, and we are permitting him to do that on the theory that if he has anything to say in favor of Cuhorst, this Tribunal wants to hear it.
WITNESS: (Continuing.) It is correct that at the time when I was interrogated, in February, I remembered these points, and that at that time I explained to the interrogator that according to my recollection I suggested that the public be excluded. I also stated that my recollection is based on the fact, and that is rather implicating for Cuhorst, that Cuhorst at that time refused to admit a representative of the clergy. Mr. Paler, who reported about the case, as much as I can remember tried to change Cuhorst's mind, and I explained to Paler, I told Paier that he should insist that a representative of the clergy of Rothenberg should be approved by Cuhorst because I considered it very reasonable that a, representative from the clergy should listen to tho trial and show a technical interest, an objective interest, since the defendant Fussen still had to expect a disciplinary proceeding on the part of the clergy. The trial, therefore, as far as I can remember, was not before the public, as one could assume from this text here, but there was a limited admission of the public where, at least in the beginning of the trial, a large number of persons were admitted. And this is how one has to understand the phrase that the case, in spite of the fact of a sex crime, was tried before the public. The interrogator explained to me at the time that one should not understand it any different, because before American courts if the public was not admitted then there was nobody present but the Bench, the prosecutor, the defense counsel, defendant, and witnesses. Sc that the moment no other people were present, as was the case in the trial against Fussen, that one can already speak about the public being admitted, and so the phrase remains in this text.
In the case of Wassner-Plattmann, on page 7: To this case I have to say today that it is possible that the penitentiary term of four years of Plattmann may have included a punishment, a penalty, to which Plattmann had been sentenced by the Special Court of Freiburg for economic transgressions. I came to think about this only by a statement made by the ,defense on last Friday; but I still insist that the penalty; especially for Plattmann; was especially on account of his age. In the meantime; Plattmann had a part of his sentence reduced; I believe that I spoke in favor of this.
Concerning the case on page 7; on the bottom of page 7, which is a trial against a German woman for relations with Polish prisoners of war, I have explained to the interrogator that I, at the time, pleaded for severe penalty because I considered the attitude of these women very undignified.
It is correct that the illegal contact with Polish prisoners of war was mere severely punished than, for instance; relations with French prisoners of war; but today I have to state that penalty for illegal relations with prisoners of war, also when Cuhorst was presiding; lost much of their severity, and that primarily; because prisoners of war were no mere collected in camps but distributed to individual places of work in the country; and were more or less treated like agricultural, workers. The fact of working together with German women, therefore, led to much more intimate contact; and for that reason Special. Court, as well as the other courts, later; in spite of decrees calling for more severity by the Reich Ministry of Justice; reduced the extent of the sentences.
I believe that there is no more to say about this affidavit. I would be grateful, however, if any point should be cf specific interest for the defense or the prosecution, I would be reminded of it because I have the intention, and the firm desire; to speak the whole truth, and I am ready to answer any question according to the truth.
If I should be permitted to make more statements concerning Cuhorst, then I should like to say the following: The thesis, the assumption, that Cuhorst intentionally limited the defense, or intimidated witnesses in order to render the basis of the sentence more severe against the interest of the defendants, that, according to my own observation in proceedings in which he presided, and which I attended, is not correct. If in many cases he did not treat defendants, witnesses, and defense counsel, as he should have done, then that was more the result of his robust and somewhat distorted nature; but the purpose was not to cause incorrect and unjust sentences.
That was impossible, because the associate judges of the Special Court was definitely sound jurists and would not have stood for a treatment of that kind.
Furthermore, I should like to state the following.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Witness, you are permitted to state any facts, but it is not your province to argue the case. Now if you have any facts to state concerning Cuhorst, in his favor, pertaining to his conduct and his attitude as a judge, we will hear them; but refrain from these arguments in which you are now indulging.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
Concerning his attitude toward decrees in Berlin, I am say that there were many indictments regarding crimes against the law concerning malicious attacks which were not considered by Cuhorst, and therefore ho was often in contradiction with Berlin, specifically by stating that any statement that the defendant was alleged to have made was not sufficient to undermine the confidence in political leadership such as is stated in Paragraph 2 of the law against malicious attacks. That was even written into the sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, witness, you are now stating conclusions. The Court will draw conclusions, we hope sound conclusions, and it is not your province as a witness to draw conclusions. Either confine yourself to the facts, or we will have to stop the examination.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Furthermore, I have to emphasize that Cuhorst, also and particularly in cases of Party members, could be very severe. I remember a case against an old fighter by the name of Oesele who, for crimes against the war economy, was sentenced to death, a penalty which I myself considered very severe.
I also remember one case against a leather manufacturer Hepting, who was indicted for crimes against the war economy, and whore the Office of the Reich Criminal Police and the German Labor Front tried to achieve a very severe sentence against Hepting.