THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until 8 o'clock this evening when we will reconvene and continue with the reading of the Opinion.
EVENING SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 2000 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY JUDGE BLAIR: Judge Blair continuing to read: "It declared that the directive will be as a rule applicable to the seven above listed general types of offenses or crimes, including "Communist activity". The term "Communist activity" is general and political in nature. The evidence shows that political prisoners in occupied territories were tried and sentenced to death under the NN proceedings. Pertinent here with respect to the so-called resistance activities is the finding of the IMT that "The local units of the Security Police and SD continued their work in the occupied territories after they had ceased to be an area of operations.
The Security Police and SD engaged in widespread arrests of the civilian population of these occupied countries, imprisoned many of them under inhumane conditions, subjected them to brutal third degree methods, and sent many of them to concentration camps. Local units of the Security Police and SD were also involved in the shooting of hostages, the imprisonment of relatives, the execution of persons charged as terrorists, and the enforcement of the 'Nacht and Nebel' decrees under which persons charged with a type of offense believed to endanger the security of the occupying forces were either executed within a week or secretly removed to Germany without being permitted to communicate with their family and friends."
Defendant Schlegelberger explained the fundamental purpose of the NN decree to be a deterrent "through cutting off of the prisoners from every contact with the outside world". He further explained "That the NN prisoners were expected, and were, to be tried materially according to the same regulations which would have been applied to then by the courts martial in the occupied territories" and that accordingly, "the rules of procedure had been curtailed to the utmost extent."
The enforcement of the directives under the Hitler NN plan or scheme became a means of instrumentality by which the most complete control and coercion of a lot of the people of occupied territories were effected and under which thousands of the civilian population of occupied areas were imprisoned, terrorized, and murdered. The enforcement and administration of the NN directives resulted in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in violation of the international law of war and internation common law relating to recognized human rights, and of Article II, 1b and c of Control Council Law No. 10.
During the war, in addition to deporting millions of inhabitants of occupied territories for slave labor and other purposes, Hitler's Night and Fog program was instituted for the deportation to Germany of many thousands of inhabitants of occupied territories for the purpose of making them disappear without trace and so that their subsequent fate remain secret. This practice created an atmosphere of constant fear and anxiety amongst their relatives, friends, and the population of the occupied territories.
The report of the Paris Conference of 1919, above referred to, listed 32 crimes as constituting "the most striking list of crimes as has ever been drawn up, to the eternal shame of those who committed them." This list of crimes was considered and recognized by the Versailles Treaty and was later recognized as international law in the manner hereinabove indicated. Among the crimes so listed was the "deportation of civilians" from enemy-occupied territories.
Control Council Law No. 10, in illustrating acts constituting violations of laws or customs of war, recognizes as war crimes the "deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population from occupied territory". (Article II, 1b). Law 10, (1c) also recognizes as crimes against humanity the "enslavement, deportation, imprisonment of any civilian population".
The IMT held that the deportation of inhabitants from occupied territories for the purpose of "efficient and enduring intimidation" constituted a violation of the laws and customs of war. The deportation for the purpose of "efficient and enduring intimidation" is likewise condemned by Control Council Law No. 10, under the provision inhibiting "deportation*** for any other purpose, of civilian population from occupied territory".
Also among the list of 32 crimes contained in the Conference Report of 1919 are "murder and Massacre, and systematic terrorism". Control Council Law No. 10 makes deportation of civilian population "for any purpose" a crime recognized as coming within the jurisdiction of the law. The admitted purpose of the Night and Fog decree was to provide an "efficient and enduring intimidation" of the population of occupied territories. The IMT held that the Hitler NN decree was "a systematic rule of violence, brutality, and terror", and was therefore in violation of the laws of war as a terroristic measure.
The evidence shows that many of the Night and Fog prisoners who were deported to Germany were not charged with serious offenses and were given comparatively light sentences or acquitted. This shows that they were not a menace to the occupying forces and were not dangerous in the eyes of the German justices who tried them. But they were kept secretly and not permitted to communicate in any manner with their friends and relative. This is inhumane treatment. It was meted out not only to the prisoners themselves but to their friends and relatives back home who were in constant distress of mind as to their whereabouts and fate. The families were deprived of the support of the husband, thus causing suffering and hunger. The purpose of the spiriting way of persons under the Night and Fog decree was to deliberately create constant fear and anxiety amongst the families, friends, and relatives as to the fate of the deportees. Thus, cruel punishment was meted out to the families and friends without any charge or claim that they actually did anything in violation of any occupation rule of the army or of any crime against the Reich.
It is clear that mental cruelty may be inflicted as well as physical cruelty. Such was the express purpose of the NN decree, and thousands of innocent persons were so penalized by its enforcement.
The foregoing documents show without dispute that the NN victim was held incommunicado and the rest of the population only knew that a relative or citizen had disappeared in the night and fog; hence, the name for the decree. If relatives or friends inquired, they were given no information. If diplomats or lawyers inquired concerning the fate of an NN prisoner, they were told that the state of the record did not admit of any further inquiry or information. The population, relatives, or friends were not informed for what character of offense the victim had been arrested. Thus they had no guide or standard by which to avoid committing the same offense as the unfortunate victims had committed, which necessarily created in their minds terror and dread that a like fate awaited them.
Throughout the whole Night and Fog program ran this clement of utter secrecy. This secrecy of the proceedings was a particularly obnoxious form of terroristic measure and was without parallel in the annals of history.
It could have been promulgated only by the cruel Nazi regime which sought to control and terrorize the civilian population of the countries overrun by its aggressive war. There was no proof that the deportation of the civilian population from the occupied territories was necessary to protect the security of the occupant forces. The NN plan or scheme fit perfectly into the larger plan or scheme of transportation of millions of persons from occupied territories to Germany.
Control Council Law No. 10 makes deportation of the civilian population for any purpose an offense. The international law of war has for a long period of time protected the civilian population of any territory or country occupied by an enemy war force. This law finds its source in the unwritten international law as established by the customs and usages of the civilized nations of the world. Under international law the inhabitants of an occupied area or territory are entitled to certain rights which must be respected by the invader occupant.
This law of military occupation has been in existence for a long period of time. It was officially interpreted and applied nearly a half century ago by the President of the United States of America during the war with Spain in 1898. By General Order No. 101, 18 July 1898 (Foreign relations of the United States, page 783), the President declared that the inhabitants of the occupied territory "are entitled to the security of their person and property and in all their private rights and religions." He further declared that it was the duty of the Commander of the Army of Occupation "to protect them in their homes, in their employment, and in their personal and religious rights", and that "the municipal laws of the conquered territories, such as affect private rights of persons and property and provide for punishment of crime are continued in force" and "are to be administered by the ordinary tribunals substantially as they were before the occupation". The President referred to the fact that these humane standards of warfare had previously been established by the laws and customs of war, which were later codified by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and which constituted the effort of the civilized participating nations to diminish the evils of war by the limitation of the power of the invading occupant over the people and by placing the inhabitants of the occupied area or territory "under the protection and rules of principles of law of nations as they result from usage established among the civilized peoples from the laws of humanity and the dictates of public conscience."
A similar order was issued during the first war with Germany by the President of the United States of America when the American Expeditionary Forces entered the Rhineland in November 1918. (General Order 218, 28 November 1918). At the conclusion of this occupancy, the German Government expressed its appreciation of the conduct of the American occupying forces.
But Germany soon forgot these humane standards of warfare, as is shown by the undisputed evidence. The general policy of the Nazi regime was to terrorize and in some instances to exterminate the civilian populations of occupied territories.
Pertinent here is the finding of the IMT that:
"In an order issued by the Defendant Keitel on 23 July 1941, and drafted by the defendant Jodl, it was stated that:
'In view of the vast size of the occupied areas in the East, the forces available for establishing security in these areas will be sufficient only if all resistance is punished not by legal prosecution of the guilty, but by the spreading of such terror by the armed forces as is alone appropriate to eradicate every inclination to resist among the population* * *. Commanders must find the means of keeping order by applying suitable Draconian measures,'" Both Keitel and Jodl were sentenced to death by the IMT and later executed.
It was the same Keitel who later issued, over his own signature the Hitler NN decree which provided that:
"An efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved either by capital punishment or by measures by which the relatives of the criminal and the population do not know the fate of the criminal. This aim is achieved when the criminal is transferred to Germany."
Beyond dispute the foregoing decrees were inspired by the same thought and purpose and represent the general policy of the Nazi regime in the prosecution of its aggressive war. This general policy was to terrorize, torture, and in some occupied areas to exterminate the civilian population. The undisputed evidence in this case shows that Germany violated during the recent war every principle of the law of military occupation. Not only under NN proceedings but in all occupations she immediately, upon occupation of invaded areas and territories, set aside the laws and courts of the occupied territories. She abolished the courts of the occupied lands and set up courts manned by members of the Nazi totalitarian regime and system. These laws of occupation were cruel and extreme beyond belief, and were enforced by the Nazi courts in a cruel and ruthless manner against the inhabitants of the occupied territories, resulting in grave outrages against humanity, against human rights and morality and religion, and against international law, and against the law as declared by Control Council Law No. 10, by authority of which this Court exercises its jurisdiction in the instant case. The evidence adduced herein provides undeniable and positive proof of the ill-treatment of the subjugated people by the Nazi Ministry of Justice and prosecutors to such an extent that jurists as well as civilians of civilized nations who respect human rights and human personality and dignity, can hardly believe that the Nazi judicial system could possibly have been so cruel and ruthless in their treatment of the population of occupied areas and territories.
The foregoing procedure under the NN decree was clearly in violation of the following provisions sanctioned by the Hague Regulations:
"Article 5.--Prisoners of war *** cannot be confined except as an indispensable measure of safety, and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist.
"Article 23 (h).--* * *it is expressly forbidden to declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the hostile party.
"Article 43.--The authority of the legitimate power having, in fact, passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the law enforced in the country.
"Article 46.--Family honor and rights, the lives of persons and private property as well as religious convictions and practice must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated."
Both the international rules of war and Control Council Law No. 10 inhibit the torture of civilians by the occupying forces. Under the Night and Fog decree civilians were secretly transported to concentration camps and were imprisoned under the most inhumane conditions as was shown by the above statements from captured documents. They were starved and ill treated while in concentration camps and prisons. Thus the Night and Fog decree violated these express inhibitions of international law of war as well as the express provisions of Control Council Law No. 10.
Such imprisonment and ill treatment was also in violation of the rule prescribed by the Conference of Paris of 1919 which prohibits the "internment of civilians under inhumane conditions". The Night and Fog decree was in violation of the international law as recognized by the Paris Conference of 1919 in that the NN prisoners were deported to Germany and forced to labor in the munitions plants of the enemy power.
The foregoing documents establish beyond dispute that they were so employed in munition plants with the sanction and approval of the Reich Ministry of Justice under the approval of the defendant von Ammon.
The extent of activity and the criminality of the defendants who participated in the execution and carrying out of the Night and Fog decree will be discussed under the summation of the evi dence relating to each such defendant.
Each defendant has pleaded in effect as a defense the act of State as well as superior orders in justification or mitigation of any crime he may have committed in the execution of the Night and Fog decree. The basis for individual liability for crimes committed and the law relating thereto was clearly and ably declared by the IMT Judgment which reads as follows:
"It was submitted that international law is concerned with the actions of sovereign States, and provides no punishment for individuals; and further, that where the act in question is an act cf State, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State. In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States has long been recognized. In the recent case of Ex Parte Quirin (1942 317 U. S. 1), before the Supreme Court of the United States, persons were charged during the war with landing in the United States for purposes of spying and sabotage. The late Chief Justice Stone, speaking for the Court, said:
'From the very beginning of its history this Court has applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes for the conduct of war, the status, rights, and duties of enemy nations as well as enemy individuals.'
"He went on to give a list of cases tried by the Courts, where individual offenders were charged with offenses against the laws of nations, and particularly the laws of war. Many other authorities could be cited, but enough has been said to show that individuals can be punished for violations of international law. Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced."
(IMT Judgment Vol.
I, pages 222, 223).
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Harding will continue the reading for the Tribunal.
JUDGE HARDING: "Racial Persecution.
The record contains innumerable acts of persecution of individual Poles and Jews, but to consider these cases as isolated and unrelated instances of perversion of justice would be to overlook the very essence of the offense charged in the indictment. The defendants are not now charged with conspiracy as a separate and substantive offense, but it is alleged that they participated in carrying out a governmental plan and program for the persecution and extermination of Jews and Poles, a plan which transcended territorial boundaries as well as the bounds of human decency. Some of the defendants took part in the enactment of laws and decrees the purpose of which was the extermination of Poles and Jews in Germany and throughout Europe. Others, in executive positions, actively participated in the enforcement of those laws and in atrocities, illegal even under German law, in furtherance of the declared national purpose. Others, as judges, distorted and then applied the laws and decrees against Poles and Jews as such in disregard of every principle of judicial behavior. The overt acts of the several defendants must be see and understood as deliberate contributions toward the effectuation of the policy of the Party and State. The discriminatory laws themselves formed the subject matter of war crimes and crimes against humanity with which the defendants are charged. The material facts which must be proved in any case are: (1) the fact of the great pattern or plan of racial persecution and extermination; and (2) specific conduct of the individual defendant in furtherance of the plan. This is but an application of general concepts of criminal law. The person who persuades another to commit murder, the person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of its commission, and the person who pulls the trigger are all principals or accessories to the crime.
We turn to the national pattern or plan for racial extermination.
Fundamentally, the program was one for the actual extermination of Jews and Poles, either by means of killing or by confinement in concentration camps, which merely made death slower and more painful. But lesser forms of racial persecution were universally practiced by governmental authority and constituted an integral part in the general policy of the Reich. We have already noted the decree by which Jews were excluded from the legal profession. Intermarriage between Jews and persons of German blood was prohibited. Sexual intercourse between Jews and German nationals was punished with extreme severity by the courts.
By other decrees Jews were almost completely expelled from public service, from educational institutions, and from many business enterprises. Upon the death of a Jew his property was confiscated. Under the provisions for confiscation under the 11th amendment to the German Citizenship Law, supra, the decision as to confiscation of the property of living Jews was left to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. The law against Poles and Jews cited supra (4 December 1941), was rigorously enforced. Poles and Jews convicted of specific crimes were subjected to different types of punishment from that imposed upon Germans who had committed the same crimes. Their rights as defendants in court were severely circumscribed. Courts were empowered to impose death sentences on Poles and Jews even where such punishment was not prescribed by law, if the evidence showed "particularly objectionable motives". And, finally, the police were given carte blanche to punish all "criminal" acts committed by Jews without any employment of the judicial process. From the great mass of evidence we can only cite a few illustrations of the character and operation of the program.
On 30 January 1939, in an address before the Reichstag, Hitler, who was at that very time perfecting his plot for aggressive war, said:
"If the international Jewish financiers within and without Europe succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the world and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the obliteration of the Jewish race in Europe."
We quote from the writings of Alfred Rosenberg (since hanged), "High Priest of the Nazi Racial Theory and Herald of the Master Race":
"A new faith is arising today: the myth of the blood, the faith to defend with the blood the divine essence of man. The faith, embodied in clearest knowledge, that the Nordic blood represents that mysterium which has replaced and overcome the old sacraments." (Rosenberg, Dor Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts, (Munich, 1935), page 114 (1st ed., 1930)). (National Socialism, page 31, Department of State Bulletin.)
The Rosenberg philosophy strongly supported the program of the Nazi Party, which reads as follows:
"None but members of the nation (Volk) may be citizens of the State. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation."
It was to implement this program that the discriminatory laws against Poles and Jews were enacted as hereinabove act forth.
A directive of the Reich Ministry of Justice, signed by Freisler, dated 7 August 1942, addressed to prosecutors and judges, sets forth the broad general purposes which were to govern the application of the law against Poles and Jews and the specific application of that law in the trial of cases. We quote:
"The penal law ordinance of 4 December 1941 concerning Poles, was intended not only to serve as a criminal law against Poles and Jews but, beyond that, also to provide general principles for the German administration of law to adopt in all its judicial dealings with Poles and Jews; irrespective of the role which the Poles and Jewsplay in the individual proceedings. The regulations of Article IX for instance, according to which Poles Jews are not to be sworn in, apply to proceedings against Germans as well. * * * "1. Proceedings against Germans should be carried on whenever possible without calling Poles and Jews as witnesses.
If, however, such a testimony cannot be evaded, the Pole or Jew must not appear as a witness against the German during the main trial. He must always be interrogated by a judge who has been appointed or requested to do so, * * *.
"2. Evidence given by Poles and Jews during proceedings against Germans must be received with the utmost caution especially in those cases where other evidence is lacking."
On 13 October 1942 the Reich Minister of Justice Thierack wrote to Reichsleiter Bormann, in part as follows:
"With a view to freeing the German people of Poles, Russians, Jews, and gypsies and with a 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."
On 18 September 1942 a conference was hold among Thierack, Himmler, Bormann, Rothenberger, and others. The notes of the conference, signed by Thierack; disclose that the subjects of discussion included "special treatment" at the hands of the police in cases where judicial sentences were not severe enough. Among other points agreed upon between Bormann, Himmler, and Thierack, were the following:
"The Reich Minister of Justice will decide whether and when special treatment at the hands of the police is to be applied.* * * "The delivery of anti-social elements from the execution of their sentence to the Reich Fuehrer of SS to be worked to death.
Persons under protective arrest, Jews, gypsies, Russians, and Ukrainians, Poles with more than three-year sentences, Czechs and Germans with more than eight-year sentences, according to the decision of the Reich Minister for Justice. First of all the worst anti-social elements amongst those just mentioned are to be handed over. I shall inform the Fuehrer of this through Reichsleiter Borman. * * * "It is agreed that, in consideration of the intended aims of the Government for the clearing up of the Eastern problems, in future Jews, Poles, gypsies, Russians, Ukrainians are no longer to be judged by the ordinary courts, so far as punishable offenses are concerned, but are to be dealt with by the Reich Fuehrer SS.
* * *" The defendant Rothenberger testified that he was not present when those agreements were made.
However that may be, it is clear that they came to his notice shortly thereafter.
Of especial significance is the record concerning the establishment of penal laws for Poles and Jews in the annexed Eastern territories. On 17 April 1941 the defendant Schlegelberger addressed a letter to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery. In it he states that as soon as the Special Courts were introduced in the Eastern territories under the decree of 5 September 1939 he tried to make these "courts with their particularly prompt and energetic procedure centers for combating all Polish and Jewish crime". He states that "the procedure of compulsory prosecution was rescinded, as it seems intolerable that Poles and Jews should in this way compel the German prosecutor to issue an indictment". Poles and Jews were also prohibited from raising private actions and accessory actions. He further states:
"On being informed of the Fuehrer's intention to discriminate in the sphere of penal law between the Poles (and probably the Jews as well), and the Germans, I prepared, after preliminary discussions with the presidents of the courts of appeal and the attorney generals of the annexed.
Eastern territories, the attached draft concerning the administration of the penal laws against Poles and. Jews in the annexed Eastern territories and in the territory of the former Free City of Danzig."
Again, he says:
"So far I have been in agreement with the opinion held by the Fuehrer's deputy, on the fact that a Pole is less sensitive to the imposition of an ordinary prison sentence. Therefore, I had taken administrative measures to ensure that Poles and Jews be separated from other prisoners and that their imprisonment be rendered more severe. No. 3 goes still farther and substitutes for the terms of imprisonment and hard labor prescribed by Reich law other prison sentences of a new kind, viz., the prison camp and the more rigorous prison camp."
Speaking of the proposed draft prepared by him, Schlegelberger said:
"The part concerned with procedure contains first the special regulations existing up to now of the preliminary decree. In addition, a Pole and a Jew sentenced by a German court is not to be allowed, in the future, any legal remedy against the judgment; neither will he have a right of appeal, or be allowed to ask that the case be reopened. All sentences will take effect immediately. In future, Poles and Jews will also no longer be allowed to object to German judges on the grounds of prejudice; now will they be able to take an oath. Coercive measures against them are permissible under easier conditions."
A memorandum dated 22 April 1941, bearing the same file number as the letter of Schlegelberger, states that Schlegelberger has transmitted the proposed draft, and adds:
"The draft establishes a draconic special criminal law for Poles and Jews, "giving a wide range for the interpretations of the facts of the case, with the death penalty applicable throughout.
The conditions of imprisonment are also much more severe than provided for in the German criminal law."
The note further states:
"The Minister of Justice differs only in two points from the suggestions of the Fuehrer's deputy."
It then states that the Fuehrer's deputy considered it more appropriate to authorize the Reich governors to introduce the special criminal law, whereas the Minister of Justice provides for its introduction by a Reich decree. The second difference of opinion was somewhat to the credit of the defendant Schlegelberger. The Fuehrer's deputy considered the introduction of corporal punishment appropriate, and the Minister of Justice refused to agree.
On 3 August 1942 the Reich Minister of Justice sent a draft of the proposed ordinance to a number of high officials, including the Reich Minister of Interior and the Reich Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda. The letter was signed "by order, Freisler". Freisler was at that time State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice. The letter contained this significant statement:
"I have emphasized the importance in war of this ordinance because it indirectly serves national defense."
The enclosed draft provided that Jews should not be entitled to make use of the right of appeal, revision or complaint against decisions in criminal cases, and could not appeal to the courts for a decision against sentences inflicted by the police. It also provided that in cases where an appeal had already been filed it should be considered cancelled.
On 13 August 1942 the Reich Minister of Interior wrote to the Reich Minister of Justice, requesting that the draft be extended so as to restrict the right of Jews to appeal in administrative as well as criminal cases.
On the same day the defendant Schlegelberger wrote to the Reich Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda concerning the addition to the draft as suggested by the Reich Minister of the Interior. We quote:
"I declare that I have no objections against an extension of my draft to matters of administrative law and to decisions by administrative authorities."
He then suggested an additional provision to the effect that Jews should be forbidden to testify on oath, but that they might be prosecuted as for perjury though no oath is to be taken.
On 8 March 1943 the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, Kaltenbrunner, wrote to Minister of the Interior, Frick, urging immediate passage of the proposed ordinance. The following reasons were given:
"1. Previous evacuations of Jews have been restricted to Jews who were not married to non-Jews. In consequence, the numbers of Jews who have remained in the interior is quite considerable. As the ordinance would also include these Jews as well, the measures it plans are not objectless.
"2. The provision of Article 7 of the ordinance according to which, at the death of a Jew, his fortune escheats in its entirety to the Reich, results in the accumulation of considerably less work for the state police. At the present time the procedure used by the state police in handling the confiscation of such Jewish inheritances must frequently be modified to suit each special case."
He adds that the provision for the transfer of Jews to the police is based on an agreement between Himmler and Thierack, who had by that time succeeded Schlegelberger as Reich Minister of Justice.
On 21 April 1943 a memorandum for the files of the Reich Chancellery reports a conference of State secretaries on the proposed ordinance at which the defendant Rothenberger was present. The conference came to the conclusion that certain modifications should be made. The final result of the prolonged discussion was the enactment of time 13th Regulation under the Reich Citizenship Law of 1 July 1943, which was signed by Frick, Bormann, and Thierack.
It will be recalled that that regulation, supra, provided that criminal actions committed by Jews should be punished by the police; that the property of a Jew should be confiscated after his death. These and other provisions were also made effective in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, where German courts had jurisdiction.
With few exceptions Jews were wholly excluded from the administration of justice. In a speech before the NSDAP Congress on 14 September 1934, Hans Frank stated:
"It is unbearable to us to permit Jews to play any role whatsoever in the German Administration of Justice.* * * It will, therefore, be our firm aim to exclude Jews increasingly from the administration of the law as time goes on."
On another occasion Frank, as President of the Academy for German Law, directed: "For all future time it will be impossible that Jews will act in the name of German Law. * * *".
In an order reminiscent of the "burning of the books" in medieval days, Frank also directed that the works of Jewish authors should be removed from all public or study libraries whenever possible.
On 5 April 1933, the defendant, Barnickel, made an entry in his diary:
"Today it is said in the newspaper that in Berlin there are about 3,500 attorneys and more than half of them are Jewish. Only 35 of them are to be admitted as lawyers. * * * To exclude these Jewish attorneys from one day to the next means terrible brutaLity."
The defense witness, Fritz Walentin, stated that in general all nonaryan judges were removed from the administration of penal justice very soon after 30 January 1933. The evacuation of Jews to the East for extermination was in full swing at least as early as November 1941.