A Yes, yes, that is the same Leitmeritz.
Q You were located in Berlin during the pogrom of 1938?
A Yes, I was.
Q Did you see any of the events that took place there?
A No. What exactly are you referring to at the moment -- Berlin or Leitmeritz?
Q I am referring to Berlin. I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. When you were in Berlin in 1938, did you see any of the events of the pogrom?
A No, I did not see anything. But that anything happened at all during that night I only heard at the Ministry.
Q This affair only lasted one night?
AAs far as I know in Berlin, it only lasted for one night. I cannot remember anything else.
Q You knew a about the passage of the Nurnberg laws, surely, as a lawyer?
A I don't understand the question.
Q As a lawyer, you knew of the passage of the Nurnberg laws in 1935?
A Yes, I did. They could be read in the Reichsgesetzblatt -- the Reich law gazette.
Q Were you at Nurnberg when they were passed?
A No, at that time I was not in Nurnberg.
Q Now, in Exhibit 205 which is on page 71 of Book III-H and is NG-283, you signed the letter approving a letter from the Reich Ministry of Justice of 5 August, 1943, in which you said, "No objections are raised to applying the German criminal code for juveniles to foreign juveniles unless they are Jewish, Polish and gypsies," and I think you said that that referred to Document NG-279, which very frankly I was informed for the first time you said was not introduced into evidence. That is all a correct statement of what you said, I am sure.
Now will you explain to me how in III-C and with Bormann absent you signed this order?
AAs I said, Exhibit 205 is a reply to a letter from the Reich Ministry of Justice which preceded it. It is possible that -- I cannot say for certain from memory -- that as NG-279. I have no documents with me here, and therefore if I had the dates here I could make a statement but as I have the documents not with me I cannot do so.
Q These are the same -
A May I ask you what is the date of that letter from the Reich Ministry of Justice NG-279?
Q 279 -- that was August 5, 1943.
AAnd the reply?
Q The reply is September 7, 1943. The reply is Exhibit 205.
A Yes, thank you. In view of the time lag between 5 August 1943 and 7 September 1943, I am bound to conclude that a written report was submitted to Bormann which went to the Fuehrer's headquarters, and I must further assume that Bormann made his decision and that the letter of 7 September 1943 contained his decision and was sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice. That is the only way I can explain the matter to myself without having my documents with me.
Q Yes. Excuse me just a moment. -- You also testified late on Monday or rather on the 10th, on Thursday, that when you saw a letter from Himmler dated in April, 1944 - I can't give you the document number right now -- which said that signs in restaurants forbidding Jews could be taken down because that problem had been solved, that had no significance to you, and that you thought that the Jews were living in a state near Leitmeritz in very pleasant conditions and that you saw a picture in the German paper of the Mayor and officers of this Jewish city and state. Is that the same Leitmeritz that was under your supervision in 1943 and 1944?
A Yes, I went to Leitmeritz and at Theresienstadt, not at Leitmeritz there was that town which had been established as a Jewish city.
We passed that city and then we came to a barrier where we were not allowed to pass because we were told that city was exclusively inhabited by Jews. We had to by-pass it to get to Leitmeritz.
Q That city was under the control of the Plenipotentiary for the greater German Reich, was it not, within the area under his control?
A I don't know.
Q Well, how far was it from -- Leitmeritz was under the control of the German Plenipotentiary for the German Reich, was it not -- the Minister of the Interior?
A: Yes, in the field of administration it was under the Ministry of the Interior; purely from the point of view of administrative law it was under the Ministry of the Interior.
Q: And it was Bohemia and was under the Protectorate, which was under the Minister of the Interior?
A: As far as matters of administration were concerned it was under the Ministry of the Interior; in financial matters it was under the Ministry of Finance; and in legal matters it was under the Ministry of Justice.
Q: The officers of the Third Reich -- whether they were in the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior, or the Finance Ministry -- exercised jurisdiction over the territory around Leitmeritz in Bohemia, did they not?
A: They exercised that jurisdiction over all areas of the Sudetenland. That was not the Protectorate.
Q: Yes; now, that was not the Protectorate?
A: That is right.
Q: Now, as you went to Leitmeritz you came to this barrier, that said you could not go to this Jewish town.
A: No, there was a barrier there.
Q: I said, you came to the barrier.
A: Yes.
Q: How far was the barrier from Leitmeritz?
A: I guess two to three kilometers, if it was as much as that.
Q: Yes.
A: That was the way from the station of Leitmeritz into the town of Leitmeritz.
Q: Now, you had already seen an order extending the Nurnberg laws into the area of Leitmeritz. You testified that you saw that.
That is a document which you saw while you were in the Ministry of Justice.
A: Yes; that was in the year 1937, or in the year 1939.
Q: Yes. Had you ever seen these laws repealed from around that territory?
A: I don't understand the question; whether those laws were repealed?
Q: Yes, the ones that you saw extended into the Sudetenland. Did you ever see a repeal of them?
A: They were not repealed until the time of the collapse.
Q: And this was before the collapse that you went to Leitmeritz and ran into the barrier, is that right?
A: That was in the year 1944.
Q: Yes, Now I ask you, will you explain to me and to the court, if you lived in Germany during the program of 1938, if you signed a law saying that the Juvenile Code of Germany should not be applied to Jews and Poles and Gypsies, if you knew of the extension of the Nurnberg laws into the area of the Sudetenland, and if you further knew that they were not repealed until the collapse in 1945, upon what grounds you believed the newspaper accounts that the Jews were living in a wonderful city just outside of Leitmeritz. Will you explain that please? And be careful, Mr. Klemm.
A: First of all, I have to correct something. The Poles, by the law against the Poles, and the Jews, by the Thirteenth Citizens Order -- in those two cases a legal arrangement had been made to the effect that those two groups did not come under the Reich Juvenile Law, because the Reich Juvenile Law said expressly concerning its sphere of validity, "unless another legal arrangement had been made", and such an arrangement had, in fact, been made.
Therefore, I am unable to understand your question.
Q: Well, may I read to you from page 17055 of the mimeographed copy of the IMT record?
"Seyss-Inquart admits knowing that they, the Jews, were going to Auschwitz, but he claims that he heard from people who had been to Auschwitz that the Jews were comparatively well off there and that he thought that they were being held there for resettlement after the war. In light of the evidence and on account of his official position, it is impossible to believe this claim."
Now I ask you again, do you still want to tell this Tribunal that you believe that there was a town within two or three kilometers of Leitmeritz in which the Jews were living in a blissful, pleasant state in which they were not molested? Which was your testimony in here on Thursday. Now, do you want to say that again, or have you changed your mind?
A: Yes, I was of the firm conviction that the Jews there lived under their own municipal administration as in a town of their own, and that they had their own restaurants there, their own police, and everything else that is part of a municipal administration. In that my belief was supported by pictures which I had seen some time earlier in German periodicals.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, why did you think that a German official like yourself should be barred from that place by the roadblock?
THE WITNESS: I did not tell the guard there who I was. I did not know that was the way to Theresienstadt.
I wanted to go to Leitmeritz, and I thought I was on the way to Leitmeritz. However, the guard then said, "This is not the way to Leitmeritz, this is the way to Theresienstadt", and we turned our car around. That conversation was only a matter of ten or twelve seconds.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q: And you also, on the night of the pogrom in November 1938, stayed inside and saw nothing; is that right?
A: Would you please repeat the question?
Q: I said and you also, on the night of the pogrom in November 1938, stayed inside your house and saw nothing?
A: No, I was nothing. I was at home that evening. The next morning I went to my office, and I did not see anything then either, because nine-tenths of my route to the office took me through public parks. It was only at the Ministry that I heard about it. Several reports came in over the telephone from general public prosecutors, but I had to hand these matters over to someone else to deal with.
Q: Now, you stated on Tuesday, that you were indeed grateful to the prosecution for introducing Exhibit 437 that is document NG-919, Volume I Supplement, page 43. The first of that document is a letter from Freisler, dated the 21st of March 1942, and it is addressed to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Party Chancellery. The subject is: "The Simplification of the Administration of Penal Law." The last paragraph of Friesler's letter is this: "In view of the urgency of the matter, I request that only a representative who is in a position to make binding decisions be sent to this meeting."
You were sent. I thought you told us that you were an unimportant person in the Party Chancery.
A: Yes.
Q: But you had the power to make binding decisions in this matter of the further simplification of the administration of the penal law. That is correct, isn't it?
A: No; I did not have that authority. The wish had been expressed that only representatives should be sent to that meeting who were in a position to make a final decision. Bormann did not delegate that authority and therefore that transcript reveals that no final discussions on that matter were held there. The record states several times that I, as the representative of the Party Chancellery, held out the possibility that that wish might be withdrawn for the very reason that I could not make a decision. I emphasized particularly, at that conference, that I was not empowered to make final decisions, and that is quite clearly mentioned in the record.
Q: So Bormann did not send what Freisler wanted; is that what you want us to understand?
A: Yes, because Bormann never did so; he always wanted to hear about the results first.
Q: Now, in discussing this document, or this exhibit, you pointed out where you had made certain suggestions and advocated certain positions that were contrary to Party policy, and that you acted always in a judicial manner. Now, in the notes of the meeting, Article 3, which is on page 60 of the document book I supplement I read this to you:
"Regarding Article 3, Ministerialrat Klemm wanted to authorize the public prosecutors also to issue warrants of arrest, but he did not insist upon this after hearing the arguments raised against it by the representatives of the Reich Ministry of Justice."
Haven't you testified in here that one of the things that Himmler and the police wanted to do was to get the power of arrest into the hands of the prosecutor?
A Himmler wanted to incorporate the entire Public Prosecution into the police, but at the time when that conference was held until the very last, the Public Prosecution came under the Administration of Justice. Concerning Himmler wanting to get the Public Prosecution under his own competency, that problem never played any part at this conference.
Q In subparagraph D on this page, with regard to Article 8, Ministerialrat Klemm wondered if it would not be suitable also to substitute the readings of the minutes of previous hearings by a police officer for the hearing of a witness. The representatives of the Reich Ministry of Justice objected to this on principle and declared that this would be going too far. Besides, the possibility of doint this was limited according to Article 251, Paragraph 2, Criminal Procedure." Did you want simply to have the minutes of what a man said at a police examination substituted for the witness?
A I did not get the meaning of your question, I am afraid.
Q Well, you heard me read to you that you proposed to substitute the reading of the minutes of a witness' previous hearing by a police official for the hearing of the witness, and so forth, Article 251, Paragraph 1, Criminal Code of Procedure. Now will you explain to me what you proposed to do by that?
A This was the problem. A witness might not be available for the court and the question arose whether in such cases the transcript which had been taken down by the police, and not only by the Gestapo but also by the criminal police or the police altogether, whether that transcript could be used as a substitute in the proceedings in a case where the witness was not available at the trial. That was the problem which I dismissed, and when objections were made that subject was dropped.
Q Now then, also reading on the same page, "Finally Ministerialrat Klemm suggested cancelling Article 414, Criminal Procedure, motion for a judicial decision in the case of penal orders given by the police. Will you explain to us what you intended to do by that?
A The police had the right in the case of transgressions to issue penal regulations. Such transgressions could be punished by fines up to 150 marks or up to six weeks' imprisonment; in many cases only up to imprisonment of a fortnight. By way of simplification and the conference was concerned for reasons of a shortage of staff and other war time reasons to simplify the administration of penal justice, and for those reasons the suggestion was made that in such minor cases a further authority, that is to say, the Administration of Justice, was not to be appealed to. But that suggestion too -- and it was no more than a suggestion -- was not maintained. That again is evident from the transcript.
Q The police were then under the jurisdiction of the Reich Minister of the Interior. Did you know that he was interested in such a proposal as you made at that meeting?
A I heard that at that conference, yes. The representatives of the Ministry of Justice told me that in their reply. The arrangement which I suggested would have been applicable for as my knowledge of those regulations at the time was concerned, that arrangement would have applied mainly in the case of traffic violations and concerned mainly motorcyclists. In fact they were matters which concerned, above all, the traffic police, the road police.
Q May I read to you what the minutes say about this? This was injected by the representatives of the Reich Ministry of Justice? and the pointed out that at present a special draft of the decree was being prepared by the Reich Ministry of the Interior which would provide for certain restrictions with regard to serving motions for judicial decisions they said they would give their consent to this decree, although reluctantly. May I ask you if the Reich Ministry of Justice opposed your suggestion and stated that they would oppose any further attempts by the Ministry of the Interior to simplify criminal procedure in this regard -- do you think that your proposals were all highly judicious and in favor of the constitutional state at this meeting? That is what I think you said.
A Oh, yes, in their full extent.
Q Thank you. This meeting took place on 21 April 1942, I believe. I think it was delayed one week. If not, it took place on 14 April. Now you discuss rather fully here Exhibit No. 75 which we have all discussed from time to time here. That is NO 102 in Document Book 1-C. That was the proposal made by Dr. Schlegelberger, following Hitler's speech of April 22, 1942 to control the handling of clemency petitions and to control a situation where, let's say just mildly the criminal judgments were not uniform, and considering the war were not sufficiently severe; is that correct?
A I assume that you are referring to the matter of the right of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal to confirm penal sentences.
Q That's right. And you said that when it reached you, you were very upset about the matter and you drafted the letter of June 10, 1992 for Bormann, which stated that the Party Chancellery could not concur in that proposal.
A I did not say that I drafted that letter. I said that it was drafted in 3-C, because at the top it bears the file note. I can no longer tell who in 3-C drafted the letter. Wthout the documents of the Party Chancellery I cannot say whether I initialed it, that is to say, whether I approved it before it was submitted to Bormann, nor do I know whether the draft which was made in 3-C was signed by Bormann in the form in which it was prepared or whether Bormann redictated the draft. That happened quite frequently, and that is what I said about the letter. But the rejection of a suggestion by the Reich Ministry of Justice, that I affirmed, because that law to me seemed to involve a great danger that the local Party agencies would exercise pressure on the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal and the Public Prosecutor, if they, that is to say these Party agencies, did not agree with a sentence.
Q Let me read some of what you said and let's see if you still want to say you had no part in drafting this letters "We likewise knew that the Presidents of the District Court of Appeals were of different types. Perhaps in two or three cases Hitler would make use of that power and authority. In fact, he never made use of that authority, "then", that 3,000 judgments would fall under that regulation -- this was the Schlegelberger regulation -- and therefore we were against it. From that time on the difficulties really started. Namely, if Bormann would have thought it through and would have noticed what tremendous indirect influence could be obtained he might have supported that decree. That letter itself, of course, had to take into account Bormann's mentality and therefore it is written in such terms. Now do you want to say that Bormann wrote it or do you still want to take credit as you did on the 8th of July for drafting this clever letter in support of the constitutional state? Which is it?
A I stated that for the judiciary it would not have been so disadvantageous if, effect, in three to four cases Hitler had changed a sentence, but actually he never did so. That would have been better than having 300,000 sentences threatened with the uncertainty of later being changed through the administrative decision of the President of the District Court of Appeals. From the point of view of legal safety I would have considered the second state of affairs in practice less desirable than the first state of affairs of which one did not actually know if it would come into effect and which did, in fact, not take effect.
Q Did you write the letter or did Bormann?
A I did not write it.
Q Did Bormann write it?
A The letter was drafted in Group III-C, as I can conclude from the file note at the top of the letter - the file note III-C -- whether it is the same letter which was drafted in Group III-C and which later Bormann signed I cannot say without referring to the files from the Party Chancellery and without instituting comparisons because it happened frequently that at the Reich Leader's office at the Fuehrer's Headquarters such letters were redrafted or redictated. That is really all I can say.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, if I remember rightly you testified that III-C was the department which was under your direct supervision.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And at the time in question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, but when I was away on an official trip, a deputy signed for me.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q But I want to get back to your testimony about the letter of June 10, 1942 which you gave on Tuesday, and in which you said, "If Bormann had thought it through and would have noticed what a tremendous indirect influence could be obtained in this way by the local party offices, he might have supported that decree --"
A Perhaps -
Q Let me finish. "because the system of law authority and differences in that system as it existed in the Armed Forces compared to the civil administration of justice, would have been very great. The generals as law authorities did not permit any interference from the Party offices. Quite apart from the fact that there were not at all as many Party offices so interested especially outside of Germany and therefore in such terms as Bormann liked on the part of the Party Chancellery, the suggestion was rejected.
The letter itself, of course, had to take into account Bormann's mentality and therefore it is written in such terms."
Now you were referring to the letter as it at present stands in the document book. Do you want to say now that Bormann maybe changed the letter and wrote it in a style to fool himself?
A Because I am under oath here, I must make this restriction. Today, after I don't know how many -- after three or four years -- I can no longer know whether word for word that draft was made in III-C. I cannot say that under oath. Therefore I must point out that it was possible that the draft which was made in III-C could have been changed.
Q Now then in Exhibit 27, NG-075, Document Book I-B, is a memorandum from Dr. Rothenberger, and there is also in evidence, I think as part of this exhibit, a request -- an intervention by Albert Bormann to Lammers, sending to Lammers a copy of Rothehberger's thesis. That is dated June 7th -- I beg your pardon -- that is dated May 11th. Did you know about that letter when you wrote your letter of June 10th?
A My letter of June 10th? May I ask you what letter you're referring to?
Q I am referring to the one that you wrote rejecting from the Party Chancellery the Schlegelberger proposal.
A Whether I at the time that letter was written already knew of the Rothenberger memorandum?
Q That is right.
A No.
Q Did you know it had been requested by Hitler through Albert Bormann?
A That memorandum by Albert Bormann?
Q Yes. Did you know of the existence of that?
AAlbert Bormann is the brother of Martin Bormann and Martin Bormann was the Chief of the Party Chanceller, not Albert Bormann. At the Adjutant's office of Hitler, those matters were proceeding without the Party Chancellery playing any part.
If I remember correctly that memorandum came to my knowledge only a great deal later. I cannot say now whether and when Martin Bormann, the Chief of the Party Chancellery, received that memorandum. I don't remember that.
Q You testified that "one day Bormann called me on the telephone in connection with some other matters and put the question to me, 'Do you happen to know Rothenberger?'" That must have been during the days when Hitler read that memorandum. Now the memorandum is the Rothenberger memorandum?
A Yes.
Q It's about that time.
A But I do not know what was the reason for Bormann asking me about Rothenberger.
Q Now there you testified, that (1) Frohboese, (2) Harmening, (3) Thierack, (4) David, (5) Weber, (6) Dr. Best, and (7) Rothenberger were candidates for the job of Reich Minister of Justice in June 1942 to your knowledge, is that right?
A I was asked about those persons. I was asked about dates concerning their life history, their character, and also their political history. The Reich Treasury of the Party had all the personnel documents and it was there at the Party Chancellery that we made inquiries as to when these persons had joined the Party. I was asked because I knew the people, both as regards their persons and as regards their qualifications, because I had been at the Reich Ministry of Justice. I was asked to pass on these details to Bormann. Only when those cases became more frequent cases of such inquiry, then we found out why we were asked. There were also more cases, not only the names which I have mentioned -- but I don't remember the other names -- whether the people were scrutinized for the position of Reich Minister of Justice -- we didn't know that at the time but we began to notice that evidently a plan had been made to fill the position of Minister at the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q And you did know that at the time you wrote the letter of June 10th for the Party Chancellery rejecting for the Party Chancellery the Schlegelberger proposal?
A It may have been at that time. It is possible. But I don't think it happened so early. Those things were not connected.
Q Of the seven candidates that you named, Dr. Thierack was your candidate, is that right?
A I did not have to give my views on the subject at all. All I did was: concerning every candidate whose name appeared, I had to state what I knew about him. I had to say who he was, what positions he had held, what his age was, when he had joined the Party, whether he was a Party member at all. Among the names were people who were not Party members after all. Those were the matters on which I passed information. To speak of my candidate as far as Bormann was concerned, that was not a thing one could discuss at all. Bormann allowed no interference, nor did I know exactly for what reason Bormann was instituting inquiries about these names.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question. Just tell us briefly, was your report on Thierack a favorable report or an unfavorable one in your opinion?
A I gave an account of Thierack, -
THE PRESIDENT: Can you answer my question directly?
A On the basis of my experiences I had made in Saxony and the acquaintances I made -
THE PRESIDENT: I fully understand; you told us all about that. Now, as a result of your knowledge of him, would you be willing to venture an opinion as to whether your report on Thierack was favorable to him, or unfavorable -- the report itself. You discussed his political affiliations, no doubt.
A I said that Thierack had joined the party before 1933.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. By reason of the nature of your answer, I assume that you cannot now give an opinion as to whether the report you made was favorable to him or unfavorable.
A I am sure I gave a. good account of Thierack, a good opinion; I don't remember any details, but the account as a whole that I gave of Thierack was favorable.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all I asked you. Thank you.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Thierack was appointed in August, 1943 -- 1942, I beg your pardon, and you were made liaison officer of the National Socialist Lawyers' League at the party chancery simultaneously with his taking office; is that right?
A Not simultaneously, but when he took over the direction of the Rechtswahrerbund, Thierack appointed me liaison man between the Munich offices and himself. That must have happened a little later; without referring to the document I cannot say.
Q You testified -- I withdraw that. You are in favor of the constitutional state, I know; is that right?
A Yes.
Q How does it happen that simultaneously with the opening up of this position as to be the minister of justice, Frank, who was then governor general of Poland, delivered speeches in favor of the constitutional state, and that you in Munich heard about it.
Did you consider that Frank didn't believe in the constitutional state, or was it because Himmler opposed Frank that you were no longer interested in Frank?
A I never heard those speeches nor read them. All that was said was that Frank had made several speeches in which he attacked Himmler and his police, and that thereby Frank had been discredited with Hitler. That is all we knew about at the time, and we heard no details; I never heard any speeches and I did not read them either.
Q You signed Document 541, Exhibit 35 on the 27th of August, 1942 with Bormann. This is a letter addressed to Reichleiters, Gauleiters -those are political characters, are they not -- political personalities in the Reich?
A Yes; they are official agencies of the Nazi party.
Q And Division II of the party chancery, you testified, dealt with political matters; that is correct. I wonder if you would explain how in these political matters -
A Yes.
Q -- having to do with the administration of justice, you were called upon by Bormann to sign this circular with him.
A I did not co-sign the circular, but F.D.R. means for the accuracy (Richtigkeit) the fact that my name appears under FDR is for the correctness fur die richtigkeit. It merely means that the circular is sent out in accordance with the original. If Department III wanted to pass on any information to the political leaders, only Bormann could give permission to do so. Such a suggestion could only be submitted to Bormann if Department II, which was in charge of the political agencies was in agreement. When all those formalities had been settled, when Bormann had signed the circular, it was sent out in printed form, and the department that originated the circular in the first place had to certify to its correctness by such a note -- this is to certify that the original and the printed copy were the same.
TEE PRESIDENT: Did you make these certifications of correct copy, which were purely mechanical matters, for all of the other departments as well as your - own? Were you the one who merely certified that copies were correct copies?
A Only if they had originated in Department III--C, that is to say in the legal department.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q And on 23rd October, after Thierack came in, in III-C, the party chancery, there was an Exhibit 357, Document Book V-B, that gave the gauleiters the right to interfere in party clemency matters. Recalling your objection to Schlegelberger's plan, I ask you to tell me whether or not there had been an improvement under the constitutional state of Thierack which now gives the gauleiters a direct right to interfere with clemancy pleas?
A May I ask you to explain the matter to me in a little more detail. At the moment I don't know what Exhibit 375 is; I do not know what that exhibit dealt with -- whether this is a matter of obtaining the opinion of the gauleiters in cases where a death sentence was to be commuted.
Q That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit was 357 -- not 375.
A That arrangement naturally made things more difficult for the Administration of Justice, but it was made in virtue of an order by Hitler, and did not involve a final solution, that is to say, the gauleiter could express his opinion but that did not mean that a legal decision on the matter had been made. That opinion of the gauleiter -- which was attached to the report -- simply brought it to the attention of Hitler when the report was made to Hitler. It is quite correct to say that the participation of the gauleiters made matters more difficult for the judiciary, but neither the judiciary or the party chancery brought about that participation of the gauleiters. It was brought about by Gauleiter von Schirach calling on Hitler and thus making Hitler aware of this idea, which finally caused Hitler to pass an order.