That is a general outline of the case. I did not hear it from the public prosecutor at Cleve, who presented the case, but I heard it from a district court counsellor who informed me of the matter.
Thereupon I told the Senior Public Prosecutor in Duesseldorf to deal with the matter and immediately make a report to me. He returned; I ordered that investigations be made, and I myself made investigations too. I interrogated witnesses, for example. I believe the best thing would be for me to tell the Tribunal what the results of my investigations were.
The two Canadian soldiers had been taken prisoner close to the frontier, as I told you. Two customs officials took them back. The Canadian soldiers were disarmed and, as I think it the custom with prisoners of war, they held up their hands as they walked along. The two customs officials took them back like that, until they got to Kranenburg. That is a little place on the German-Dutch frontier. At Kranenbeurg that SA leader was standing in the street -- his name was Kluetgen; next to him stood the district leader, the Kreisleiter of Cleve, whose name was Hartmann. When Kluetgen saw those two prisoners coming alone he told them to halt; he drew his pistol and fired at them. He shot at them and killed them. Kluetgen was so imbued with savoir-faire that when at first his revolver wouldn't fire he put it right, and when he had got it put right again he shot those two soldiers down. As I found out later, at that time or soon after he said, "Now I have got two; I now need another two or three." I can't vouch for the latter figure, I don't know exactly what he meant. However when he said "now I need another two or three", I think it meant this. In an air raid, I believe, Kluetgen had lost five close relatives, and it became evident that that murder was just vengeance for his relatives whom he had lost in that air raid.
That is to say, if I may put it that way, he acted in a modification of the old phrase "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". He just changed it and made the "eye for eye" into one number for another.
That clarified the Kluetgen position, but the part played by the Kreisleiter, the District Leader, who had been standing next to Kluetgen, remained unclear. I believe I can remember that the Kreisleiter had said something that wasn't quite above-board, something like "Oh, just do away with them", or something like that. However, it was possible to interpret the words in various ways. It is just possible that he had meant to say, "Well, Kluetgen had better shoot them down," or he might have meant to say, "You had better take those two people away, just move them on", because, as far as I remember, somebody-said afterwards that after those two people had been killed, the Kreisleiter had said that that was not what he had intended to happen.
That was the outcome of our investigations.
Now, as concerns the proceedings that were instituted:
The Senior Public Prosecutor had requested the police to arrest Kluetgen, but the police regused to carry out the order. Later on, when I was interned, I heard from a Gestapo official that there had been general instructions issued to the police to the effect that men from the Ortsgruppenleiter upward were to be arrested and proceedings instituted against them only if the Party Chancellery approved, and similar instructions had been issued for people in the SA and the SS. Generally speaking, I did not encounter any difficulties when making those investigations. The SA gave its consent for me to interrogate several people. The Kreisleiter, however, refused to testify until the consent had arrived, and it was the Party Chancellery which had to give that consent; that is to say, it was Bormann. Although an application was made for such consent, it never arrived.
I made a report to the Ministry about the case. Naturally, I had to make a report because it was an important case, and reports had to be made to the Ministry about all such important cases.
I told the Ministry, over the telephone, about the fact that proceedings had been instituted, and I believe it was Dr. Mettgenberg to whom I spoke over the telephone. I told him as much as I knew at that time. Afterwards I made a written report, and I told the Ministry that I intended to clear up the matter, and I eventually did clear it up. I also told the Ministry that I needed their support in order to obtain permission for the Kreisleiter to testify.
The Ministry was altogether in agreement with the way I had handled the case. I received written instructions, and that was the way I interpreted the instructions. I understood them to want me to clear up the case completely.
As regards the intention of discontinuing all proceedings, that was never mentioned. Not one word was said of that.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment please, witness. Tell us,please, what did you mean by clearing up the case? Did you mean prosecute and convict? Or what did you mean?
THE WITNESS: What I meant, first, was to establish the facts, and, once, they were established, to suggest to the Ministry that an indictment should be filed against Kluetgen and, if necessary, also against the Kreisleiter. I could not make a final suggestion at that state because I did not yet know what part the Kreisleiter had played. That is to say, the Ministry agreed that I should carry out my plan to clear up the case, but because no approval was received to interrogate the Kreisleiter, we could not continue with the proceedings.
There were, of course, great difficulties. There were transportation difficulties. The further the war was brought into the country, the more difficult it was to have any correspondence with Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date of this case?
THE WITNESS: I am afraid I cannot tell you the exact date. I think one should be able to find out from the history of the war. It was that parachute attack near Arnheim. I think I am pretty certain it was in September. May I also say that is the way I remember the case now. The files are in existence.
THE PRESIDENT: It was in 1944?
THE WITNESS: Yes, 1944. I did something which, as far as I know, I never did in any other case. I had two copies made of that file, one original file and a copy of it. I gave the original to my senior inspector, and I told him to keep it, not bo leave it in the courthouse at night but to take it home with him, and to take it with him to the air raid shelter if the alert should go on. I kept the duplicate myself, and whenever the alert went on I took it to the air raid shelter with me, to make sure that if anything happened to either my senior inspector or to myself, one file would always be available, so that there should be no difficulty in prosecuting the case. I was convinced that this was an important case not only from the point of view of guilt and expiation in the individual concrete case, but that it might also be of importance, and it was bound to be of importance, for the German armed forces, for although I have never been a soldier, I could well imagine that if the allied forces should come to hear that the German Administration of Justice had not prosecuted that case, they would take retaliation measures against German soldiers, or at least might do so. In that event, soldiers who were innocent in this connection might have suffered for what Kluetgen, and possibly also the Kreisleiter, Hartmann had done.
What may be of interest and I think is sure to be of interest, is the reaction of the German population in Kranenburg. There were some German civilians standing in the street when this business happened, who quite openly showed their indignation.
THE PRESIDENT: Was any indictment filed against the one who actually did the shooting?
THE WITNESS: No, that was not done, because we had to wait. The role the Kreisleiter played -
THE PRESIDENT: Please answer this question. Did you have any difficulty with the securing of the evidence concerning the actual shooting? As you have told it to us, you apparently had plenty of evidence as to that one person.
THE WITNESS: Yes, for one man I had the evidence, but as it was possible that another man was involved the Kreisleiter -- it was important that we should not just indict one nan and dead- with him alone, but we intended to indict them together. We always did that in principle.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me ask you this. Was that a matter of German law, that when you knew one man had committed a crime you didn't prosecute him because perhaps some one else might have helped him?
THE WITNESS: But we did intend to indict him. We only wanted to await the result of the investigations concerning the other person, so that we could indict then both, because if we couldn't try both people, the trial of only one person would have been confronted with a great many difficulties. That was the way in which we proceeded, I should say, almost always.
THE PRESIDENT: Very interesting.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Herr Hanemann, I would like to ask one more question. The President has asked you whether you were confronted with any difficulties in prosecuting one person. I am referring to Kluetgen now.
A Yes.
Q May I ask you to tell us whether you had an opportunity to talk to Kluetgen yourself, or to interrogate him?
A I asked the legal adviser of the SA, if possible to make Kluetgen come to see me. At first he - Kluetgen, I mean, had worked in Kranenburg, but afterwards the SA had sent him to the Aachen district, the Aix district. He had some special transport mission there, and when he came to Duesseldorf on one of those transportation errands, he came to see me in my apartment one Saturday evening. I was ill; that is why I was at home. I had a short talk with him, and I was not favorably impressed by him. He told me that he had killed those two Canadians because he had been afraid that foreign civilian workers who were around in that district might have set those Canadians free. I wanted to refute that statement, and I did refute that statement by the testimony obtained from witnesses. However, that motive would have been quite indifferent for the legal evaluation of the case.
As regards the clearing up of the case, it seemed, important to me to convict the man and prove to him that that motive could not have. been true.
Q Witness, you have said, that the instructions from the senior public prosecutor at Duesseldorf to the police, to arrest Kluetgen, had not been complied with, and now you say Kluetgen came to see you. Did you, as a General Public Prosecutor, not have the possibility to arrest Kluetgen immediately?
A No, I did not have that possibility. It was a Saturday evening, I was alone in my apartment, and I had no weapons.
Q You said that Kluetgen had been transferred to the Aachen district, and you said that the agency for which Kluetgen worked had done that. In carrying out your investigations, did you find any indications that that was done intentionally in order to remove Kluetgen from your area?
A I did not find indications and I certainly did not find any proof, but the possibily exists. However, it is also quite possible that Klueten was transferred from the Kranenburg district because the population was so upset and excited.
Q Could you just tell the Tribunal approximately when the allied troops entered. Duesseldorf or Aachen, or anyway the district where Kluetgen was staying at the time.
A Yes. I can't tell you exactly when the allied troops arrived in Aachen, but they arrived in Ober Kassel, on the left Rhine bank, in March, and as far as I remember, they got to Duesseldorf in April.
Q Up to that time proceedings were continued, were they?
A Yes.
Q And later on, after you had received the support from the Ministry, no instructions to the contrary were issued to you?
A No contrary instructions were issued to me. The matter was concluded. All that was missing was to interrogate the Kreisleiter.
Q And, in accordance with your suggestion, they would then have been indicted?
A Well, I couldn't make a suggestion because I didn't really know what was the matter with Hartmann yet, but if I had found out then, I would have suggested the indictment of Kluetgen and possibly the indictment of the Kreisleiter too. However, as regards the Kreisleiter, that depended upon those investigations which had not yet been made.
Q I suppose these facts which you have described to the Tribunal can be gathered from the files which you have mentioned?
A Yes.
Q May I ask you when you saw the files for the last time?
A In the spring of this year.
Q What has been done with the files?
A I have them to the General Public Prosecutor, Dr. Junker, in Duesseldorf, and I gave them to him myself, in person.
Q And presumably they are still there?
A Yes, I am quite sure they must be.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to ask a question. The case was pending for investigation from September 1944 until March 1945? Is that what you meant to say?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it was.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Herr Hagemann, did you ever hear -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. One question.
JUDGE HARDING: What did the Ministry do about it?
THE WITNESS: Well, naturally I don't know what steps the Ministry took, but I assume, or I believe, that the Ministry tried to get the Party Chancellery to give its consent for the Kreisleiter to be interrogated; again and again I requested the Ministry to take such a step.
JUDGE HARDING: But you never heard from the Ministry, is that right?
THE WITNESS: No, no, I heard no more later on, because - well, I, don't really know why they didn't write again. I have already told you that transportation difficulties were great and that it became more and more difficult to keep in touch by letter or by telegram. For example, since the middle of March - or anyway q think it must have been since the middle of March - we were still in a sort of cauldron in Duesseldorf, we were cut off from the outside world.
THE PRESIDENT: In March 1945?
THE WITNESS: Excuse me. What is it you mean? What happened in March 1945? You mean it was then that Duesseldorf became a cauldron? You mean it was then that we became cut off in Duesseldorf?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I think it must have been in March 1945, but naturally the difficulties had been great before that time - I mean the transportation difficulties - and that grew worse and worse.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Herr Hagemann, did you ever hear that that man Kluetgen had been sentenced to death by an American Military Tribunal?
A Yes, Dr. Haensel told me that a few days ago. He told me that he had read in the paper that Kluetgen bad been sentenced to death in Dachau by an American Military Tribunal.
Q Now, one more question, which has nothing to do with this case.
As general public prosecutor, I am sure you had to deal with nullity pleas.
A Yes, I had.
Q Did you ever suggest a nullity plea to the Oberreichsanwalt at the Reich Supreme Court in favor of a foreigner?
A Yes.
Q Would you give the Tribunal a brief account of that case?
A A French civilian worker had been sentenced to a penitentiary term by the Special Court in Wuppertal, because he had committed rape on a German girl during the blackout, or at any rate he was alleged to have done so. I received the verdict, just as I received all verdicts passed by the Special Court and as I read through the verdict I found that I had to arrive at the conclusion that that verdict was incorrect. In order to sentence that man it was necessary , as a pre-condition , that that girl had not agreed to the man doing what he was supposed to have done. To me, all the circumstances indicated, beyond all doubt, that the girl had been altogether in agreement with the Frenchman doing what, in effect, he did do to her, although she testified to the contrary.
I don't think you will be interested in the details which caused me to arrive at that conclusion.
I instructed the Senior Public Prosecutor to file a nullity plea in favor of the Frenchman with the Oberreichsanwalt at the Reich Supreme Court. The file, together with that suggestion, was passed on to the Oberreichsanwalt, and I entered a remark on the papers; and I also made a report to the Ministry about the case. I believe there was a general instruction, concerning cases of nullity pleas, that a report had to be made to the Ministry.
The Ministry did not issue instructions to the contrary to me, but consented to the steps which I was taking. I then received an order in connection with this case, and I believe Dr. Mettgenberg had signed it. The Reich Supreme Court then revoked the sentence passed by the Special Court at Wuppertal, but not altogether in accordance with my suggestion. My suggestion had been that the Reich Supreme Court was to acquit the man immediately, but the Reich Supreme Court revoked the verdict and referred the case for retrial to the Special Court at Wuppertal. No trial was held because by that time we were very near the end of the war and. I believe that, as the allied forces arrived, that Frenchman must have been discharged.
In this case too, therefore, the Ministry was altogether in agreement with the steps I wished to take. I considered the verdict unfair, and it appears that the Ministry agreed with me that that unfairness had to be removed, no matter whether the man concerned was a Frenchman or a German.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination of this witness?
(No response)
It appears that there is not. You may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q After you communicated with Dr. Mettgenberg about your trouble with the case, did you ever get an answer back from him?
A You're now referring to the first case, are you? You're referring to the Kluetgen case, are you?
Q Yes, I'm referring to the Kluetgen case.
A Yes, I talked to him over the telephone and then I received an order from the Ministry to the effect that they agreed with my plan to clear up the matter and that in particular the Kreisleiter was to be interrogated. I was also instructed to make a further report that probably further directives would be issued to me. Naturally, I had to wait important directives from the Minister. Whether it was Dr. Mettgenberg who had signed that order or whether it was Dr. Vollmer who was then a ministerial Dirigent, naturally I can't tell you, for of course I was interested in the case as such but not in the men who signed it.
Q And before you could do any more, you had to wait for instructions from the Ministry in all cases of Allied fliers being shot; is that right?
A Well, that is the way I remember that circular decree but that is the only case that occurred in my area and instructions were to clear up the matter.
Q I have no further questions.
THY PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness is excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Call your next witness.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, may I just say something about this matter. I made an application for the files of the General Prosecutor at Duesseldorf to be sent here, and I should like to point out that a few days ago I made my application again in writing. I originally made it in June. Duesseldorf is in the British Zone. If it should be possible to get these files here, we could clear up that matter entirely.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't it perfectly obvious already that the man who shot the two fliers received no punishment until he was executed at Dachau by the Allied powers?
I think it's not necessary to establish that any further than you have done that already.
GUSTAV MITZSCHKE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE KIDDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, will you please tell the court your full name.
A Dr. Gustav Mitzschke.
Q You worked at the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A Yes.
Q What position did you hold there?
A I was a Referent in the Legislative Department, that is to say, in the civil legislative department and in the prosecution department.
Q Please don't talk quite so fast, Dr. Mitzschke. Until what time did you work at the Ministry?
A Until January 1945.
Q May it please the Court, I have a document here, Exhibit 529, these Document No. is NG-1580. This is a document that was introduced by the prosecution during the examination of Klemm. It is a file note which is called a pre-note by Helm, the General Public Prosecutor at Munich. The date at which that file note was entered is 16 August 1944. Dr. Mitzschke, on 16 August 1944, you were still at the Ministry were you?
A Yes, I was.
Q The note which I have here in front of me refers to you. It is made out on seven points and it is introduced by the following words, and I quote:
"Ministerialrat Mitzschke, when he came to call on me, brought up the following points of discussion" -- and now it will follow the six or seven points which I have mentioned before. Do you remember that on 16 August 1944 you were in Munich?
A I don't exactly remember what day it was but it's quite possible that in the middle of August 1944 I called on Helm, the General Public Prosecutor, for an official discussion.
Q At whose instigation did you go to Munich?
A For some time it had been intended that I should go to Munich for an official talk to discuss several matters of the penal law and also concerning the staff at the prosecution office. The instructions were given to me on the basis of a telephone conversation. It had been agreed that at an early date I would call on the General Public Prosecutor at his office.
Q What was the department that instructed you to go to Munich to have those conversations?
A It was the man who was the head of the department at that time, and that was Dr. Vollmer, the former Ministerial Director. He told me to go to Munich. I reported to him on the various questions that the General Public Prosecutor put to me, and I also brought to his attention several questions, a discussion of which I deemed necessary.
Q The first point which, according to the words of Helm, the General Public Prosecutor, discussed, referred to cases where socalled terrorist fliers, that is to say Allied fliers who had been shot down, had been killed by the population. I should like to read out the passage which is under discussion here, and I quote: "In the cases where the population has murdered Allied fliers, we cannot do without an official report by the police. (Decisions by Under-Secretary Klemm). The reason is that a criminal offense, that is to say action taken for selfish motives; for example, robbing the man who has been killed or taking the uniform of the dead man, etc. one must be able to exclude all such selfish motives for certain."
Would you tell the Tribunal, please, exactly what were the instructions which apparently Klemm gave to you?
AAs far as I recall, a few days before I went on that trip, I was rung up by the man who at that time was Under-Secretary Klemm's personal Referent. His name was Dr. Hartmann. Hartmann told me I was to call on the Under-Secretary, who wanted to give me instructions about my Munich trip. Thereupon, I called on the Undersecretary and he gave me the following instructions: "When you talk to General Public Prosecutor Helm at Munich, please tell him that in cases where Allied fliers have been killed or ill-treated the police and any other agencies concerned are to pass on the files to the prosecution office, and that the prosecution as quickly as possible must make a report to the Minister and also forward the files."
Q Did he tell you why he wished those reports to be made?
AAs fan as I remember he said something to the effect that it had happened that the police had not let the prosecution see the files and that therefore the General Public Prosecutor was to get in touch with the competent agencies so that in all cases the files would in the future be submitted to the prosecution.
Q You have just said that in all cases the files were to be submitted in accordance with the file note by Helm which I have just read out to you. In accordance with it, you are supposed to have given examples -- examples which might indicate that only when the facts of the case were of any specific kind would the files have to be submitted.
A No. The instructions of the Under-Secretary were that in all cases where the civil administration of justice was competent, the General Public Prosecutor was to ask for the files, for unless the prosecution was able to examine such cases, a lawless case of affairs would have occurred.
Q May I put this to you: Helm noted down: "The reason is that an action which merits punishment" - now what would pertain to this:
" - could be prosecuted", but examples were mentioned: "action for selfish motives, robbery, etc." The fact is not mentioned that an action meriting punishment, as such, was already constituted by a German killing a flier who had bailed out.
A The prosecution was to intervene in such cases too to make a report to the Minister.
Q Then that was your instruction quite clearly?
A Yes, it was.
Q How do you explain that Helm , the General Public Prosecutor, deals with these particular examples? Did you give him any particular hints as to how he was to deal with the police?
A I can't remember now whether I mentioned any particular or any specific examples, nor can I say how it was that the General Public Prosecutor noted down those points.
Q Was there any reason to fear that the police would not obey those instructions?
A Evidently, there was such a fear, for otherwise I would not have been instructed to go on this mission by Under--Secretary Klemm.
Q Had one had the experience that the police only handed over the files if any of the examples applied which Helm mentions here? It wasn't just a case of murder.
A I can't tell you for sure, but as far as I remember, it is very likely that one feared and that one actually had the experience that the police, at the instigation of some Party agency or other, kept back investigation files so that they were not to reach the administration of justice and so that in that way the prosecution would be prevented.
Q May it please the Tribunal, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination? There being none, you may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. La FOLLETTE:
Q. Did you go from your office over to see Under-Secretary Klemm's Referent to get your instructions?
A. From my office, I went to see Dr. Hartmann, his personal Referent and then he told Klemm that I had arrived for a visit. The room of the Under-Secretary was next to the Referent's room and I entered the Secretary's room from the Referent's room.
Q. And how shortly after this conversation in the Under-Secretary's room did you go?
A. When I left the Under-Secretary's room I went to my own office at the back of the building; whereas the Under-Secretary's room was at-
Q. How shortly after that did you go to Munich?
A. I think it was one or two days--about that.
Q. And you went down there on this particular business after receiving these instructions?
A. Well, I also had other missions to carry out for the department chief. This was not the only mission I had to carry cut.
Q. But you went on business?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you remember discussing this trip with Mr. Beauvais on 2 September 1947 here in Nuernberg?
A. On 2 September Mr. Beauvais interrogated me on this Question.
Q. I asked you whether or not you stated then that you happened to be on your vacation and dropped in to see Helm at Munich?
A. Well, afterwards for a few days I went to stay with my family, who at that time was living somewhere near Salzburg.
Q. Well, did you take the vacation afterwards or were you on vacation and happened to go to see Helm?
A. I can't tell you now whether that vacation had already been granted to me before Under-Secretary Klemm entrusted me with that mission or whether those two things haven't more or less happened simultaneously.
Anyhow, as far as I remember, it was after I paid my visit in Munich that I joined my family in that place near Salzburg. About five or six days later--it may have been a week later--I returned to Berlin.
Q. Well then , you remember that you and Mr. Beauvais and this same Helm discussed this same Question last Monday between three and four-fifteen here in Nuernberg?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. I will ask you whether you recall that you made this answer in discussing your reason for being in Munich: "But as far as this was concerned, I did not have any instructions. I had no order for that. The State Secretary only told me all these matters had to be reported. How far they had to be prosecuted and how for they were not to be prosecuted, I was not told." Now were you told what you were to investigate in Berlin or weren't you told what you were to get and instruct Helm, in Berlin?
A. As I told you before, I was merely given that mission and I was not told anything about the steps that were to be done on the basis of the reports. I, myself, believed that of course under law such events would have to be examined and such people would have to be prosecuted.
Q. Now let me ask you this: Didn't you tell Mr. Beauvais, on 2 September, that you were on your vacation and while en your vacation you went to see Helm and that Helm had requested the visit, complaining that he was too short of personnel to carry on the work of his office and was given no replacements by the Ministry? Was that the reason you gave then for going to Munich?
A. That isn't Quite correct.
DR. SCHILF: Just a moment, Mr. Mitzschke. I should like to make an objection. The witness is being examined here under oath today and it is altogether irrelevant whatever he may have said on some other day or some other place.
THE PRESIDENT: This is cross examination. The objection is overruled. The prosecution is entitled to impeach his testimony if they can by the proof of contradictory statements at some other time.
THE WITNESS: Do you want me to answer your question now?
MR. La FOLLETTE: Yes, please.
THE WITNESS: It is untrue to say that on 2 September I stated that I bad been on vacation first and had called on the General Public Prosecutor afterwards. As far as I remember, I first called on the General Public Prosecutor and afterwards went on vacation--and it is only a week any now.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Now let me ask you, are you the Dr. Gustav Mitzschke whose personnel record is covered by that personnel file?
(File is offered to witness)
A. Evidently, my own--just a moment, can I have a look? Yes, they are. Yes, they are my files.
Q. I wonder if you would turn to page 98 of those files and see if you find a letter written on your stationery, dated 12 July 1943, addressed to Dr. Kettler, attorney and notary in Berlin. Do you find that letter concerning an apartment?
A. Yes, I have it before me.
Q. Now would you read the paragraph beginning: "In answer to your letter of the tenth of this month and your call of today--." And continue until I ask you to stop. Do you want me to read it in English?
A. No, that starts quite differently. The letter of 12 July starts with: "In reply to your letter of the tenth of this month Is that what you want me to read?
Q. That is what I want you to read.
A. All right.
"Berlin, 12 July 1943.
"Dear Attorney, In reply to your letter of the tenth of this 17-4-A-22 Sept 47-AEH-Gaylord (Hahn) month and in reply to your telephone call of today, I should now like to state again that I must insist on my claim and that I attach the greatest importance to gaining early possession of that apartment.
"Concerning your statements in the first paragraph on page two of your letter, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that according to the official information which I have received, the deceased woman Schlumberger, maiden name Haase, was a Jewess. I feel myself to be under an obligation now to notify my Minister of that matter. "
Q. And I ask you whether you did notify Dr. Thierack and whether you got him to write a letter for you dated 19 July which you will find on page 99, in which he interceded so that you could have this apartment because of the fact that the former owners were Jewish?
A. No, no. This is how it was. I had lost my apartment in an air raid on 1 march 1943 and that apartment was in Berlin-Steglitz. Since that time I had been homeless and my family and I, myself, remained homeless until the present day. I tried to get another apartment, and as far as I remember, the housing office told me about an apartment at 6 Heimkehfonstrasse in Berlin-Lichterfelde-Ost. I went to have a look at that apartment and I tried to get a contract for that apartment. I failed, however, to get a lease because, as far as I recollect, the person who had power of attorney to deal with the matter, Attorney Kettler, did not wish to help me out. Now would you please give mean opportunity to examine the correspondence which occurred prior to 12 July?
Q. I don't think it's that important. Is that your explanation of the matter?
A. Well, may I say this: my reply dated 12 July was caused by the attitude which Attorney Kettler had taken up. As far as I remember, he made representations to me over the telephone saying my wish to rent that apartment indicated an attitude which was not in accordance with the times. He obviously wanted to charge me-
Q. Excuse me, what do you mean by "not in accordance with the times"? You refer to the fact that he was trying to get this family-to see this Jewish woman out of her apartment.
Is that what you mean?
A. No, that isn't what I mean. What I mean is that apartment was vacant. The point was that Attorney Kettler wanted to get a very high rent and wanted to let the apartment furnished. I told him I could only take over part of the furniture; the apartment was too expensive for me fully furnished. He said, "No, I don't want to give in." And over the telephone--maybe it was in a letter, I can't tell you that right away on the spot---anyway, he tried to charge me with not displaying the attitude of a National Socialist; that is, he wanted to pull my leg.