A. I cannot make myself believe that different hands wrote the same characteristic initials which appear so frequently in connection with printed or typewritten name of the former Under State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger on various official documents.
Q. Have you, witness, examined whether it isn't possible that another official of the Ministry of Justice writes in a similar manner?
A. If there was such another official of the Reich Ministry of Justice, he must also have been active at the various other places, such as the Court for Appeals of Hamburg, for instance, at which Rothenberger was active.
Q. Witness, I believe that that is not an answer to my question. Your entire opinion will collapse if in the Reich Ministry of Justice there would have been an official who had similar initials because everything else is just conclusions. Have you examined the initials of the other officials of the ministry of Justice from that point of view?
A. I have made a fairly thorough examination of the initials of the various members of the Reich ministry of Justice, and I believe I can say that none resembles that initial which reoccurs in connection with the printed or typewritten name of Rothenberger.
Q. I did not mean that, witness. I only want to know whether in the course of your investigations you found the name of an official of the ministry of Justice who writes in a similar handwriting.
A. I never ran across similar initials; in other words, similar to that which appears in connection with Rothenberger's name on documents.
Q. Have you made special investigations for that?
A. I haven't made any special investigation of that, no; but I feel that I am sufficiently familiar with the characteristic initials on Ministry of Justice documents to say that there is only one initial which resembles that on NG-546, and that is the initial of Rothenberger.
DR. DOETZER: Thank you.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask counsel to supply me with this exhibit which is not in my book.
MR. KING: Exhibit 141, yes. I am sorry for the omission; it will be supplied. May the witness be excused?
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem proper, inasmuch as there is a controversy about this being the initials of Dr. Rothenberger, and the exhibits have been shown to the witness, that the some exhibits should be shown to the Court that we nay also have the benefit of that comparison; I think they should be introduced in evidence.
MR. KING: We are not only prepared to show then to the Court, but we will offer them in evidence. Following your examination of the exhibits, or, if you prefer, at this moment I would offer those documents which were shown to the witness Eitner as Exhibit 142, subject to a certification to be supplied by Miss Radcliff of the Document Room that they are authentic documents, as we have claimed. If I may have them returned when the Court has finished with them, I will have such a certification prepared by Miss Radcliff, and Exhibit 142, together with that certification, will be supplied to the Secretary General in the next half day or so.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it your purpose to introduce them after they have been properly certified?
MR. KING: I will introduce them now subject to the proper certification.
THE PRESIDENT:NG-279, NG-410, NG-542, and NG-632 will be received in evidence as a joint exhibit, Exhibit No. 142, subject to further certification The witness will be excused.
MR. KING: We return now to Document Book I-B, the Document NG-558, which is to be found in the index as appearing at page 78 of Document Book I-B. This document did not appear in the original volume I-B, as circulated, and it has boon distributed separately to a representative of the Secretary General's office and I believe ho has additional copies for circulation at this time. I suggest that this two-page document be numbered 78-1a and 78-2. This is a letter dated Berlin, 13 October, 1942; it is a letter addressed to Herr Reichstleiter Bormann at the Fuehrer's Headquarters; it refers to criminal jurisdiction against Poles, Russians, Jews and Gypsies.
It is initialed by Thierack, and begins: "Dear Reichsleiter: With a view to freeing the German people of Poles, Russians, Jews and Gypsies and with view to making the Eastern territories which have been incorporated into the Reich available for settlements for German nationals, I intend to turn over criminal proceedings against Poles, Russians, Jews and Gypsies to the Reichsfuehrer SS. In so doing I base myself on the principle that the administration of justice can only make a small contribution to the extermination of members of these peoples. The Justice administration undoubtedly pronounces very severe sentences on such persons, but that is not enough to constitute any material contribution towards the realization of the above mentioned aim. Nor is any useful purpose served by keeping such persons in German prisons and penitentiaries for years, even if they are utilized as labor for war purposes, as is done today on a large scale.
I am, on the other hand, of the opinion that considerably better results can be accomplished by surrendering such persons to the police, who can take the necessary measures unhampered by any legal criminal evidence. I start from the principle that such measures soon entirely justified in wartime, and that certain conditions which I consider essential are fulfilled. These conditions consist in the prosecution of poles and Russians by the police only if they r sided until 1 September 1939 in the former sectors of Poland or the Soviet Union; and, secondly that Poles who were registered as being of German descent will continue to be subjected to prosecution by the administration of justice as before.
On the other hand the police may prosecute Jews and Gypsies irrespective of these conditions.
But no changes whatsoever are to be made in regard to the prosecution of other foreign nationals by the administration of justice.
"The Reichsfuehrer SS, with whom I discussed those views, agrees with them. I also informed Herr. Dr. Lammers.
"I submit this matter to you, requesting you to let me know whether the Fuehrer approves this view. If so, I would make my official recommendations through Reich Minister Dr. Lammers.
"Hell Hitler!
"Thierack."
As Exhibit 135, the Prosecution offers Document NG 558.
Your Honor, I notice that the original exhibit of that which I need to hand up to the Secretary General apparently has not come into the Court Room. I offer this in evidence subject to its physical presence with the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received on those conditions.
MR. KING: I also appreciate a certain amount of unfairness in presenting that document to the Secretary General without an opportunity for the Defense Counsel to see the copy I actually presented. I, therefore, would like to say before I hand that up to the Secretary General, an opportunity will be given for examination of this document by the Defense Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: That may be regarded as one of the conditions.
MR. KING: Until further notice the Court and Defense Counsel may dispense, that is, so far as the Prosecution is concerned -- dispense with bringing any of document book one series into the Court Room. We will attempt to give notice in advance for future reference by the Prosecution to any of the one series.
May I ask the Court and Defense Counsel to turn now to Document Book 3-C. The next exhibit which we will introduce will be when formally offered Exhibit 144, and is NG 335, to be found on page 97 of the English document book, and on page 127 of the same book in German.
JUDGE BRAND: That also is not in my document book; that is the second one that has been omitted this morning.
MR. KING: This seems to be a bad day, sir.
I will ask the Court to turn first to page 100 in the English text, beginning on that page and continuing over to page 102 in the English text, is the Indictment in the case of Konrad Riedel, This Indictment was signed by the defendant Lautz. We do not wish to read any portion of the Indictment. We will begin reading in the verdict or opinion on page 103, in the English, the first full paragraph from the bottom of the page beginning with, "The defendant Konrad Riedel."
"The defendant Konrad Riedel, already punished in 1940 because of utterances inimical to the state, declared in the presence of the German citizen Adele Bartels on 9 October 1943 that we could not hold out in the war much longer, on account of the terror bombing, and that we should have peace in four weeks if the Fuehrer were out of the way.
"He is therefore condemned to death for undermining Germany's defensive strength. He is to be deprived of civic rights forever.
"The defendant, a bachelor, who will shortly be 52 years of age, joined the Social Democratic Party and the Independent Labor Union when he was not yet 20 years old in Freiburg, Silesia, where he was working as a skilled latheman. After having taken part in the World War from 1919 on, during which he was wounded twice, he joined the Independent Social Democratic Party at the end of the war and was temporarily in charge of its local unit in Freiburg. He also was a local official of the Independent Labor Union and a delegate of the General Trade Union. When the Independent Social Democratic Party split up, he joined the Communist Party and was temporarily also in charge of its local unit in Freiburg. That even at this time his activities inimical to the state were very intensive is evident from the fact that even then, in the year 1921, fearing arrest and severe punishment, he stealthily fled from Silesia and for nearly two decades, that is until the year 1939, lived in Berlin, Hamburg, Kiel, and Bremen under the alias "Oscar Schmidt." Riedel's political inactivity at this time is only attributable to the fact that he was leading an illegal life and could not afford to draw attention to himself. In 1939 he was nevertheless arraigned for utterances inimical to the state, at which time his true personal status was discovered.
On 8 May 1940 the Special Court in Bremen sentenced him to eight months in prison, which he subsequently served, the time of his pre-trial detention being deducted.
"This punishment did not serve as a warning to the defendant, who maintained his old attitude inimical to the state. His friend and coworker in the Lembeck-Motorenwerke in Bremen, the latheman Johann Bartels seems to have shared his political convictions. Not so Bartels' sister, Adele Bartels, a secretary, who was living together with him and who held a completely different, namely positive, attitude toward National Socialism.
"In November 1942 Riedel and Johann Bartels became separated in their place of work; but they continued to meet each other as friends. Thus the defendant went to visit Johann Bartels in the latter's house on 9 October 1943 and, not finding him there, struck up a conversation with Bartels' sister, who received him. In the course of it the talk turned to the terror attacks by the enemy air force. The defendant stated that we had no reason to complain about them; that we had brought this on ourselves by doing the same thing. Regarding the effects of these attacks he then remarked that our war industry would not be able to last much longer, because of the bomb damage. Adele Bartels took issue with him in this, stating something to the effect that we had to and world win the war; for if we lost the war, we should all be doomed. But Konrad Riedel, who, judging from his political past, does not even want to sec Germany win, did not conceed this either and replied that life would go on even if we should lose the war. Adele Bartels finally remarked that, in any case, what counted was that the Fuehrer be preserved for us. Just this, however, provoked the defendant to contradict and in doing so he expressed himself very distinctly; for he declared: 'Not only could we get along without the Fuehrer, but without him, as things stood, the war would be over in a considerably shorter time; with Hitler out of the picture we could even have peace in four weeks.' And in order to illustrate his contention that the Fuehrer stayed in power against the will of the people, he added some fabricated statements about his former political activity and life:
that he had been a Communist member of the Landtag and as such had gone to Moscow; that there he had seen Stalin crossing the street from the Kremlin, freely and without a bodyguard; Adolf Hitler, however, always had a whole squad around him for his safety. This was the end of the conversation. The defendant went away and has not met Adele Bartels since."
This was all established during the main trial on the basis of Konrad Riedel's own admission. The witness Adele Bartels did not appear. In the indictment, on the basis of her testimony in the preliminary investigation, Riedel was accused of having chosen the particularly crass working that Adolf Hitler would have to die, if Germany was to live. This was denied by the defendant during the preliminary investigation as well as during the main trial, so that it could not be actually established against him, for lack of evidence.
But this is not even the decisive point. From what he himself confesses the defendant's behavior unequivocally calls for the verdict that, without assuring himself that his statements would be held confidential and indifferent to whether or not they would be disseminated (publicly in the sense of the law), he is guilty of gravely undermining Germany's defensive strength in this war (crime according to Art. 5, Para.1, No. 1 of the Special Military Penal Code. The defendant's crime consists in his intentionally undertaking to destroy the fellow German Adele Bartels's belief in victory and her preparedness to strive with all her power for the victorious termination of the war. It was committed by his predicting our defeat and especially by his asserting that the Fuehrer was the main obstacle to the early attainment of a desirable peace. The Senate is convinced that he, as an old and incorrigible enemy of the state, did this in a desire to achieve this effect and thus to contribute to a repetition of the ignominious outcome of the First World War. Under these circumstances To is inconceivable that this crime could constitute a less serious case of undermining Germany's defensive strength (Art. 5, Parag. 2). Capital punishment, the only penalty prescribed for ordinary cases of undermining Germany's defensive strength, to be meted out to the defendant. Because he has acted dishonorably, he is ** deprived of the civic rights of a German citizen forever (Art. 32 of the Criminal Code)."
MR. KING: We call attention to the fact that the order for the defendant Riedel's death appears on page 99 of the English text and is dated Berlin, 31 May 1944 and is signed by the defendant Klemm. We offer that in evidence as Exhibit 144, the document NG-353.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence and we will take usual morning recess at this time. Fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING: I ask the Court to note that I am now sending up to the representative of the Secretary General the document NG-558, which is Exhibit 143. It will be recalled that was accepted conditionally, subject to the original being furnished to the Secretary General.
We resume at this time reading from document book III-C. As exhibit 145, the prosecution desires at this time to introduce document NG-479, which is to be found on page 6 of the English text, and 5 of the German text. This document is a sworn affidavit by one Kurt Schmidt.
"Affidavit:
"On the 26th of September, 1938, I was arrested on the street by the Gestapo. The arrest occurred on my way between the office and my home. They took me to Prinz Albrecht Strasse after they had conducted an inspection of my home. I was then interned in the cellar rooms of Prinz Albrecht Strasse which had been converted into a prison. The treatment in the prison was 'correct', the rooms themselves clean, although almost completely devoid of daylight.
"The interrogation was conducted in an extremely brutal fashion in the Gestapo offices--beatings, forced to sit with bended knees for hours or to stand in the corridor with face turned to the wall, and so forth. The first interrogations were conducted almost without interruption from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. I am unable to name the officials of the Gestapo; however, I do not believe that the names I heard were their full ones, for, as far as I remember, they all had extremely common names such as Mueller, Schroeder, etc.
"After it was discovered that this sort of interrogation did not meet with any particular success, they tried another method. After an interrogation lasting 12 hours, I was ret urned to my cell at about 9 or 10 p.m. and, after I had slept for approximately half an hour, was awakened and driven in a private car to some spot between Gruennu and Schmoeckwity.
There I was dragged out of the car and forced, at the point of revolvers, to dig a grave. I was repeatedly beaten, but have no exact memory of the details. I know only that I was continually requested to give the specific names and addresses of persons who were only known to the Gestapo through pseudonyms heard in the course of other interrogations.
"Under such treatment, there are minutes and seconds during which one seeks for any means of escape whatsoever. In spite of all this, I was capable of just enough clarity of thought to realize that even the slightest utterance on my part would merely have served as an excuse for additional tortures. I was therefore silent. This persistent silence, apparently, must have convinced the Gestapo men that I actually knew nothing of these facts. After I had dug a hole of about 10 meters, 50 centimeters, by two meters, one centimeter--1 meter, 20 centimeters in depth--they pulled me out of it and took me once again to the car. On the return trip they tried to develop 'comradely' relations with me. They offered me cigarettes and we had a glass of Schnaps together at a bar in the Gruenau station. I played along to avoid exasperating them and this seemed to convince them even more that they could obtain no information from me.
"The subsequent interrogations were conducted in a more or less proper manner until the person in charge of the section tried to persuade me to commit suicide. I regarded it as a psychological test. This suggestion came about in the following manner. I was led into the room and made to sit at a desk. They informed me that my situation was very desperate, that the only course open to me was suicide, for I would be sentenced to death in any case.
In answer to my smiling question 'yes, but how?', he pulled out the desk drawer and laid a Browning upon it. I was tempted to grab it and shoot him. But it was only too clear to me that they had expected this reflex, which would then serve as an excuse to dispose of me. Without haste, I reached for the revolver, aimed at the floor, and pulled the trigger. It was empty. I put it back with a gesture of regret and said, 'One should at least give me a bullet.' For the rest of my life I will never forget the half-surprised, half-sadistic smile of the man opposite me.
"During the next two months, which I spent in the Gestapo prison on Prinz Albrecht Strasse, I was rarely called in again for interrogation. I was then transferred to the Police Presidency, brought before the examining magistrate, and my imprisonment on remand was ordered. During the fourteen days that I was at the Police Presidency of Alexanderplatz, I was frequently brought before the Gestapo (Foreign Department) where they tried to obtain all manner of statements concerning foreign connections. Most of these officials were untrained, and there were no particular developments to report from these sessions.
"After two weeks I was sent from the Police Presidency to Moabit, where I was put in solitary confinement. The treatment at Moabit was proper according to the regulations of the prison. Not until four months later did I receive permission to talk to my family. My indictment was served about the end of June or the beginning of July 1939. It was classified 'Secret', and I was only permitted to read it through once. It was then delivered to the head of the prison. My defense counsel, Dr. Eisentraege, was engaged by my family. I could hardly prepare a defense on my own account, since I had not received the indictment until the evening before I was due to appear in court.
After the conclusion of proceedings, it was again taken away from me and from my co-defendants.
"The trial was held on the 14th and 15th of September 1939 before the Second Senate of the People's Court in Berlin. The presiding judges were:
"Vice President of the People's Court Engert, presiding.
Judge, District Court Director, Schneidenbach.
SA-Brigadefuehrer Hauer.
Gauamtsleiter Fischer.
SA-Gruppenfuehrer, District Counsellor Spaeing, as representative of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Reichsgericht; and Public Prosecutor Mittmann, as official registrar, and Secretary Christ.
"The special function of the People's Court was not to judge the defendants; rather, as a political tribunal, it had the mission and was instructed to condemn the defendants. The entire proceedings were sham. The public was excluded during the trial. The defense counsels had almost nothing to say before the People's Court. The charge of high treason and treason to the State was raised against me. The charge of treason to the State was dropped during the course of proceedings following a declaration of a witness from the OKW. On tharge of preparation for high treason, I was condemned to twelve years in a house of correction and ten years' loss of honor. My co-defendants, Erler and Kurschner, each received a ten-year sentence, and Unrath a five-year sentence in a house of correction.
"Engert, then President, conducted those proceedings before the People's Court in a particularly severe fashion and quite in accord with Nazi methods. Most of the associate jud ges, in so far as they were uniformed members of the NSDAP, made a stupid impression.
'Berlin, 31 October 1946, Kurt Schmidt."
DR. DOETZER: May it please the Tribunal, I object to the submission of this document. The Prosecutor has described the document as an affidavit taken under oath. From the entire document which has just been read it seems that this is not an affidavit; rather, it is a copy or something written down by a man called Schmidt, who is living in Berlin, and who has written down this statement in October 1946. To whom he addressed this statement in writing and before whom it was written down cannot be seen from the document. I also cannot imagine that this statement, written down only in October 1946, can be covered by the Coogan affidavit.
MR. KING: I can appreciate the reasons why defense counsel has objected. Obviously, he doesn't like what the affiant has said. However, I might put him at ease on one other point. The affidavit was given pursuant to an interrogation conducted by an interrogator from the staff of Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, and it therefore does not come under the paragraph of the Coogan affidavit, since we have the original here, or a copy of the original, and are about t o admit or present the same as the original exhibit.
It does not appear to us that this affidavit is in any wise different from other similar affidavits that have been offered and accepted in evidence by the Court. Of course, if defense counsel wishes to call Kurt Schmidt, that is his privilege and he may do so. But it seems t o us that the affidavit speaks for itself and as such should be admitted in evidence.
DR. DOETZER: May it please the Tribunal, only documents that have been captured are covered by the Coogan document, if I understand it correctly. It may possibly be correct that the Mr. Schmidt mentioned here has been interrogated by an American prosecutor. I don't know that. The document, in any case, does not say anything about that at all.
MR. KING: It seems to me that counsel has misunderstood what I previously said, we do not claim that it comes under the Coogan affi davit.
I did state quite clearly that the affidavit had been given pursuant to an interrogation by members of the staff of Office of Chief of Counsel, although it is clear that the document as such does not state that.
JUDGE BRAND: Does the original show that it was sworn to before one of the interrogating officers? I am wondering what you mean by "affidavit." We ordinarily understand that it is an instrument that has been sworn to.
MR. KING: No, Your Honor, the original does not show that that has been sworn to before a member of the staff of Office of Chief of Counsel. Perhaps in that sense I am technically incorrect to refer to it as an affidavit. It would be better parlance to refer to it as a signed statement. In any event, we offer as Exhibit 145 the document Ng 479.
THE PRESIDENT: We observe that Erna I'iueller certifies that it is a true and correct translation of the sworn affidavit of 31 October 1%6. That may not be conclusive, but in any event, our authority comes from Ordnance No. 73 and Article No. 7 of that ordnance clearly permits this to be introduced as probative evidence.
MR. KING: Your Honor, I cannot speak authoritatively to the point you have raised, whether or not this document which we are about to introduce is a translation of a sworn affidavit. I realize that the statement by the translator does state that, but I did not emphasize the fact for the reason that I, at least in the past few weeks, have not seen the original and I am not prepared to say at this moment that the original from which this translation was made is a sworn copy.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not a sworn copy. The question is, is the original a sworn statement.
MR. KING: That is what I meant to say, Your Honor. In view of the ruling by the Court we will now pass it up to the representative of the Secretary General with this possible condition attached. The Prosecution would like to clear the document, if possible, of any limiting factors -- a limiting factor being that it is not sworn to before a member of the Prosecution staff.
I will examine the original to determine whether or not it was a sworn statement, and if so, we would like to reserve the privilege of making it clear on the original exhibit that the original statement was sworn to by the individual Kurt Schmidt.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection made goes only to the weight, and if the Prosecution wants to increase the weight by further evidence, that may be done now or at any time.
MR. KING: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: That there may be no mistake about the ruling, the document is received in evidence.
MR. KING: Me ask the Court now to turn to Document NG 403, to be found on Page 10 of the English book, Page 7 of the German book, he introduce this as Exhibit 146. This is the affidavit -- and I say "affidavit" in full appreciation of the objections from the bench because this does appear to be sworn to before Hans P. Dreyer, then of the CCC staff. That appears at the end of this document.
"Affidavit. I, Dr, Kurt Weghin, swear, depose, and state:
"I have been defense counsel in a great many cases before the People's Court. I conducted the defenses as a so-called "defense counsel chosen by the accused" i.o. as defense counsel who was personally chosen and appointed for the defense by the defendant. In each individual case the defense had to be approved of at the People's Court by the president of the senate."
I might say parenthetically that this affidavit is based on the question and answer technique. That is, a question is asked and the affiant then gives the answers.
"According to what principles was the approval handled?
"In ay case the approval of the defense has also been applied for in cases connected with 20 July 1944, especially with regard to Klaus Bonhoeffer, attorney-at-law, who was later sentenced to death and killed by the State Police just before Berlin was occupied. Furthermore, in the case of Dr. Rudolf Pechel, whose wife I had defended already before the People's Court, in this case and in a number of others, the approval was not given. Apart from the defense counsel chased, by the accused, there were the so-called defense counsel appointed by the Court. There existed a certain group of lawyers whom the People's Court used to appoint as counsel for the defense, appointed by the Court continuously.
"Were all the counsel for the defense appointed by the Court members of the party?
"Those whom I know were members of the Party. The permanent group of the defense counsel appointed by the Court at the People's Court consisted of lawyers considered by the People's Court as being politically reliable in the National Socialistic sense of the term. As far as I can see, for the time being the members of this permanent group of the counsel for defense appointed by the court were members of the Party. Subsequently, they were employed for the proceedings of 20 July, too.
"Can you give me a number of cases, as an example, in which you acted as defense counsel?
"I was defense counsel in the high treason trial conducted against a great number of employees of various Berlin Plants in June 1944. These defendants, most of whom were in jail, during the period since 1933, for anti-nazi activities, had tried to form a political group in Berlin and also in other cities in Germany, with the purpose of overthrowing the Hitler government.
"Moreover, I have been defense counsel in cases which involve, as in the case of Mr. Pechel, so-called treasonable actions, as in cases in which the defendants are charged with the so-called undermining of the morale of the military forces by speeches and propaganda.
"Question: Herr Doktor, since when have you been criminal defense counsel?
"I have been an attorney-at-law since 1925. Before the Hitler regime I was, in my capacity as attorney-at-law, judiciary of the Berlin traffic operations. I was removed from this position because of my having declined to enter the Party despite repeated invitation. Afterwards, I conducted criminal defenses in cases involving the prosecution against people persecuted for political reasons or in which people concerned needed protection for special reasons.
"Moreover, I conducted the defense of the British prisoners of war before German military courts, in particular in the trials for sabotage and espionage before the Reich Supreme Military Court, that is to say, as defense counsel appointed by the Swiss Embassy as Protective Power on the basis of the Geneva Convention.
"Question: Could you describe, in a brief outline, the main difference as to the proceedings, that is to say, not theoretically, in trials before ordinary courts and the People's Court, and, if possible, also specify with regard to custody before or pending the trial, to the liberty in securing witnesses for the defense,to the liberty of defense as such before the tribunal, that is to say, during the proceedings proper and the general treatment of the defendants before the People's Court?
"In regard to the proceedings before the People's Court, the following may be stated.
"As to the outer form certain forms of proceedings were observed. This does not change anything in that the trial before this court with regard to the Practical handling, did in no way meet the requirements which are to be claimed from proceedings at law interested in real enlightenment and in the objective careful weighing of judgment. The serving of the indictment was generally done so short before the trial that a sufficient preparation was frequently made impossible. For instance, it happened that the summons for the trial were telegraphed to counsel on Saturday afternoon with the date set for Monday early in the morning.
"The defense before the People's Court was, to a large extent, only permitted nominally. Petitions for evidence, the object of which were, for instance, serious shortcomings in the system, or those as to what objective reasons the defendant had guided to fight the system, were practically excluded. I am of the opinion, however, that even before the People's Court representations on behalf of the defendants were possible to a considerable extent without leading to the immediate arrest of the defense counsel. As a matter of course, in order not to prejudice the defendant, we had to attempt in those cases either to deny the deed in a credible manner or not to reveal openly the anti-National Socialistic beliefs of the defendant. Such a form of defense would have meant immediate disaster for the defendant.
"Do you think that the proceedings before the People's Court became more severe in the course of time, particularly during the war as a result of the increasingly unfavorable development of the war?
"Having acted as defense counsel before the People's Court only during the war I can fairly evaluate only this period in regard to the severity of the judgments. I considered the severity to be pretty constant, but one must keep in mind that generally the judgments were, from the very beginning, so hard that increasing of severity hardly could have been possible. In this connection I particularly recall the statements undermining the army for where simple expressions which happened daily in all parts of the population, they were sufficient for a. death sentence, especially if some leading person of the Party was mentioned.
"Question. To pass to another point, do you think that the concept of high treason was extended substantially in the course of the years, or high treason and preparation of high treason respectively?