THE PRESIDENT: Surely something can be worked out along that line for their convenience. We are not advised as to where they would be taken. Is that matter clear? You suggest that they be taken to some room where they might have water?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a room available?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That would be arranged by the prison officer. It would, be a room in the vicinity of this courtroom, which is still emply, and where is still empty, and where they could be taken.
THE PRESIDENT: Under such regulations as the prison, officer may make for the manner of carrying out the proposed program of relief, the Court authorizes it to be done.
While we are disposing of minor details, I don't know whether this relates to the language of counsel or to the language of the interpreters, but I call to your attention the fact that we now have document books which are paged and transcript of testimony which is paged. This afternoon the record will show that in the English translation references were made to the English transcript, when I am very sure it was meant to say to the page of the English document book, and it will become very confusing unless counsel for both sides distinguish between the pages of document books and the pages of the transcript of testimony. We now have four thousand pages of testimonial transcript. Counsel has very properly referred, on some occasions, to that transcript, and on others to the document books. You see what I mean?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes indeed, Mr. President; in fact, it is the English translation, and I went to great pains to examine the English test and English translation. The references are made to the English document books -- that is, the document books in the English language -and also to the English transcript.
In order to facilitate it for the court, the figures were given that were needed by the Bench.
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't trying to place the responsibility.
It will be convenient for you from time to time not only to refer to the document books, but to earlier pages of the transcript of testimony. That is why it is important to keep them separate.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honors, I think possibly some confusion might have occurred to the Court, although I believe I got it clearly. There were some references to the transcript of the IMT also.
THE PRESIDENT: I have that.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor has those?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought mine came through clearly otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q: Witness, we were discussing the guidance of the Administration of Criminal Justice. Please continue with your explanation.
A: Before the recess I had referred to a decree by Guertner which required a constant connection with the courts in order to avoid a discrepancy between the plea of the prosecution and the final verdict. May I continue on this point?
I should like to assume that tin is decree or this order finds its definite reason in the fact that at that time a large number of new laws had been promulgated for which precedence in sentences did not exist and could not exist. Only gradually it was possible, with regard to those laws, to form a firm foundation based upon sentences and opinions of the supreme judicial authority. Frequently, therefore, surprises occurred if the prosecution, in applying the law, had a definitely different position from the opinion of the Tribunal.
The purpose of that decree was to avoid this ambiguity as far as possible, and to reduce these differences to the least possible measure, also concerning the extent of punishment, which depended on the findings of the Court. That quite apparently, as a matter of course, could only be achieved by a conference before the trial. The reports submitted by the prosecution, by the President of the Kammergericht of the 3rd Of January 1942, and, from the same year, by the President of the District Court of Appeals at Hamm, revealed that some misuse had taken place. It is stated there that the prosecutor, after the presentation of evidence -- that is to say, during tire proceedings, had pointed out to the Court what sentence, with the approval of the Ministry, he would demand, and in so doing created the opinion in the Court that he expected that sentence and that penalty.
From this report can be seen that the presidents of the district courts of appeal quite rightly considered this behavior a misuse. The report by the president of the Kammergericht I had not seen until now. I do not know what steps were taken after that report was received by Freisler. Maybe this is a case again, one of these cases, where important matters had been neglected by him.
The report from the president of the district court of appeal at Hamm I remember very clearly. I had made up my mind to put this matter on the agenda of the next meeting of the presidents of the district courts of appeal. These meetings had the express purpose to discuss such questions which had been raised in the reports. Owing to the fact that I left my office soon thereafter, there was no longer any opportunity for me to carry out these intentions.
Q.- The two reports you mentioned were submitted by the prosecution as Exhibits 73 and 74 with the documents NG-505 and 508, Exhibits 71 and 72. The prosecution also charges you with having influenced the jurisdiction of the judges. I ask you to state your position with regard to these documents.
A.- In the course of the examination of today I was compelled on various occasions, to explain to what degree the party intended and tried to wrest various fields from the Administration of Justice and turn these competences over to the police. In July 1941 that question was especially acute because there was an attempt to take away from the administration the prosecution of Jews and Poles. The opposition based its arguments on sentences which revealed a certain ignorance on the part of the judges of conditions of actual life. Under any form of government one has heard complaints about the fact that the judges were far removed from the facts and experiences of daily life. In the old Reichstag there was hardly any debate on matters of justice without these complaints and such complaints naturally during the war and in the course of many changes, the complete changes of all conditions of life and national economy found plenty of nourishment.
It was the duty of the central agency to acquaint the judges with such general points of view and to demonstrate to them what the influence of temporary conditions and recent conditions would have to be upon the policy of criminal law. Apart from that, one had to be vigilant against that danger which I have described that parts of the administration of justice could be wrested from it.
At that time sex crimes of Poles were very frequent. The reason for that could possibly have been that these laborers who had been brought into Germany in many cases came into a living community with the families of the employers, that the husbands were usually at the front, and that the Poles themselves -- that is, the greater part of the Poles themselves-were in Germany without their families. The ground for sex offenses, therefore, was conditioned by these elements and some judges did not recognize that.
In the documents submitted by the prosecution one case is mentioned which was tried before the penal chamber, Lueneburg. It is the case of a sex crime committed by a Polish agricultural laborer. That defendant was granted extenuating circumstances because -- and I quote -- " He did not have the same restraint toward female coworkers as a German agricultural worker would." That opinion apparently was untenable. The Reich supreme court sharply rejected it. It was also very dangerous at the same time because if reasons of that kind had become known to Hitler there would have arisen a new grave danger to the entire administration of justice. Therefore, I saw cause to find a different job for this judge who apparently was not aware of prevailing conditions. Cases of this nature and many others which may not have been quite as wrong but could have made a certain impression gave cause and reason for a type of propaganda which promised a great deal of success and that made me write that letter of 24 July 1941 to the court authorities in the provinces where I pointed out that in the cases of definitely criminal elements a sexual crime as a rule should be considered according to the legal provisions and regulations as a crime to be punished with death.
The actual documentary background for that letter is to be found in the document of the prosecution. Therefrom one can see in what cases the police may have corrected the sentences by the judges and one can not overlook the fact that such frequent interventions on the part of the police to improve on the sentences by the judges -- represented a signal for the much desired event of taking over the power to punish by the police, and the man in charge of the Ministry conscious of his duty, had to take that into account.
Document 508, which my defense counsel has mentioned, is the reproduction of a passage from a Hitler speech concerning the administration of justice -- it was a speech before the Reichstag -- and that concerned in general the necessity of severe punishment in times of war; and, according to my duty, I brought this speech to the attention of the judges.
Q.- The sentence mentioned before, by the penal chamber of Lueneburg, is to be found in Exhibit 70. The establishment of the extraordinary objection and the nullity plea has been discussed. Can you please give us an explanation?
A.- The witness Doebig called the legal instrument of the extraordinary action and the nullity plea a continuation of the principle of legal remedies.
This right for legal remedies served to solve the conflict between two maxims, which I found in every law or legal code. The principle that the application of the law to a criminal act should lead to a just verdict is confronted, on the other hand, by the necessity to establish as soon as possible a clearly defined legal status. Or to express it differently, on the one hand there is the principle of justice; on the other hand, the principle of establishing a situation in law, clearly defined. The principle of justice is served by the possibility to appeal to a higher authority to reexamine a sentence. That possibility, however, is brought to limitations by the requirement of establishing a clearly defined situation (Rechtssicherheit). Therefore, there is a time limit set and when legal remedies fail, the necessity becomes even stronger to reestablish that definite situation in law.
If as a consequence of the application of this principle a clearly defined situation in law exists, we speak of the force of the law. The sentence has to be accepted even though it does not fully comply with the requirements of justice. That could be accepted as long as one dealt only with the application of the law which for decades had been applied and proved itself. Sources for errors were small and limited in number. A basic change, however, occurred when the dire necessities of war gave cause for the creation of new laws and the application of old and new law. Owing to the lack of personnel caused by the war, it also had to be put into the hands of judges who in the field of criminal law did not have much definite experience.
The danger now that the principle of justice would be violated increased to the extent that it became necessary to look for new ways.
In order to quote another expression by Doebig, "The right for legal remedy had to be developed further." That this development was not at all based on political considerations has already been emphasized by doebig. To provide the possibility of applying the principle of justice in a wider scope justice itself would have to sacrifice.
An interference with the legal validity of the sentence was then unavoidable. It was tenable if it could be limited to a tolerable extent. That was done with the aid of two measures. First, by a time limitation attached to the new legal remedies. Both the extraordinary objection and the nullification plea can only be applied within one year after the sentence has been in force. It cannot be disputed that that time is very long. But I ask to take into account that long period has its significance only in theory. It is not the length of that time but the fact that a time limit is provided which is important.
In the coarse of proceedings, we have heard of many cases of the practical application of both the extraordinary objection and the nullity plea. Not in a single case, not even approximately, was the entire period of one year applied. In most cases, as a matter of course, immediately after the sentence these measures were applied.
The second safety device is to be seen in the fact that the application of these new legal remedies was put into the hands of a supreme functionary of the administration of Justice, and that was the Reich Chief Prosecutor with the Relchgericht--Reich Supreme Court--and as far as the extraordinary objection is concerned, also the Chief Prosecutor at the Volksgericht--the People's Court.
From the point of view of security within the law, it would have bean quite incompatible if it were permitted to the prosecution or to the defendant to attack sentences in force without having them reexamined by an authority of that kind. Then, of course, also that time limit of one year would have presented a danger.
Q. It has frequently been discussed in the proceedings whether and to what extent the extraordinary objection and the nullity plea were applied in favor of the defendant. Would you please give us an explanation on that point.
A. These new legal instruments for the defendants, as well as for the prosecution, reopen the conflict between justice and the security offered by a clearly defined legal status. It is quite easy to understand that the defendant, whether sincerely or not sincerely considers his being sentenced an injustice. But it is likewise easy to understand if he tries to avoid the danger of more severe punishment in the renewed trial and rather remains satisfied with the established fact of the sentence or if he just accepts the sentence resigned to his fate without making use of the clemency plea. He sees his situation only from his point of view and from that of his own interest. The Prosecution, on the other hand, in examining the question as to whether the principle of justice demands a sacrifice from the security within the law, cannot limit itself to that individual case. The prosecution has to consider the purpose of criminal law and its application to this case and to compare it with its application to other cases. The result is that the use of the extraordinary objection and of the nullity plea was made much more frequently by the prosecution than by the defendant; and that at that time-------
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me. Did you say "made more frequently by the prosecution than by the defense" or "for the prosecution?"
I wanted to understand your statement. Did you say that the nullity plea was used more frequently by the prosecution than by the defense, or for the prosecution rather than for the defense?
THE WITNESS: No. First, Mr. President, I only discussed that the legal remedies were used more frequently by the prosecution. Now I come to the question as to whether they also were used in favor of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand you now.
THE WITNESS: I believe, therefore, that my previous explanations have also provided the foundation for the answer to that question as to shy the extraordinary objection and the nullity plea were more frequently used against the defendant rather than in favor of the defendant.
As has been emphasized repeatedly, according to German law the Prosecution has the duty, if required by the situation, to make use of all legal remedies also in favor of the defendant. If the defendant foregoes the security of a clearly defined situation and rather takes the risk, in a re-trial to serve the principle of justice as he sees it, then the Chief Reich Prosecutor has to examine whether the sentence was unjust. He, however, has other sources at disposal for his findings than the defendant, who, of course, sees only his own case. Therefore, it is not surprising if the Chief Reich Prosecutor arrives at a different result than the defendant and sees no cause to attack the legal conditions existing. Apart from that I should like to emphasize that a legal remedy used against the defendant has not always led to more severe punishment. The witness for the Prosecution, Doebig, has also confirmed this when he was hoard on the 9th of April before this Court, but quite as infrequently as the Prosecution assumed the extraordinary objection and nullity plea have not been used by the defendant. Naturally, I have to limit myself to the examples submitted by the presentation of evidence on the part of the Prose-cution; for the extraordinary objection I refer to the case Will, where in favor of a defendant who was sentenced to death an extraordinary objection was made. Furthermore, the case Klinzmann, where a sentence already in force was rescinded. Concerning the nullity plea, I referred to the statement by the witness for the Prosecution Ferber of the 8th of April. That witness mentioned a case where the death sentence against a Polo was attacked by means of the nullity plea and the defendant in the re-trial instead of being sentenced to death was sentenced to a prison term.
I, also refer to the Judge's Letter No. 17. Their reference is made to a case of plunder, pilfering, where upon the nullity plea by the Chief Reich Prosecutor, the defendant who had been sentenced to death was acquitted. For the sake of completion I should like to add the following.
With the principle of double jeopardy, No Bis In Idem, the extraordinary objection and the nullity modification plea have nothing to do whatsoever. That principle, according to German law, such as it existed without change since the Code of Legal Procedure was created, implies that nobody can be punished for the same act twice, and that is not even touched upon here.
Q The case Will, just mentioned, is contained in Exhibit 495; the case Klinzmann in Exhibit 137 -
THE PRESIDENT: What is the spelling of that first name?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: W-i-l-l.
Q The Judges Letter No. 17 is contained in Exhibit 86. The Prosecution also deals with the appointment of lay-judges for the People's Court. Would you kindly give us your explanation for that also?
A The judges at the People's Court, whether they were professional judges or lay-judges, were appointed by Hitler, as the Chief of the State. There existed a provision to the effect that for the selection of the lay-judges certain political and military organizations had the right of nomination. On the basis of these nominations the Reich Ministry of Justice, with the Participation of the Reich Chancellory and the Party Chancellory, nominated to Hitler the required number of lay-judges to be appointed. In practice that was just a passing on of the suggestions of nominations made by the organizations. One would have to say in that connection that for practical reasons alone, the selection was restricted to men who were not too much in the foreground within their organization because participation in the sessions of the People's Court consumed a great deal of time. For reasons of expedience, only such men could be a suggested who in their positions up to that time had enough time left that they could be expected to take part in the sessions of the People's Court, and if one would care to examine the entire list one would certainly find a considerable number of older men who were not very active and not very busy any more, rather than younger men.
Q According to the document I have before me, NG-174, Exhibit 77, the Ministry of Justice made a suggestion to increase the severity of penal provisions concerning the preparation of treason. Would you explain this?
A The situation with regard to the law was the following: Preparation for treason, Landesverrat, could not be punished by death. Treason, that is to say the betrayal of the native country, in my opinion, is the most severe and most serious political crime, and tho danger inherent in that crime reveals itself already in its preparation. As can be seen from the document, the question had come before the public and had been discussed in public on the occasion of tho Sklarek case, and had become the subject of a heated discussion. It was known to me that Hitler once before in a cabinet meeting had taken the position that preparation for treason should be punished by death. It was quite obvious for me that as a consequence of the Sklarek case, and on that Hitler's point of view was also known to other people; a new storm would come up; in fact it was the expressed purpose to force matters upon tho Administration of Justice so that afterwards one could make use of these matters, by saying that the Administration of Justice itself was not strong enough to find the right position, or in order to institute and justify proceedings outside the Administration of Justice. I considered it appropriate, therefore, to bring this question into the stage of a legal regulation as quickly as possible. In the draft the death penalty was provided for very serious cases, cases of aggravating circumstances, and that provided the guarantee at least for the fact that in ordinary court proceedings it would have to be examined whether that really was a severe case. The danger was quite acute that unless in time such a law would be promulgated, other elements, namely, the police would have seen to it, and would have taken care of it wholesale without examining individual cases.
Since the cases in question were cases of the part, retroactivity had to be permitted. That is well within all legal guarantees.
Q The decree concerning pilfering of the 16 June 1942 bears your signature. Will you please explain it to us? I want to state that this decree is to be found as Exhibit 165.
A The increasing number of air raids, several raids during one week on the same town, created a situation where under all circumstances an increase in the number of cases of pilfering had to be prevented. In the decree I emphasized that, faced with the misery of the population which was bombed out of their hones, pilferers are of an especially despicable character and I should like to stress this here particularly that these unfortunate people who had to suffer these air raids were in such a state of misery that the Administration would have had to face the most severe reproach and criticism if it had not taken energetic steps against pilferers; and I should like to state further that the entire population of Germany backed up any increase of severity of course, with the exception of pilferers themselves. Therefore, I pointed out that in such cases the administration of justice had to be fast and gave instructions as to the ways and means how these fast measures would be put into effect. But I also stressed that one should be very careful not to exaggerate the term of "pilfering", that not each case of small theft is already pilfering, and that in such cases not the severe provisions for penalty of the decree against public enemies had to be applied but the general provisions of the law concerning theft or similar offenses.
Q From Exhibit 165 I should like to read the end which is found on page 120. I quote from the letter by Schlegelberger to the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal. "However, if the facts are not such that the most severe penalty has to be applied and there is no pilfering, in the sense of Paragraph 1 of the decree against public enemies, in that case the indictment and the sentence have to be governed by the provisions concerning theft and similar offenses.
In general, as an action of a public enemy, it is to be considered a punishable act according to Paragraph 2 or 4 of the decree concerning public enemies." That expresses clearly that, for instance, the taking of an unimportant object could not legally be considered pilfering.
On the part of the Prosecution charges were raised against you for carrying out the procedure against the Czech Prime Minister, Elias. What can you say in that connection?
A The charges concerning the case Elias culminate certainly in the statement that I had tolerated that in these proceedings the indictment instead of being filed by the Chief Reich Prosecutor before the People's Court was filed by a representative of the Gestapo. I believe that the documents submitted by the Prosecution show beyond doubt that I was sternly opposed to these proceedings. Firstly, may I describe the historic background. At the end of September, 1941, I was approached by the president of the People's Court. Dr. Thierack. He told me that he had found out that soon there would be proceedings against the Prime Minister, Elias, before a Standesgericht. He considered it important that trial should take place before the People's Court. He had already contacted the Reich Protector, Heydrich, and received his approval, but he had to make a sacrifice, and that was the sacrifice that he had to agree that the indictment would not be filed by the Chief Reich Prosecutor but by the police. He had been forced to do so because according to information received from the Chief Reich Prosecutor, Lautz, he, Lautz, could only promise to deliver the indictment after several weeks, but that amount of delay was untenable. I told Thierack that I did not approve of his efforts to obtain the competency of the People's Court for the case, and that I definitely did not agree with the elimination of the Chief Reich Prosecutor in the case. If the case was that urgent, the Chief Reich Prosecutor certainly and if necessary with the aid of additional assistants would be able to finish his indictment in time.
I put to Thierack that he had taken the first fateful step in the direction of delivering the administration of justice to the police. Thierack replied that Heydrich had referred to a decree within the scope of his competency as Reich Protector. He, Thierack, as the presiding judge of the court would examine carefully the legal validity of that decree, and he added, " You can rely upon it, Mr. Secretary, that I will not take it too easy with that examination."
I inquired at the Ministry of the Interior which was the central agency of the Government for the Protectorate, and was informed that Heydrich was legally entitled to direct the participation of the police. Chief Reich Prosecutor Lautz was at a conference abroad at the time. When he found out about the matter, he returned immediately and reported to me. I informed him about what had happened and told him to go to Thierack immediately and let Thierack inform him about the state of affairs. The same afternoon the Chief Reich Prosecutor reported to me telling me that he could not do anything because Thierack already was on his way to the airport. In his presence I called the under secretary at the Reich Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Stuckardt. He was the chief of the central agency for the Protectorate, and I asked him to talk to Heydrich in order to obtain the inclusion of the Chief Reich Prosecutor in the trial. Stuckardt complied with my request immediately but told me afterwards that Heydrich bad refused. According to the personal impression which I had gained of Thierack, I came to the definite suspicion that he consciously and intentionally had brought about the elimination, the exclusion of the Chief Reich Prosecutor. I was also told - I don't know by whom -- that that elimination had been arranged by Thierack with Hitler and Heydrich.
That that assumption on my part was correct can be seen from the report by Kritzinger from the material of the Prosecution. Kritzinger reports the following: that decree contained the provision that the Reich Protector in special cases can demand a trial before the People's Court in a procedure which he had to determine.
That provision had the purpose to find a different regulation for the part taken by the Prosecution by turning its function over to the Gestapo. That had resulted from a thorough discussion between Heydrich and Thierack.
In the matter itself I could not do anything. The Prosecutor formally had the right. I did whatever I could, but I could not achieve anything. The correspondence which is contained in the document submitted, by the Prosecution reveals that Heydrich on account account of my opposition had raised serious accusation against me, and that I tried to justify myself.
THE PRESIDENT: We have reached the approximate time for our recess. You may continue the direct examination in the morning at ninethirty. I beg your pardon, Monday morning at nine-thirty. Thank you. That would have been a tragic mistake.
The Tribunal has jointly considered the matter of the necessity for early delivery to us of the daily transcripts of testimony perhaps owing to the complications which arose from the making of the opening statements at the first of the week. There may be some explanation for it, but we have received no daily transcript this week at all. We wish simply to say that it is imperative at this state of the case that we have these daily transcripts as rapidly as is physically possible for them to be produced. I trust that the Secretary-General will communicate with whom it may concern this direction.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If the Tribunal will permit me to break in, I will say that I need them very badly, too, and I haven't received any.
THE PRESIDENT: They must be produced. We will recess until the time indicated Monday Morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 0930 Monday morning. (The Tribunal adjourned until 30 June 47 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the natter of the United States of America against Josef A lstoetter, et al., Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 30 June 1947, 0930-1630, the Hon. James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: 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.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the Defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Engert is excused. Let proper notation be made.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I continue my direct examination of the witness.
FRANZ SCHLEGELBERGER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. KUBOSCHOK:
Q Witness, the Prosecution charges you with the introduction of German law in the incorporated Eastern territories. First, since this complex of questions lies earlier, we have to discuss the introduction of civil law. Could you give us a description of the events at that time?
A These events occurred a long time ago. However, I believe that on the basis of the documents submitted by the Prosecution I will be able to reconstruct them and give a clear picture.
As seen from a file note of the Reich Chancellery, the Ministry of Justice in the beginning of February 1940 sent drafts to the Supreme Reich authorities which dealt with the introduction of the entire civil and trade law of the Reich in the incorporated Eastern territories.
Q May I interrupt here for a moment. That file note is to be found in Exhibit 459.
A It was absolutely necessary to do something. After the complete military subjugation of Poland, and after the Partition Treaty between Germany end Russia was carried out, there was no political authority of State in Poland anymore, no executive and no Polish courts. The German judges only knew German law. Added to that was the fact that in the various parts of the Republic of Poland there were different kinds of law prevalent, essentially the law of the country to which these individual parts of Poland had belonged before 1918. In the former German parts there was still German law applied with very few modifications of Polish law, and that demanded by itself the introduction of German law.
When the plan became known, the plan to introduce German civil law in the incorporated Eastern territories, and that without distination as to nationality and descent of the inhabitants, immediately there arose considerable differences of opinion. The customary two fronts were established, on the one hand the principle of territorial law; on the other hand the personality principle; on one side the principle of equality of all inhabitants before the law - that was the point of view of the Reich Ministry of Justice - and on the other side the principle of discrimination and inequality before the law, or to put of more drastically a special law for Poles. That was the principle of the Party.
In order to put that in force. Bormann and Himmler cooperated. From a letter from Bormann to Himmler that can be clearly seen. They arranged before a conference took place in the Reich Ministry of Justice to fortify that special campaign front of theirs, and that by previous conferences with the representatives of the Gauleiter, the Party Chancellery, the Reichskommissar for firtifying of Germandom and the Racial Political Office. If one looks at this, one can see how powerful that front really was. Bormann did not omit anything in order to express in all clarity his point of view to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and it is quite typical that this letter already contains a threat that if by the application of civil law on Poles the German parts of the population would become restless, it would come to the point that the police would have to prevent the thing carrying out of judges' decisions in these countries.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: May I interrupt you for a moment. That letter from Bormann to Himmler will be submitted by me as Document Schlegelberger No. 65. For elucidation I should like to quote a short passage from this letter for the record. I quote:
"As I am informed by reports, German courts already during a period where German civil law has not yet been introduced in the Eastern territories in applying this law treat Poles in a manner which should only be reserved for Germans; that this tendency to introduce German civil law in the Eastern territories will increase is to be assumed.
"May I refer here to the experiences which were had at the time when German criminal law was introduced in the Eastern territories. We have to worry about the fact that sentences by German courts which have been passed in applying German civil law would be extended on Poles and Polish conditions, and that that will lead to the members of the German nation becoming restless. Perhaps in individual cases the execution of sentences passed by the judges may have to be prevented by police measures."
Q Please continue.
A It was clearly recognizable from this letter that the opposition was willing to make use of its power without any reserve. I had no other alternative than to attempt by negotiations to make it clear to the opponents that on the basis of their own principles it was not necessary to carry out their plan, and on that occasion may I elucidate for the benefit of the court how we had to work?
I approached Lammers and maintained my position that all the inhabitants of these territories, should be treated equally. In order to calm down our opponents. I added that perhaps later if the demand for it arose the promulgation of special decrees for Poles might be necessary, but such special decrees were never issued later.