(Ed. note: first degree presumably those with two-non-Aryan grandparents and second degree with only one).
"With regard to the treatment of Jewish descendants of mixed marriages of the first degree, I agree with the conception of the Reich Minister of the Interior which he expressed in his letter of 16 February 1942, to the effect that the prevention of propagation of these descendants of mixed marriages is to be preferred to their being thrown in with the Jews and evacuated. It follows therefrom that the evacuation of those half-Jews who are no more capable of propagation is obviated from the beginning. There is no national interest in dissolving the marriages between such half-Jews and a full-blooded German.
"Those half-Jews who are capable of propagation should be given the choice to submit to sterilization or to be evacuated in the same manner as Jews."
Schlegelberger knew of the pending procedures for the evacuation of Jews and acquiesced in them. As to half-Jews his only suggestion was that they be given the free choice of either one of the impaling horns of a dilemma. On 17 April 1941 Schlegelberger wrote to Lammers as follows:
"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."
The draft of a proposed ordinance "concerning the administration of justice regarding Poles and Jews in the incorporated Eastern territories" was attached to his letter and is in evidence.
A comparison of its phraseology with the phraseology contained in the notorious law against Poles and Jews of 4 December 1941 discloses beyond question that Schlegelberger's draft constituted the basis on which, with certain modifications and changes, the law against Poles and Jews was enacted.
In this respect he was not only guilty of participation in the racial persecution of Poles and Jews; he was also guilty of violation of the laws and customs of war by establishing that legislation in the occupied territories of the East. The extension of this type of law into occupied territories was in direct violation of the limitations imposed by The Hague Convention, which we have previously cited.
It is of interest to note that on 31 January 1942 Schlegelberger issued a decree providing that the provisions of the law against Poles and Jews "will be equally applicable with the consent of the public prosecutor to offenses committed before the decree came into force." We doubt if the defendant would contend that the extension of this discriminatory and retroactive law into occupied territory was based on military necessity.
Schlegelberger divorced his inclinations from his conduct. He disapproved "of the revision of sentences" by the police, yet he personally ordered the murder of the Jew Luftgas on the request of Hitler, and assured the Fuehrer that he would himself take action if the Fuehrer would inform him of other sentences which were disapproved.
Schlegelberger's attitude toward atrocities committed by the police must be inferred from his conduct. A milking-hand, Bloedling, was sentenced to death in October 1940, and during the trial he insisted his purported confession had been obtained as a result of beatings imposed upon him by the police officer Klinzmann. A courageous judge tried Klinzmann and convicted him of brutality and sentenced him to a few months imprisonment. Himmler protected against the sentence of Klinzmann and stated that he was going "to take the action of the Hauptwachtmeister of the Police Klinzmann as an occasion to express gratitude for his farsighted conduct which was only beneficial to the communit". He said further:
"I must reward his action because otherwise the joy of serving in the police would be destroyed by such verdicts. But finally K has to be destroyed by such verdicts.
But finally K has to be rehabilitated in public because his being sentenced by a court is known in public."
On 10 December 1941 Schlegelberger wrote to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery stating that he was unable to understand the sentence passed against Klinzmann. He quote:
"No sooner had the verdict passed on Klinzmann become known here, orders were for this reason given to the effect that the sentence, in case of it validation, should not be carried out for the time being. Instead, reports concerning the granting of a pardon should be made as soon as possible. In the meantime, however, the sentence passed on Klinzmann became valid, by decision of the Reich Court of 24 November 1941, which abandoned the procedure of revision as apparently unfounded. Taking into regard also the opinion you expressed on the sentence, Sir, I now ordered the remission of the sentence and of the costs of proceedings by way of pardon as well as the striking out of the penalty note in the criminal records."
On 24 December 1941 Schlegelberger wrote to Lammers that he had quashed the proceedings. In February 1942 Himmler wrote expressing appreciation of the efforts in quashing the proceedings against Klinzmann and stated that he had since promoted him to Meister of the Municipal Police.
Schlegelberger presents an interesting defense, which is also claimed in some measure by most of the defendants. He asserts that the administration of justice was under persistent assault by Himmler and other advocates of the police state. This is true. He contends that if the functions of the administration of justice were usurped by the lawless forces under Hitler and Himmler the last state of the nation would be worse than the first. He feared that if he were to resign, a worse man would take his place. As the event proved, there is much truth in this also. Under Thierack the police did usurp the functions of the administration of justice and murdered untold thousands of Jews and political prisoners. Upon analysis this plausible claim of the defense squares neither with the truth, logic or the circumstances.
The evidence conclusively shows that in order to maintain the Ministry of Justice in the good graces of Hitler and to prevent its utter defeat by Himmler's police, Schlegelberger and the other defendants who joined in this claim of justification took over the dirty work which the leaders of the State demanded, and employed the Ministry of Justice as a means for exterminating the Jewish and Polish populations, terrorizing the inhabitants of occupied countries, and wiping out political opposition at home.
That their program of racial extermination under the guise of law failed to attain the proportions which were reached by the pogroms, deportations, and mass murders by the police, is cold comfort to the survivors of the "judicial" process and constitutes a poor excuse before this Tribunal. The prostitution of a judicial system for the accomplishment of criminal ends involves an element of evil to the State which is not found in frank atrocities which do not sully judicial robes.
Schlegelberger resigned. The cruelties of the system which he had helped to develop were too much for him, but he resigned too late. The damage was done. If the judiciary could slay their thousands, why couldn't the police slay their tons of thousands? The consequences which Schlegelberger feared were realized. The police, aided by Thierack, prevailed. Schlegelberger had failed. His hesitant injustices no longer satisfied the urgent demands of the hour. He retired under fire. In spite of all that he had done he still bore an unmerited reputation as the last of the German jurists and so Hitler gave him his blessing and 100,000 RM as a parting gift. We are under no misapprehension. Schlegelberger is a tragic character. He loved the life of intellect, the work of the scholar. We believe that he loathed the evil that he did, but he sold that intellect and that scholarship to Hitler for a mess of political pottage and for the vain hope of personal security. He is guilty under Counts two and three of the indictment.
JUDGE HARDING: Judge Harding continues reading the opinion.
that time Chief.
He received the Bronze Party Service decoration in 1941 and the Golden Party decoration, the latter being conferred by Bormann in 1943.
During the time in which the defendant was in Saxony, he was a member of the disciplinary court of the SA group which dealt with the purge of the SA in connection with the Roehm putsch.
A brief outline of the official activities of the defendant Klemm is as follows: after transfer to Berlin in 1935, the defendant dealt with acts against the State and Party and, later, the Malicious Acts Law. In this field prosecution could be ordered only by the Ministry of Justice with the permission of the office of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, which later became the Party Chancellory.
It was during this period that the following circular, dated Berlin, 18 October 1937, and initialed by Klemm, was issued:
"1) Criminal procedure concerning more severe interrogations by the Stapo will be dealt with centrally by Chief Prosecutor Klemm. They are to be sent to the competent co-worker Prosecutor Winkler.
"2) As far as reports concerning executions when escaping from concentration camps, etc., suicides in K.Z. arrive, they shall continue to be dealt with by the specialist competent for the respective subject. The general consultant for political criminal matters, however, is to be informed of the reports. They are to be submitted to him at once."
The practice of more severe interrogations, according to the testimony of Lautz, caused much worry to those concerned with the administration of justice. By the term "more severe interrogations" is meant "third degree" methods which Hitler authorized the police to use in cases considered important for the safety of the State.
From July 1940 to March 1941, while Klemm was in Holland, he had charge of both civil and penal law. The penal section in Holland was for Germans citizens not in the army and Dutch who infringed on German interests. He was also liaison officer between the Commissioner General for the administration of Justice and Secretary of the Dutch Ministry of Justice at the Hague.
During this period there were published in the official gazette for the occupied Dutch Territories, in the year 1944, decrees of the Reich Commissioner of Occupied Dutch Territories, Seyss-Inquart, pertaining to the registry of Jewish property, the confiscation of same under certain circumstances, and for the transfer of Jewish property to an official in the nature of an administrator. During this time a letter was written by Tenkink, Secretary General of the Dutch Ministry of Justice, to the Reich Commissioner of Holland, which shows the defendant's signature, informing the Commissioner of excesses committed against Jews in Holland.
During this period letters dated 24 and 30 September 1940, marked "Secret" and signed by the defendant, to the Department for Legislation Lange Vijverberg, with opinions and recommendations as to the registration and confiscation of Jewish property in Holland, were transmitted.
A letter dated 24 September 1940 contains the following statement:
"In my view it must be achieved with other means to eliminate Jewish influence from such corporations. In the Reich, too, it needed months of careful work to gradually extract Jewish capital without disturbing the economy or to eliminate Jewish influence altogether."
The defendant Klemm was in the office of the Deputy of the Fuehrer and Party Chancellery from March 1941 to January 1944. The Party Chancellery had to approve the drafts of decrees in connection with national laws and ordinances and also was charged with the responsibility for the approval of high official appointments. The Party Chancellery was formed from what had originally been the office of the Deputy Fuehrer under Hess. It was the instrument of the Party in matters of State and soon became virtually the instrument of Bormann.
In the Party Chancellery Klemm was Chief of Group III-C.
This Group had the following functions, as stated by the defendant:
"First, it had to deal with laws and drafts and decrees of the Reich Ministry of Justice, unless for reasons of their subject, they were dealt with by another group, because that group appeared to be competent. Secondly, penal matters based on the law against malicious acts, as far as on the basis of legal provisions the approval of the Chief of the Party Chancellery was required for the prosecution. Thirdly, complaints from Party offices or individuals against decision by the courts. Fourth, complaints from the administration of justice against interference by Party offices into pending trials. Fifth, to observe especially civil and penal cases which concerned the Party. Sixth, matters of legal reform, and seventh, expert opinions in the field of the Party law."
Among his activities, and in conference with officials from the Ministry of Justice, he made suggestions for strengthening the powers of the police.
At another conference with officials from the Ministry of Justice concerning the political evaluations of persons in connection with legal procedure, he represented the standpoint of the Party that Party evaluations should be accepted by the courts.
During the time that Klemm was Chief of Section III-C, the act providing for the retroactive application of law concerning treason was enacted and applied to the annexed Eastern territories. It was claimed by the defendant that this was based upon a decision of Bormann.
At that time legislation depriving the Jews of legal rights was also contemplated of the proposals made were dealt with, and the letter of 9 September 1942, prepared in Division III, was dispatched.
Also as part of the activities of Section III-C under Klemm, the proposal of the defendant Schlegelberger regarding confirmation of sentences of penal cases by the President of the District Court of Appeals was disposed of and the defendant claims he influenced Bormann to oppose this recommendation of the Ministry of Justice.
During this period a circular entitled "The New Organization of Justice", signed by Bormann, and which the defendant Klemm claims was intended the Ministry of Justice from Party criticism, states as follows:
"Hereby is further required that you report to me all complaints which you have to bring in matters of justice, so that I can clear up the situation immediately by confidential negotiations with the Reich Minister of Justice. Should it, after a discussion with the Reich Minister of Justice, seem absolutely necessary that a problem is brought to the Fuehrer, then this will be taken care of by Reich Minister Dr. Lammers and myself."
During this period Klemm wrote the Minister of Justice as follows:
"Your letter of 5 August 1943 is agreed to. No objections are raised to applying the German Criminal Code for Juveniles to foreign juveniles, unless they are Jewish, Polish, and gypsies. Regarding juvenile gypsies and those of mixed gypsy descent, you are asked to see to that, simultaneously with the coming into force of the new law concerning Reich juveniles, a special regulation will come into effect which will prevent the German Criminal Code for juveniles from applying to gypsies and those of gypsy descent merely because a definite regulation is lacking."
The defendant states that during this period Bormann called him on the telephone and inquired whether he knew Rothenberger and inquired about Rothenberger. Also he later submitted to the defendant Klemm an inquiry as to the background and qualifications of persons presumed to have been possible appointees as Reich Minister of Justice. These included Thierack, and Klemm states that his report to Bormann was favorable to Thierack. These inquiries were made of the defendant in spite of the fact that, according to his testimony, he had to deal only with matters pertaining to the administration of justice, and these were definitely personnel matters under another department of the Party Chancellery.
During this period he was the liaison officer between Thierack and the Party Chancellery. As to this relationship, Klemm states:
"Thierack asked mo in all matters concerning the Justice group of the Party Chancellory to come to him and that is, to him personally, immediately and not to discuss them with the various Referents at the Ministry * * * and as I had worked in both fields, the best thing for him to get acquainted with the matter would be if I reported to him in person."
With reference to Klemm's duties as Under-Secretary of State, the following paragraph of a report of the conference of the Department Chiefs, held 6 January 1944, outlines in part his duties in the Ministry as follows:
"The Minister announced that from now on the Departments III, IV and V, too, would be placed under the control of the State Secretary and hereby recalled the contrary regulation in office routine, which was published on 27 August, 1942, but added that all death sentences must continue to be submitted to him. He would request the State Secretary to be present when they were submitted. Furthermore, all political and legal matters of particular importance must be reported to him."
Klemm maintains that his supervision cf Departments III, IV, and V, was merely on paper. However, the testimony of Hecker does not bear this out as regards Department V, nor does the testimony of Eggensberger.
During this period the decree against Poles and Jews was still being enforced under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice in so far as any was left, outside the sphere of the Gestapo and the concentration camps.
During this period the Ministry of Justice still dealt with Nacht und Nebel cases. The defendant Klemm denies, in general, knowledge of NN procedure. Fourteen exhibits have been introduced in this case showing transactions concerning NN matters, subsequent to the time Klemm took over the office of State Secretary. The defendant admits knowledge that Nacht und Nobel prisoners were transferred from Essen to Silesia. He admits refusal of spiritual care for NN prisoners by foreign clergymen. He admits knowledge of a draft of a letter from Thierack to Bormann to the effect that NN women who were not to be executed should be so advised. He admits denying clemency to eight NN prisoners when he was acting as Deputy for Thierack. In the remaining 123 cases, clemency was denied by Thierack when Klemm was presumably sitting in conference with him.
Among the fourteen documents enumerated above is a report from the defendant von Ammon, initialed by Klemm, relative to a trip concerning NN matters. This report states:
"The Military Commander-in-Chief, France, is grateful for the evidence which the military courts in occupied French territory receive as a result of the activity of the general legal authorities concerned with the prosecution and trial of NN cases in occupied French territory."
Klemm explains this document by stating that he merely approved the trip. With the above explanations, Klemm's counsel stated:
"These are the only documents which the prosecution has submitted against you as far as NN cases are concerned."
In view of the fact that Klemm was State Secretary when these matters were disposed of and, nominally at least, charged with supervision of Department IV where they were handled, this conclusion is not one which this Tribunal accepts.
With regard to clemency during the time the defendant was State Secretary, Klemm shown to have dealt with clemency matters as the advisor of Thierack when he was present and as his deputy in his absence. He states that personally he dealt only with clear cases and, further, that in clear cases clemency had been disapproved by by seven agencies before it became a clear case. He states that clear cases were legally incontestable.
His testimony that in clear cases seven agencies disapproved clemency during the period when he was State Secretary, does not conform to the testimony of the defendant Lautz or with Exhibit 279 which Lautz cites. Lautz's testimony on this part is as follows:
"The examination of these clemency pleas for their correctness was no longer possible for the prosecutions in the majority of cases. The prosecutors now had to restrict themselves to adding the pleas to their reports without changing them. The time limit laid down in the decree was, as a rule, not adhered to because the offices as the People's Court and the Reich prosecution were so overburdened that it was impossible for them to submit the files within the time limit set. Owing to that, occasionally there was sufficient time to make further investigations in the matter of the clemency plea. However, the opinion of the court, the prison, and all other agencies was no longer heard. They had been of importance before * * *."
Moreover, what may constitute a legally incontestable case is subject to considerable speculation. Presumably a case based upon a case based upon a confession would be legally incontestable. Certainly it can hardly be assumed that the defendant Klemm was unaware of the practice of the Gestapo with regard to obtaining confessions. He had dealt with this matter during his early period with the Department of Justice. It is hardly credible that he believed that the police methods which at an earlier time were subject so some scrutiny by the Ministry of Justice, had become less harsh because the Gestapo, in October of 1940, was placed beyond the jurisdiction of law. He must have been aware that a prolific source of clean cases based on confessions and, therefore, legally incontestable, came to him from the obscurity of the torture chamber.
During the time Klemm was State Secretary, the plan of the leaders of the Nazi State to inspire the lynching of Allied flyers by the people of Germany was inaugurated, and during this period the matter of execution of approximately 800 political prisoners, prior to evacuation of the penitentiary at Sonnenburg, took place. These matters will be dealt with more fully hereafter.
As heretofore pointed out in this opinion, the essential elements to prove a defendant guilty under the indictment in this case are that a defendant had knowledge of an offense charged in the indictment and established by the evidence, and that he was connected with the commission of that offense.
As to the matter of knowledge of the defendant Klemm, aside from the sources of knowledge heretofore pointed out in this opinion in regard to all of the defendant's sources of information were of a wide scope. He had been the liaison officer between the Administration of Justice and the SA in Saxony and the legal advisor of the Chief of the SA for Saxony.
On transfer to Berlin, he acted in the same capacity with the SA main office for the Third Reich and was the liaison officer between the Ministry of Justice and the SA main office. In Holland he was head of the department of legal matters under Seyss-Inquart. He served with the office of the Deputy of the Fuehrer and Party Chancellery from March 1941 to January 1944. There he was in charge of Group III-C. He was the friend of Klopfer in charge of Group III and, from the evidence, a trusted lieutenant of Bormann. Finally, he was State Secretary under Thierack, whom he had known since he was his adjutant and personal referent in Saxony. In Berlin he lived with Thierack for the period in which he was State Secretary.
Klemm's career under the Third Reich moved smoothly from comparative insignificance to the position of State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice. His ascent was marked by no serious differences as to Party policies. He was close to both Bormann and Thierack and ascended by their favor. Under the circumstances it is not credible that he was ignorant of the policies and methods of these ruthless figures.
The defendant lays great stress on an order of Hitler as to secrecy and states that in connection with this order he adhered strictly to it; that be did not attempt to hear anything outside of his official duties. Such orders as to secrecy were not confined to Germany during the war; they were standard procedure in other countries and by no means excluded knowledge of secret matters derived from normal human contacts, particularly friends and acquaintances in the higher levels of State affairs. Further, the confidential position held by the defendant gave him a wide scope as to secret matters within the sphere of his official duties. As State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice and Deputy of the Minister in his absence, the defendant's official duties required knowledge of the higher spheres of State policy.
More specifically, Klemm knew of abuses in concentration camps. He knew of the practice of severe interrogations. He knew of the persecution and oppression of the Jews and Poles and gypsies.
He must be assumed to have known, from the evidence, the general basis of Nacht und Nebel procedure under the Department of Justice. Therefore, it becomes important to consider his connection with the carrying out of these crimes alleged in the indictment and established by the evidence in this case.
It is clear from the evidence, heretofore outlined in part, that when the defendant Klemm was in Holland he knew of the persecution of Jews and he was connected to some extent with that persecution.
While he was in the Party Chancellery he wrote the letter, heretofore pointed out, denying the application of the German Juvenile Law to Poles, Jews, and gypsies. This Tribunal does not construe that letter as a legal opinion but as an expression of Party policy submitted through the Party Chancellery to the Ministry of Justice to the effect that minors of the proscribed races must be subject to the merciless provisions of the decree against Poles and Jews. The argument that they were necessarily excluded because they were foreigners and that the German Juvenile Act contemplated entrance into the Hitler Youth and similar provisions applicable only to Germans, has little significance when the letter itself expressly states that there were no objections to applying the German Criminal Code for juveniles to foreign juveniles, unless they were Poles, Jews, or gypsies. Further, it can hardly be construed as a legal opinion as to gypsies in view of the statement therein made that a special regulation will come into effect which will prevent the German Criminal Code for juveniles from applying to gypsies and those of gypsy descent merely because a definite regulation is lacking.
While in the Party Chancellery, Klemm took part in drafting the law to make treason retroactive and applying it to annexed territories, and this draft bears his signature.
As State Secretary he knew of the NN procedure and was connected therewith, particularly as to the approximately 123 NN prisoners sentenced to death who were denied clemency while he sat in conference with Thierack, and in the eight cases where he denied clemency as Deputy for Thierack.
As State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, he necessarily exercised supervision over the enforcement of the decree against Poles and Jews and dealt with clemency matters pertaining to cases tried under that decree.
In connection with the defendant Klemm, two other transactions constituting crimes charged in the indictment are of particular significance. The first of these is charged under the second count of the indictment as a war crime against all the defendants and, particularly under paragraph 18 of the indictment, charging the defendant Klemm with special responsibility and participation. This pertains to the inciting of the German population to murder Allied airmen forced down within the Reich.
Evidence of this plan of the leaders of the German State is found as follows: First in the correspondence relative to the treatment of so-called "enemy terrorist airmen". As part of this correspondence from the Deputy Chief of the Operation Staff of the Armed Forces, entitled "Secret matter", dated 6 June 1944, and signed by General Warlimont, the following sentence is significant:
"Lynch justice should be considered as being the rule." Further, a draft of a letter, dated Salzburg, 20 June 1944, to the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, apparently drawn by the Foreign Office, contains this paragraph:
"The above considerations warrant the general conclusion that the cases of lynching ought to be stressed in the course of this action. If the action is carried out to such an extent * * * * * * * * * * the deterring of enemy airmen is actually achieved."
In furtherance of this plan, Goebbels' speech of 27 May 1944 is cited and the letter from the Chief of the Party Chancellery, Fuehrer's Headquarters, 30 May 1944, marked "Secret--not for publication"--and bearing the initials of Thierack, concerning "The People's Judgment of Anglo-American Murders", signed by Bormann, is significant, particularly the following paragraph:
"No police or criminal proceedings have been taken against the citizens who have taken part herein."
The distribution of this circular was as follows: "Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Verbaendefuehrer, Kreisleiter", and contains the following note to all Gauleiters and Kreisleiters, initialed by Thierack and signed by Friedrichs:
"The Chief of the Party Chancellory requests that the Kreisleiters inform the Ortsgruppenleiters only verbally of the contents of this circular."
Exhibit 109 is of even greater significance. This is a letter from the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, dated 4 June 1944, to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack, headed: "Regards People's Justice Against Anglo-American Murders". This letter is quoted in its entirety:
"The Chief of the Party Chancellery informed me about the enclosed transcript of a secret circular letter and requested me likewise to inform you.
"I herewith comply with this and beg you to consider how far you want to instruct the courts and district attorneys with it.
"The Reich Leader and Chief of the German Police has, as I was further told by executive leader Bormann, so instructed his police leaders."
It contains a handwritten note, initialed by Thierack as a signature and also initialed by Klemm, which reads as follows:
"Return note with the addition that such cases are to be submitted to me for the purpose of their examination for quashing in case proceedings are pending."
In this adroit plan to encourage the murder of Allied airmen and escape the responsibility therefor, under the recognized rules of warfare, the procedures adopted by the Ministry of Justice were unique and worthy of the legal minds of those who dealt with the matter. As shown in the affidavit of Pejlovec, a secret directive was sent out by the Ministry of Justice calling for reports in cases of the lynching of Allied airmen. This directive was interpreted by Pejlovek to the effect that no prosecutions were contemplated.
The witness Dr. Gustav Mitzschke, Referent in the Legislative Department, testified that he was instructed to call upon the State Secretary, which he did, and received the following instructions:
"When you talk to General Public Prosecutor Helm at Munich, please tell him that in cases where Allied flyers 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."
Helm issued a directive to the prosecutors under him. This directive called for reports and files in such cases and stated they were necessary because sometimes other factors, such as robbery or the use of Allied uniforms to cover the murder of Germans, had to be considered.
Klemm stated that Mitzschke was directed to inform Helm that reports were to be given in all cases.
The witness Helm stated that the note in conformity with Mitzschke's instructions as to the reports to be made was written and sent out, he thinks, on the same day of Mitzschke's visit and, in his cross-examination he states that he is sure it was not later than the day after Mitzschko's visit.
The witness Hans Hagemann, General Public Prosecutor at Dusseldorf, testified that he was directed that in such cases a report had to be made to the Ministry of Justice. He also verified the secret decree sent out by the Minister of Justice.
The nature of the reports called for, in itself, is not considered by this Tribunal of particular importance. Thierack had directed Klemm, as shown above, to submit to him reports as to cases pending "for quashing". The procedure followed by the Ministry went beyond this in that it required reports and the transmittal of files of cases where no indictment had as yet been issued. The Ministry of Justice thus took over, in substance, the disposition of these cases and the prosecution throughout Germany was thereby restricted in its normal duty of filing indictments against those who had murdered Allied airmen and were criminals under German law.
From the evidence in this case and from sources of judicial information, this Tribunal knows of many instances of the lynching of Allied airmen by the German population. No case has been brought to the attention of this Tribunal where an indictment was actually filed for such offenses. What reports and files were submitted to the Ministry of Justice we do not know, but it is obvious that such reports as were made were allowed to die in the archives of the Ministry.
There is evidence as to one case pertaining to this matter. The defendant Klemm in his testimony refers to it. Around the turn of the year 1944-1945 in Krannenburg, in the District of the Court of Appeals, Dusseldorf, an SA leader had shot two captured paratroopers in cold blood. Regarding this, Klemm stated:
"We prosecuted that case and even though the police, as well as the Party offices, offered considerable resistance, these discussions were advanced energetically. I do not know of the final outcome."
The evidence in this case, as shown by the testimony of Hagemann, indicates that during September of 1944, at the time of the Allied parachute attack on Arnheim, two captured Canadian paratroopers were shot by one Kluetgen while a Kreisleiter stood by and either permitted or encouraged the shooting.
The witness Hagemann undertook to investigate the matter but was unable to do so fully because a Kreisleiter could not be so examined if he refused to testify. It was necessary if the Kreisleiter was to be examined to have the approval of the Party Chancellery. An application was made for such consent but it was never given. Hagemann stated that he made a report over the telephone to the Ministry about the case.
