Q Did there have to be some diagonal connections among the ministries? For example, did the ministry of Justice have certain connections with the Propaganda Ministry, and did such connections already exist before the Hitler Government?
A Before the Hitler Government, the Chief of the Reich Chancellery was a central office, and in the cabinet meetings, which took place every week, the possibility of a common organ existed. Later on, during the war, these connections were loosened considerably, because since the beginning of 1938, there were no cabinet meetings at all. The diagonal connection, therefore, existed directly between the ministries, and the Propaganda Ministry quite frequently interfered in matter's of other departments under the point of view that it - that is, the Propaganda Ministry - was responsible for the morale of the population.
Q In practice, what did people have to observe if they wanted to oppose Hitler's orders or the orders of the Party? What tactics did one have to use? Could one fight against these things in a direct polemic, or how did one have to act?
AA direct crimicism would, without doubt, have been dangerous. It would have resulted in having the person concerned removed from his office, and supposedly he would have been sent to a concentration camp, and it would have been without effect. It was more effective, through direct influence, or personal contacts or connections, to attempt to make conceptions more lenient, to achieve changes, or to sabotage orders of that kind quietly; that is, not to carry than out as severely as the order provided.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Thank you very much. That concludes my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our morning recess for fifteen minutes at this time.
Before we recess, gentlemen, do any other of defense counsel desire to examine this witness as their own?
(Show of hand by Dr. Brieger) Very well, we will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. BRIEGER (Counsel for the defendant Cuhorst.):
Q. Witness, in the interest of my client I would like to put one brief question to you. You mentioned before the Special Courts, which were frequently too severe. Did you mean to apply that also to the Special Court at Stuttgart?
A. No. I do not know anything about the sentences of the Stuttgart Special Court.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you. That is sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further direct examination on behalf of any defendant? There appears to be none. The Prosecution may cross examine.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. I believe you testified on direct examination that the extraordinary appeal could be instituted by the defendant.
A. No, no. I have said expressly, the extraordinary objection could only be instituted upon directive by the Fuehrer, through the Ministry of Justice. The nullity plea, however, according to the decree of April 1942 -- the nullity plea could also be instituted by the defendant or the counsel for defense.
Q. .....I beg your pardon .... were you finished?
A. Yes.
Q. With reference to this nullity plea, the defense made the request to the prosecution to institute the plea, that is the correct construction of that law, is it not?
A. I am not quite informed about the details as to where that request had to be made, but I know from practical experience that in various cases upon request by the defense the nullity plea was dealt with and led to a reopening of proceedings before a different court.
Q. You still don't know -- you say as a matter of your knowledge of the law ... that in any such cases the defendant, through his counsel, had to first make application to the prosecutor, who then filed the plea, if he approved it .. is that correct ..or do you know?
A. I don't know that for certain because with these proceedings I had nothing to do personally.
Q. You testified about a request of the defendant Schlegelberger.. maybe more than one .. for you to labor for Hitler - Schlegelberger's request that Himmler be restrained in his activities in taking men from the courts after they had been sentenced and putting them in the hands of the police for disposition of their matter b the police?
A. Yes, that I have spoken of , in particular, of one case.
Q. That was the time I believe that you said Hitler told you that you are in the war now, and that in substance this matter of dealing with criminals had to be accepted because if not the criminal group would get out of hand or be favored, and that you reported this conversation to the defendant Schlegelberger?
A. Yes, I informed Schlegelberger about the result.
Q. Do you recall when that was that you informed Schlegelberger of that result?
A. That was in the beginning of Schlegelberger's term in office-I assume the summer or fall of 1941.
Q. And you testified that, in describing Hitler's attitude towards the Administration of Justice, Hitler, by nature, was disposed at least to place little value on, if not to undervalue, matters of religion or morals or theoretical concepts of the non-power state , and was concerned in the power state as a practical way of living, and that the Administration of Justice in such a state should follow the concept of the power state. I believe I have approximately paraphrased your statement, have I not?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Meissner, did you serve under ... were you in government under the Kaiser before the first World War?
A. Yes, I am in the civil service since 1901, and under the Kaiser I was Regierungsrat in the end, in the Alsace - Lorraine.
Q. You served Ebert and Hindenburg, who were presidents under the Weimar Republic, is that right ?
A. Yes.
Q. And then, what was your position under the Hitler regime, at first?
A. My position on the surface was the same. I was the Chief of the Secretariat of the Reich President. The name of that office was changed to the Presidential Cabinet at that time. My tasks changed insofar as after the death of Hingenburg, by a so-called law concerning the head of State, the functions of the head of the Reich, and thus of the Chief of the government, were merged in one person - and thereby the political tasks which I had had up to that time, reverted into the hands of the then Under Secretary and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, for me there remained only representative matters of the head of the state, such as the appointment of officials, promotions, honors, and awards, matters of clemency which have been mentioned before, contacts with heads of other states and diplomats.
At that time I asked for my retirement, and when Hitler refused that I said that by that merger of these two offices my position as a liaison man between the head of the Reich and the Reich government had become vacant and unnecessary, and that I did not any longer see that I had any field of work. Hitler, however, rejected my application for dismissal, asked me to remain in office because ....
Q. Excuse me -- just a moment ... What time was this ... What year was this?
A. I am speaking about the beginning of August 1934.
Q. Thank you. Go ahead.
A. He said that he should make use of my experiences in other fields outside of the political field proper, and that was his main reason that perhaps later on he would decide to separate again these two offices of the Head of the State and the Chief of the Reich Cabinet, that, therefore, he would like to leave intact the two offices for the time being.
Q. I think you said also that in your opinion the criticism of the Administration of Justice, and the assertion of the concept of the highest judicial office of the state with the power to remove judges which was the essence of Hitler's speech of the 26th of April 1942, was not spontaneous -- from which I conclude it was not a surprise to you, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first know Adolf Hitler?
A. I met Hitler for the first time in January 1932, when the election of the Reich President took place, and the reelection of Hindenburg was discussed with the parties.
Q. Did you arrange the first meeting between Hitler and Hindenburg on October 13, 1932?
A. Yes, I arranged it, and I attended it.
Q. At that time you were serving Hindenburg in the Hindenburg administration, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to 1932 how many campaigns had there been in which the National Socialist Party had received substantial votes and elected substantial members of the Reichstag?
A. The first election victory was in 1930; then, in 1932, the fall election, the second election; and then, finally, the elections of 5th of March 1933.
Q Now during these campaigns, Hitler of course, was active as a campaigner and a maker of speeches, was he not?
A Yes, indeed.
Q And was it as a result of these speeches and this knowledge which you had and acquaintanceship with Hitler that you formed the knowledge of his opinion about the administration of justice which led to the condition where you were not surprised by the speech of April 26, 1942?
A No, during that time Hitler gave no signs that he would be a man of violence, a negator of the law, and of jurisdiction of the courts. On the contrary, at that time, he made himself appear, particularly in the conversations of 13 October and later with the old Reichs president von Hindenburg, a reasonable man who was inclined to come to an understanding with the buurgeois parties who only was a fanatical opponent of radical Marxism, communism in particular.
Q When did you acquire this knowledge then, that Hitler was unfriendly towards the administration of justice and had little opinion of concepts of religion and morals and personal liberty in the state? When did you acquire that knowledge?
A For the first time during or after the Roehm-Putsch, 30 June 1934.
Q The deaths which took place in the Roehm-Putsch were declared legal by legislation, weren't they, right after that?
A Yes, that happened by a decision of the Reichstag of 7 July 1934.
Q How many parties were in that Reichstag?
AAt that time, there was only one party in the Reichstag.
Q From that action, you acquired the knowledge which you hadn't acquired prior to then from Hitler's speeches, that Hitler favored the power of state and was opposed to the concepts of the administration of justice which you knew to exist in Germany under the Kaiser and under the Weimar Republic. Is that right?
A For the first time, I had misgivings about the personel and the political intentions of Hitler, but I did not at that time at least think that this attitude of Hitler's was a fundamental attitude and a lasting one, but I entertained hope that quashing of the Roehm-Putsch and the violent action which occurred in connection with it could not alone be thrust at Hitler, that he could not be made alone responsible for them, but that by reason and influence of reason of the people upon him, people such as Guertner and Papen, he could be made to leave that path of violence after he would have understood what devastating consequences these murders and acts of violence would have in their impression on Germany itself and the foreign countries. That was also the impression that Guertner had, who believed that if now these matters would be legalized, which could happen only once, that thereby a final balance could be drawn under the epoch of the revolutionary transition.
Q Now if you can just a little more briefly, possibly, - can you fix in your own mind and tell us when you did reach the conclusion about Hitler's ideas about justice and the administration of justice which led you not to be surprised by the speech of 26 April 1942? That probably was a little bit -- sometime at least subsequent to 1934.
A No, when an increase of severity in Hitler's attitude toward penal cases during the war was seen, I considered it first a consequence of wartime conditions but in spite of that his speech of the 26th of April 1942, did surprise me because here for the first time in such frankness and severity, his entire attitude to questions of the law was expressed.
Q What year was the case of the taking of the brothers Sass by Himmler's police? That was during Guertner's time? A I could not state that date precisely but it was before the war, 1936 maybe, but I could not say or state it precisely any more.
Q And then the number of cases in which the people were taken by the Gestapo or other branches of the police, the Reich police, and were reported in the paper to have been shot while escaping, arose after that during Guertner's time and Guertner discussed them with you?
A No, these cases occurred, if I remember correctly, during the first years of the war.
Q Guertner was a friend of the defendant Schlegelberger, was he not?
AAs far as I could see, the two gentlemen had intimate friendly relations.
Q And Guertner discussed with you his misgivings over the extent to which Hitler was permitting Himmler to control the handling of prisoners in the administration of justice?
A Yes, Guertner frequently in private conversations voiced misgivings about the development which had taken its course and also mentioned his intention that with all the strength he wanted to counteract that.
Q Yes. Now would you say that Guertner was as good a friend of Schlegelberger as he was of you?
A I cannot say that Guertner and I were real, intimate friends, but we had very friendly relations just as I cannot say that I am an intimate personal friend of Schlegelberger. I had the relations of colleagues with him.
Q Yes. Now I think you said that if a man wished to oppose Hitler's policies it was not wise to use a direct attack but that you had to use personal contacts and indirection. That is correct, is it not?
A That is correct, yes.
Q That would apply to Schlegelberger as well as to anyone else?
A Yes.
Q You said that the danger was that a man who opposed by direct argument would be put in a concentration camp.
Would you give a specific instance of any man of ministerial rank who was put in a concentration camp?
A None of the rank of minister, no. But others, if I only think of the victims of the Roehm-Putsch of Strasser, high officials.
Q Now you testified that when you referred to severe special courts, you didn't have in mind the special court at Stuttgart?
A Because I don't know any of the sentences of the special court of Stuttgart.
Q So that you simply don't know what the sentences were?
A No, I do not recall any sentence that was ever pronounced by the Stuttgart special court.
Q Did you have a chance to discuss this knowledge of yours in this specific question with Dr. Brieger, the attorney for Cuhorst, during the intermission?
A. He only asked me whether I meant that Special Court. I said I spoke only in general.
Q. Yes. That was after -- while you were in the hall -- after you loft the witness stand today?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you simply testified in the same way in which you discussed the matter with Dr. Brieger in the hall; is that right?
A. The question was put and I answered it only with the addition that I did not know the jurisdiction of the Special Court at Stuttgart.
Q. Now, I think you said that in 1934, when you left like resigning, Hitler said that you had qualifications which made him want to keep you on for your abilities.
A. He only mentioned that he might be able to use my experiences in the interest of the Reich -- in the service of the Reich rather.
Q. Now, may I read to you a part of an affidavit made by Franz von Papen, on the 28th of September, 1946. He was discussing the summoning of Hitler to the position of Reich Chancellor. "It is correct that Dr. Meissner at times exerted a strong political influence upon the Reich President, as is the case in any intimate relationship between the Under Secretary and his superior. The defendant Gooring informed me in the following manner about his influence with respect to the creation of a Hitler government. Two or three days after the first discussion in Ribbentrop's house, on the 22nd January, 1933, Dr. Meissner had appeared in Goering's private apartment and asked whether the National Socialists would agree to his remaining in office, and had subsequently confessed about a financial scandal threatening him in the matter of Schenker.
Goering had a reply that the party was only too willing to forgot about such affairs if Dr. Meissner, on his part, would do everything in his power to promote the forming of the Hitler government. They parted having reached an agreement on this matter." Are the facts related in Franz von Papen's affidavit correct, or not?
A. That is an absolute invention; that assertion is untrue. On the occasion of that conference, which may have taken place on the 28th of January, Under Secretary Koerner was present, who can confirm that not a single word of that was spoken. During that conference Goering only said that previously I had been attacked in circles of the party as an opponent of the National Socialist formation of a government and of National Socialist tendencies, but he would see to it that these attacks would cease, or, rather he had taken care of it for quite some time already that these attacks did cease. Moreover, on that day, the 28th January, everything had long before been arranged between Papen, Hitler and Goering. I, myself, at that time was still opposed to have Hitler appointed Reich Chancellor, and stuck to the idea to have Papen as Reich Chancellor and leave Hitler in the position as Vice Chancellor.
Q. Now, in December, 1932, you wore a friend of von Papen's and also a friend of the Nationalist Herrenclub, which was a group of industrialists and business men who wore supporting Hitler; is that right?
A. I was not a friend of von Papen; neither was I a member of the Herrenclub.
Q. Were you on friendly terms with the Herrenclub?
A. Occasionally I visited the Herrenclub; when there were invitations to lectures, I frequently attended them.
Q. You said that you were an opponent at that time of National Socialism.
A. Yes.
Q. May I read you an English translation from a book which is attributed to you, and is published in 1935, on page 15 of which you say: "The National Socialist Revolution is a unique process in an entirely legal way, without the application of force, without bloodshed in a civil war; Adolf Hitler has in a few months created a unified nation." I will hand you the book.
A. It says here: "In absolute legal ways, first by use of the parliamentary means of the Weimar Constitution. Then on the basis of the enabling act which came about according to the rules of that constitution, without the use of external force, and without bloodshed in a civil war, Adolf Hitler creates in a few months from the torn party state of the Weimar system a unified German nation, with a uniform political will." That was my opinion then and I still have to say it today that it is correct. It doesn't say without bloodshed altogether and without violence altogether -- it says without bloodshed in a civil war and without external force. Moreover, I should like to say that that book, which I published together with Ministerialrat Kaisenberg, and that follow previous commentaries on Reich and Raender law, was objected to by the party, and that a second edition was no longer permitted to be published. The office for the protection of National Socialist writing prohibited it, or considered it undesirable for further publications of that book, and did not give its approval because it was not in confirmity with the National Socialist idea of the state.
And a conference which I had at that time with the deputy chief of that office, Herr Hedrich, who happens to be in this building now, brought it about that the party chancery designated that book as undesirable because it stressed too much the thought of legality in the state, tho constitutionality, and did not take sufficiently into account the position of the party. He suggested that I should modify the book and that I would be able to get approval after that. After discussing it with Kaisenberg, the co-author, I rejected that.
Q. Yes.
A. That is the background of that book.
Q. You did receive the golden party badge though in 1937?
A. Yes, on the 30th January, 1937, together with the Ministers and several Undersecretaries, to my surprise, I was awarded the Golden Party Badge. Since that award was made after a cabinet meeting, that is at an official occasion, and with the reason stated that it was done on the occasion of the completion of the first full four year plan, I considered that matter a distinct award by the State in recognition for long years of service to the State, just as the other gentlemen did who were not party members.
Q. May I ask you if that was the occasion on which Eltz von Ruebenach refused to accept the badge and resigned?
A. Yes.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is all.
EXAMINATION BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. What, in your opinion, was ever achieved by going part way with Hitler and party leaders?
A. I don't know just how I should understand that. I never became a member of the party and, consequently, I did not have any personal contact with the party and its leaders. I always felt that I served the German Reich and the German people, and that I would continue to serve them-
Q. My -
A. Such as I had done before, for more than one generation.
Q. My understanding of your testimony was to the effect that it was necessary for Dr. Schlegelberger to go along with certain ideas of the party and Hitler; is that correct? -- In order to achieve certain other ends?
A. Well, it is about so. We considered it the only way out of the dilemma, the danger of a civil war, and the only way to turn the revolutionary movement into the more quiet path of evolution. The only way it appeared to us was to comprise with the National Socialist Party, to come to a coalition along middle lines. That was the intention in forming the government of 30 January, 1933.
The movement at that time was so strong that the possibility to combat it with the means at the disposal of the State or to hold it down appeared non-existent or too small. And, the possibility to combat it with mental weapons by other forces of other parties, and to do that successfully, if one considered the way in which the various parties were split up, and the lack of success they had, that possibly, too, was so small that one could not expect on the ground of ideology to get back the voters which had joined that party; particularly since, at that time, we had over six million unemployed, and in spite of all efforts on the part of the Government, no improvement was achieved. Also among the parties in the Centre, such as the Volkspartei, the party of the middle there developed more and more strongly the thought that it had become necessary to find a compromise, a coalition with the National Socialists, that that was the best means to guide that large movement into more peaceful ways, to make them give up their irresponsible demagogy, by letting them participate in the practical work.
Q What was the net result of this policy?
A The net result; it led to that coalition of the 30th of January 1933, but that Government coalition did not achieve the success and the results which we had hoped to see.
Q Did the ideas of Hitler and the Party, as to the police or power of the State finally become accepted in the Ministry of Justice after the departure of Dr. Schlegelberger?
A Whether they were accepted by the Ministry, that is the Staff of the Ministry, I do not think so, but undoubtedly they were accepted by Thierack, and by those of the higher officials he had appointed and called, because Thierack's power expressed in the decree of 20 August 1942, implied literally that he had the job, to establish National Socialist administration of justice, and therein lies the answer to your question.
Q And, he did it taking office; is that correct?
A Yes, Thierack did it or at least made all the efforts to do it.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Dr. Meissner, I have a few questions with reference to the procedures to which you testified. A preliminary question concerning the prisons; the prisons in which persons were confined, who had been sentenced to imprisonment by the court, were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice; were they not?
A That is correct, your Honor.
Q Now, we come to the matter of procedure. What was the formal character of the orders which Hitler made from time to time, for the transfer of prisoners from the prisons to the Gestapo? That is the general question. I am interested in whether those orders were specific in each individual case or whether they were, some of them, in the nature of blanket orders) could you tell us about that?
A The orders were issued in each specific case, and as I remember, they always were concerned with criminal cases, cases where Hitler was of the opinion that the sentence of the court in question, was not severe enough, not enough of a deterrent to prevent further crimes of that nature.
Q When such an order was made in a specific case, and in view of the fact that the prisons were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, what kind of an order was made in or under the Ministry of Justice to carry out Hitler's specific order?
A That is not known to me, your Honor; that was an internal matter of the Ministry of Justice. I assume that from the Ministry of Justice, information was passed to the Administration of Penal Institutions, to the effect that upon the request of the Gestapo, that and that man was to be transferred. I repeat that it is only the question of an Ueberstellung, a transfer, the execution of punishment is a matter of the administration; and it is a matter of the administration, if a man who has been sentenced is transferred from one penal institution to another; and since the concentration camps, to that extent, also were penal institutions, since it served also to house criminals, I find, really, nothing wrong and nothing to object to if through administrative channels an instruction was passed on to have a prisoner transferred from one place to another.
Q You fully answered my question, thank you. So far as you know, were there any cases in which Himmler or his agents caused a transfer from prisons which were under the administration of Justice to other places of confinement without any specific order of Hitler?
A I would not know about any such case. I only do know that such transfers in the beginning occurred without the Ministry of Justice being informed, and that there were difficulties in the beginning because the administration of the prisons refused to transfer such inmates without directives having been received from the General Prosecutor or the Ministry of Justice, and, that, then, the transfer could be enforced only by threat of violence. Now, I cannot tell you whether it was Guertner or Schlegelberger who told me about it. And, that was the reason for Guertner to demand of Hitler and finally achieve with Hitler, that he should be informed in order, for once, to be able to inform, on his part, the admistration of penal institutions; but, on the other hand, to have at the same time the opportunity to make objections and counter proposals.
Q Well, the prison authorities were quite within their rights, were they not, in objecting to the release of any prisoner unless there was some communication from the Ministry of Justice; is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all, thank you.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors, please -- is your Honor finished?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have one omitted question and two questions I would like to ask as a result of the questions asked by the Bench, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask your omitted question.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY Mr. LAFOLLETTE:
Q You referred to the Senate President Entert; is that the same Engert who is the defendant in this case?
A Yes, that is the same man.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Do I understand the ruling of the Court that you do not care to permit me to ask any more questions; if that is the ruling I will not press it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think there is no need for any further questions.
Recross examination should be limited.
Is there any redirect examination on the part of the defense?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have one question, but a question which probably technically cannot be considered a reexamination question. I left it out before. It concerns the point as to whether the defendant Schlegelberger has talked to the witness about the donation of 100,000 marks. I left that question out before, and I know, I now would not really be permitted to put that question in redirect. That is why I am asking.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is unnecessary to go into that matter now.
The witness is excused.
(Thereupon the witness withdrew from the court-room.)