In his capacity as such Referent, Joel reviewed and passed upon 16 death sentences of Poles who had committed alleged crimes against the Reich or the German occupation forces. One of these Poles was born in Cleveland, Ohio, in the United States, and his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment because Joel was fearful his execution would involve the Reich in international complications. The remaining 15 Poles were executed.
As Referent, Joel was shown by captured official documents to have had knowledge that many Jewish and Polish political prisoners were being executed under the law against Jews and Poles. This matter was called to his attention because of a dispute as to who should handle the corpses of the executed prisoners. One main difficulty was that, under Himmler's orders, these corpses were to be turned over to the Secret Police for disposition. The mayor and police of Posen refused to handle the corpses of Poles and Jews who were not executed as political prisoners. Joel was thereupon instructed to handle the matter temporarily and to work out a permanent plan for such burials, which he later assisted in doing.
As Referent in the Department of Justice and as liaison officer between the Department and the SS, Joel obtained extensive information and exercised far-reaching power in the execution of the law against Jews and Poles. He therefore took an active part in the execution of the plan or scheme for the persecution and extermination of Jews and Poles.
Concerning Joel's membership in the SS and SD, a condideration of all the evidence convinces us beyond a reasonable doubt that ho retained such membership with full knowledge of the criminal character of those organizations.
No man who had his intimate contacts with the Reich Security Main Office, the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo could possibly have been in ignorance of the general character of those organizations.
We find defendant Joel guilty under Counts two, three and four.
BY JUDGE HARDING: Judge Harding continues the reading of the Judgment.
The Defendant Rothaug Oswald Rothaug was born 17 May 1397.
His education was interrupted from 1916 to 1918 while he was in the army. He passed the final law examination in 1922 and the State examination for the higher administration of justice in 1925.
He joined the NSDAP in the spring of 1938 and the membership was made effective from May 1937.
Rothaug was a member of the National Socialist Jurists' League and the National Socialist Public Welfare Association. In his affidavit he denies belonging to the SD. However, the testimony of Elkar and his own admission on the witness stand establishes that he was an "honorary collaborator" for the SD on legal matters.
In December 1925 he began his career as a jurist, first as an assistant to an attorney in Ansbach and later as assistant judge at various courts. In 1927 he became Public Prosecutor in Hof in charge of criminal cases. From 1929 to 1933 he officiated as Counsellor at the Local Court in Nuernberg. In June 1955 he became Senior Public Prosecutor in the Public Prosecution in Nuernberg. Here he was the official in charge of general criminal cases, assistant of the chief public prosecutor handling examination of suspensions of proceedings and of petitions for pardon. From November to April 1937 he officiated as Counsellor of the District Court in Schweinfurt. He was legal advisor in the Civil and Penal Chamber and at the Court of Assizes, as well as Chairman of the law assessors' court. From April 1937 to May 1943 he was Director of the District Court in Nuernberg, except for a period in August and September of 1939 when he was in the Wehrmacht. During this time he was Chairman of the Court of Assizes, of a penal chamber, and of the special court.
From May 1943 to April 1945 he was Public Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution at the People's Court in Berlin. Here, as head of Department I he handled for a time cases of high treason in the Southern Reich territory, and from January 1944, cases concerning the undermining of public morale . in the Reich territory.
Crimes charged in the indictment, as heretofore stated in this opinion, have been established by the evidence in this case. The questions, therefore, to be determined as to the defendant Rothaug are: first, whether he had knowledge of any crime so established and, second, whether he was a participant in or took a consenting part in its commission.
Rothaug's sources of knowledge have, with these of all the defendants, already been pointed out. But Rothaug's knowledge was not limited to those general sources. Rothaug was an official of considerable importance in Nuernberg. He had many political and official contacts; among these--he was the friend of Haberkern, Gau Inspector of the Gau Franconia; he was the friend and associate of Oeschey, Gau Legal Advisor for the Gau Franconia; and was himself Gauwalter of the Lawyers' League. Re was the "honorary collaborator" for the SD. According to the witness Elkar, the agent of the SD for Nuernberg and vicinity, this position was more important than that of a confidential agent, and an honorary collaborator was active in SD affairs. He testifies that Rothaug took the SD oath of secrecy.
Whether Rothaug knew of all the aspects of the crimes alleged, we need not determine. He knew of crimes as established by the evidence, and it is the function of this Tribunal to determine his connection, if any, therewith.
The defendant is charged under Counts two, three, and four of the indictment. Under Count four he is charged with being a member of the Party Leadership Corps. He is not charged with membership in the SD.
The proof as to Count four establishes that he was Gauwalter of the Lawyers' League. The Lawyers' League was a formation of the Party and not a part of the Leadership Corps as determined by the International Military Tribunal in the case against Goering, et al.
As to Counts two and four of the indictment, from the evidence submitted, the Tribunal finds the defendant not guilty. The question of the defendant's guilt as to Count three of the indictment remains to be determined.
The evidence as to the character and activities of the defendant is voluminous. We shall confine ourselves to the question as to whether or not he took a consenting part in the plan for the persecution, oppression, and extermination of Poles and Jews.
His attitude of virulent hostility towards these races is proved from many sources and is in no wise shaken by the affidavits he has submitted on his own behalf.
The evidence in this regard comes from his own associates--the judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, medical experts, and others with whom he dealt. Among, but not limited to these, we cite the evidence of Doebig, Ferber, Bauer, Dorfmueller, Elkar, Engert, Groben, and Markl. In particular the testimony of Father Schosser is important. He testified as to many statements made by the defendant Rothaug during the trial of his own case, showing the defendant's hostility to Poles and his general attitude toward them. He stated that concerning the Poles in general, Rothaug expressed himself in the following manner:
"If he (Rothaug) had his way, then no Pole would be buried in a German cemetery, and then he went on to make the remark which everybody heard in that courtroom--that he would get up from his coffin if near to him there was a Pole being buried. Rothaug himself had to laugh because of this mean joke, and he went on to say, 'You have to be able to hate, because according to the Bible, God is a hating God'."
The testimony of Elkar is even more significant. He testifies that Rothaug believed in severe measures against foreigners and particularly against Poles and Jews, whom he felt should be treated differently from German transgressors. Rothaug feld there was a gap in the law in this respect. He states that Rothaug asserted that in his own court he achieved this discrimination by interpretation of existing laws but that other courts failed to do so. Such a gap, according to Rothaug, should be closed by singling out Poles and Jews for special treatment. Elkar testifies that recommendations were made by the defendant Rothaug, through the witness, to higher levels and that the subsequent decree of 1941 against Poles and Jews conformed to Rothaug's ideas as expressed and forwarded by the witness Elkar through SD channels to the RSHA.
This animosity of the defendant to these races is further established by documents in this case which show that his discrimination against these races encompasses others who he felf lacked the necessary harshness to carry out the policy of the Nazi State and Party to the people.
In this connection the communication of Oeschey to Deouty Gauleiter Holz, concerning Doebig, is worthy of note. In this communication many charges were made against Doebig for his failure to take action against officials under him who had failed to carry out the Nazi programs against Jews and Poles. Oeschey testified that these charges were copied from a letter submitted to him by the defendant Rothaug end that the defendant assumed responsibility for these charges. Rothaug denies that he assumed responsibility or had anything to do with the charges made, except in one immaterial instance. However, in the light of the circumstances themselves, the Tribunal accepts Oeschey's testimony in this regard, particularly in view of the unimpeached affidavit of Oeschey's secretary to the effect that these charges were copied directly by her from a letter of Rothaug's.Documentary proof of Rothaug's attitude in this respect is further found in the records of cases tried by him which will hereafter be considered.
Proof as to his animus is not shaken by his own testimony. It is confirmed by his testimony. He states:
"In my view, by introduction of the question of the socalled incredibility of Poles, the whole problem is sniffed onto another plane. It is a matter of course that a nation, which has been subjected by another nation, and which is in a state of stress--that a citizen of such a country which had been subjected to another vis-a-vis the victorious nation, finds himself in quite a different moral-ethical relationship. It is useless to shut your eyes against reality. Of course, he finds himself in a different moral relationship from the relationship in which a German citizen would find himself. It is so natural there is not point in ignoring it. There is no need to lie."
His explanations as to his feeling toward Poles, given in connection with the Schosser arrest and trial are also most enlightening but too extensive to quote here.
Concerning his participation in the Nazi policy of persecution and extermination of persons of these races, we shall confine our discussions to three cases which were tried by Rothaug as Presiding Judge.
The first case to be considered is that of Durka and Struss. Our knowledge of this case is based primarily upon the evidence of Hans Kern, the defense counsel of one of these defendants; Hermann Markl, the Prosecutor in the case; and the testimony of the defendant Rothaug.
The essential facts are in substance as follows: Two Polish girls--one, according to the testimony of Kern, 17 years of age, the other somewhat older--were accused of starting a fire in an armament plant in Bayreuth. This alleged fire did not do any material damage to the plant, but they were in the vicinity when it started and were arrested and interrogated by the Gestapo. Both gave alleged confessions to the Gestapo. Almost immediately following this occurrence, they were brought to Nuernberg by the Gestapo for trial before the Special Court.
Upon their arrival the Prosecutor in the case, Markl, was directed to draw up an indictment based upon the Gestapo interrogation. This was at eleven o'clock of the day they were tried.
The witness Kern was summoned by the defendant Rothaug to act as defense counsel in the case approximately two hours before the case came to trial. He informed Rothaug that he would not have time to prepare a defense. According to Kern, Rothaug stated that if he did not take over the defense, the trial would have to be conducted without a defense counsel. According to Rothaug, he told Kern that he would get another defense counsel. In either event the trial was to go on at once.
The trial itself, according to Kern, lasted about half an hour; according to the defendant, approximately an hour; according to Markl, it was conducted with the speed of a court martial.
The evidence consisted of the alleged confessions which one of the defendants repudiated before the court. Rothaug states that he thereupon called the Gestapo official who had obtained these alleged confessions and questioned him under oath. According to Rothaug the Gestapo official stated that the interrogations were perfectly regular. There was also a letter in evidence which it was said the defendants had tried to destroy before their capture. The witness Kern stated on cross examination that this letter had little materiality.
The defendant attempts to justify the speed of this trial upon the legal requirements in existence at this time. He states, in contradiction to the other witnesses, that a clear case of sabotage was established. This Tribunal is not inclined to accept the defendant Rothaug's version of the facts which were established.
Under the circumstances and in the brief period of the trial, the Tribunal does not believe the defendant could have established those facts from evidence.
According to the witness Kern, one of the defendants was 17 years age. This assertion as the age was not disputed. A German 18 years of age or thereunder would have come under the German Juvenile Act and would not have been subject to trial before a special court or to capital punishment. Whatever the age of the defendant in this case, they were tried under the procedure described in the Ordinance Against Poles and Jews which was in effect at this time, by a judge who did not believe the statements of Polish defendants, according to the testimony in this case. These two young Polish women were sentenced to death and executed four days after trial. In the view of this Trial, based upon the evidence, these two young women did not have what amounted to a trial at all but were executed because they were Polish nationals in conformity with the Nazi Policy of persecution and extermination.
The second case to be considered is the Lopata case. This was a case in which a young Polish farmhand, approximately 25 years of age, is alleged to have made indecent advances to his employer's wife.
He first was tried in the District Court at Neumarkt. That court sentenced him to a term of two years in the penitentiary. A nullity plea was filed in this case before the Reich Supreme Court, and the Reich Supreme Court returned the case to the Special Court at Nuernberg for a new trial and a sentence. The Reich Supreme Court stated that the judgment of the lower court was defective, since it did not discuss in detail whether the Ordinance Against Public Enemies was applicable and stated that if such ordinance was applicable - a thing which seemed probable - a much more severe sentence was deemed necessary.
The case was, therefore, again tried in violation of the fundamental principles of justice that no man should be tried twice for the same offense.
In the second trial of the case, the defendant Rothaug obligingly found that the Ordinance Against Public Enemies had been violated.
In its reasons, the court states the facts on which the verdict was based as follows:
"The wife of a farmer Schwenzl, together with the accused and a Polish girl, chopped straw in the barn. The accused was standing on the righthand side of the machine to carry out the work. Suddenly, in the middle of the work, the accused, without saying anything, touched with his hand the genitals of the wife of farmer Schwenzl, through her skirt. When she said after this unexpected action of the defendant: 'You hog, do you think I am not disgusted about anything; you think you can do that because my husband is sick', the accused laughed and touched, in spite of this dissuasion, again the genitals of the farmer's wife above her skirt.
The wife of farmer Schwenzl slapped him after that. In spite of this, the accused continued with his impertinent behavior; for a third time he touched the genitals of the farmer's wife above the skirt.
* * * * * * * * * * * "The accused did not make a complete confession.
He states that he only once, for fun, touched the farmer's wife's genitals above the skirt.
"The court in convinced , on account of the testimony given by the witness Therese Schwenzel, who makes a trustworthy impression, that the affair occured exactly as described by the witness. Therefore, its findings were arrived at according to the testimony given by her."
The Polish woman who was present at the time of this alleged assault is not listed as a witness. Rothaug has stated in his testimony before this court that he never had a Polish witness.
As for the reason for bringing the defendant under the Public Enemy Ordinance, the following facts are stated in the reasons for the verdict: Lopata, having had some minor difficulties with the farmer Schwenzl, refused to eat his noon meal and induced the Polish servant maid to do likewise. Thereupon farmer Schwenzl, his employer, called him to account in the stable. The defendant put up resistance to the farmer's "admonitions" by arming himself with a dung fork. It is further stated that the Pole, at the threshold of the farm hallway, again turned against his employer and let him go only when attacked by the sheep dog which the farmer kept.
As to the actual reasons for the sentence of this Polish farmhand to death, the following paragraphs are more significant:
"Thus the defendant gives the impression of a thoroughly degenerate personality, which is marked by excitability and a definite trend to mendacity, or to lying.
The whole inferiority of the defendant, I would say, lies in the sphere of character and is obviously based on his being a part of Polish subhumanity, or in his belonging to Polish subhumanity."
"The drafting of men into the armed forces effected a heavy labor shortage in all spheres of life at home, last but not least in agriculture. To compensate this, Polish laborers, among others, had to be used to a large extent, mainly as farmhands. "These men cannot be supervised by the authorities to such an extent as would be necessary due to their insubordinate and criminal disposition.
* * * * * * * * "The action of the defendant means a Considerable violation of the peace to the persons immediately concerned by his mean actions The rural population has the right to expect that the strongest measures will be taken against such terrorization by foreign elements.
But beyond disregarding the feminine honor of the wife of farmer Schwenzl the attack of the defendant is directed the purity of the German blood. Looking at it from this point of view, the defendant showed such a great deal of disobedience in the German living space that his action has to be considered as especially significant.
"Accordingly, as outlined in Article III, paragraph 2, second sentence of the Poles and Jews Ordinance, the crime of the defendant, which compared with his other behavior shows a climax of unheard-of impudence, has to be considered as especially serious so that the death sentence had to be passed as the only just expiation, which is also necessary in the interest of the Reich security to deter Poles of similar mentality."
The defendant was sentenced under the Ordinance Against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories. The verdict was signed by the defendant Rothaug, and an application for clemency was disapproved by him.
When on the witness stand , the defendant Rothaug was asked the following question by the court:
"* * * if Lopata had been a racial German, all other facts being the same as they were in the Lopata case, is it your judgment that the nullity plea would have been invoked and that the Supreme Court would have ordered the case sent back to you for another trial? I should like your opinion on that."
Rothaug replied as follows to this question:
"Mr. President, this question is very interesting, but I cannot even imagine that possibility even theoretically, because the very elements which are of the greatest importance could not be applied to a German."
Lopata was sentenced to death and subsequently executed.
The third case to be considered is that of Leo Katzenberger. The record in this case shows that Lehmann Israel Katzenberger, commonly called Leo Katzenberger, was a merchant and head of the Jewish community in Nuernberg; that he was "sentenced to death for an offense under paragraph two legally identical with an offense under paragraph four of the Decree Against Public Enemies in connection with the offense of racial pollution". The trial was held in the public session on 13 March 1942. Katzenberger's age at that time was over 68 years.
The offense of racial pollution with which he was charged comes under Article 2 of the Law for the Protection -
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF (Counsel for the defendant Joel): Your Honor, I have just been informed that the defendant Joel is suffering very severe pains in the stomach, and at the moment is unable to attend the session any further. I would ask you, therefore, to excuse him from attendance for a few moments and to allow him to leave the courtroom for a short time.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Joel will be excused until he is required in the courtroom at a later time in the afternoon.
JUDGEHARDING: (Continuing reading). The offense of racial pollution with which he was charged comes under Article 2 of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor. This section reads as follows:
"Sexual intercourse (except in marraige) between Jews and German nationals of German or German-related blood is forbidden."
The applicable sections of the Decree Against Public Enemies reads as follows:
"Section 2 "Crimes During Air Raids "Whoever commits a crime or offense against the body, life, or property, taking advantage of air raid protection measures, is punishable by hard labor of up to fifteen (15) years or for life, and in particularly severe cases, punishable by death.
* * * * * * * * * * * * "Section 4 "Exploitation of the State of War a Reason for More Severe Punishment "Whoever commits a criminal act exploiting the extraordinary conditions caused by war is punishable beyond the regular punishment limits with hard labor of up to fifteen (15) years or for life, or is punishable by death if the sound common sense of the people requires it on account of the crime being particularly despicable."
The evidence in this case, aside from the record, is based primarily upon the testimony of Hans Groben, the investigating judge who first investigated the case; Hermann Markl, the official, who prosecuted the case; Karl Ferber, who was one of the associate judges in the trial; Heinz Hoffmann, who was the other associate judge in the trial; Armin Bauer, who was medical expert in the trial; Georg Engert, who dealt with clemency proceedings; and Otto Ankenbrand, another investi gating judge.
The salient facts established in connection with this case are in substance as follows: Some time in the first half of the year 1941 the witness Groben issued a warrant of arrest against Katzenberger, who was accused of having had intimate relations with the woman photographer Seiler. According to the results of the police inquiry, actual intercourse had not been proved, and Katzenberger denied the charge. Upon Groben's advice, Katzenberger agreed that he would not move against the warrant of arrest at that time but would wait the results of further investigation. These further investigations were very lengthy, although Groben pressed the public prosecutor for speed. The police, in spite of their efforts, were unable to get further material evidence, and it became apparent that the way to clarify the situation was to take the sworn statement of Seiler, and this was done.
In her sworn statement she said that Katzenberger had known both her and her family for many years before she had come to Nuernberg and that his relationship to her was a friendly and fatherly one and denied the charge of sexual intercourse. The evidence also showed that Katzenberger had given Seiler financial assistance on various occasions and that he was administrator of the property where Seiler lived, which was owned by a firm of which he was a partner. Upon Seiler's statement, Groben informed Dr. Herz, counsel for Katzenberger, of the result and suggested that it was the right time to move against the warrant of arrest.
When this was done, Rothaug learned, of it and ordered that the Katzenberger case be transferred from the Criminal Divisional Court to the Special Court. The first indictment was withdrawn, and another indictment was prepared for the Special Court.
The witness Markl states that Rothaug dominated the prosecution, especially through his close friendship with the Senior Public Prosecutor, Dr. Schroeder, who was the superior of Markl.
The indictment before the Special Court was prepared according to the orders of Rothaug, and Katzenberger was not charged only with race defilement in this new indictment, but there was also an additional charge under the Decree Against Public Enemies, which made the death sentence permissible. The new indictment also joined the Seiler woman on a charge of perjury. The effect of joining Seiler in the charge against Katzenberger was to preclude her from being a witness for the defendant, and such a combination was contrary to established practice. Rothaug at this time told Markl that there was sufficient proof of sexual intercourse between Seiler and Katzenberger to convince him, and that he was prepared to condemn Katzenberger to death. Markl informed the Ministry of Justice of Rothaug's intended procedure against Katzenberger and was told that if Rothaug so desired it, the procedure would be approved.
Prior to the trial, the defendant Rothaug called on Dr. Armin Baur, medical Counsellor for the Nuernberger Court, as the medical expert for the Katzenberger case. He stated to Bauer that he wanted to pronounce a death sentence and that it was therefore, necessary for the defendant to be examined. This examination , Rothaug stated, was a mere formality since Katzenberger "would be beheaded anyhow". To the doctor's reproach that Katzenberger was old and it seemed questionable whether he could be charged with race defilement, Rothaug stated:
"It is sufficient for me that the swine said that a German Girl had sat upon his lap."
The trial itself, as testified to by many witnesses, was in the nature of a political demonstration. High Party officials attended, including Reich Inspector Oexle. Part of the group of Party Officials appeared in uniform.
During the proceedings, Rothaug tried with all his power to encourage the witnesses to make incriminating statements against the defendants. Both defendants were hardly heard by the court. Their statements were passed over or disregarded.
During the course of the trial, Rothaug took the opportunity to give the audience a National Socialist lecture on the subject of the Jewish question. The witnesses found great difficulty in giving testimony because of the way in which the trial w as conducted, since Rothaug constantly anticipated the evaluation of the facts and gave expression to his own opinions.
Because of the way the trial was conducted, it wad apparent that the sentence which would be imposed was the death sentence.
After the introduction of evidence was concluded, a recess was taken, during which time the prosecutor Markl appeared in the consultation room and Rothaug made it clear to him that he expected the prosecution to ask for a death sentence against Katzenberger and a term in the penitentiary for Seiler. Rothaug at this time also gave him suggestions as to what he should include in his arguments.
The reasons for the verdict were drawn up by Ferber. They were based upon the notes of Rothaug as to what should be included. Considerable space is given to Katzenberger's ancestry and the fact that he was of the Mosaic faith, although that fact was admitted by Katzenberger. Much space is also given to the relationship between Kalzenberger and Seiler. That there was no proof of actual sexual intercourse is clear from the opinion. The proof seems to have gone little farther than the fact that the defendant Seiler had at times sat upon Katzenberger's lap and that he had kissed her, which facts were also admitted. Many assumptions were made in the reasons stated which obviously arc not borne out by the evidence, The court even goes back to the time prior to the passage of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, during which Katzenberger had known Seiler. It draws the conclusion apparently without evidence, that their relationship for a period of approximately ten years, had always been of a sexual nature. The opinion undertakes to bring the case under the decision of the Reich Supreme Court that actual sexual intercourse need not be proved, provided the acts are sexual in nature.
Having wandered far afield from the proof to arrive at this conclusion as to the matter of racial pollution, the court then proceeds to go far afield in order to bring the case under the Decree .Against Public Enemies.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
JUDGE HARDING (Continuing the reading of the Judgment): Here the essential facts proved were that the defendant Seiler's husband was at the front and that Katzenberger, on one or possibly two occasions, had visited h* after dark. On both points the following paragraphs of the opinion are enlightening:
"Looked at from this point of view, Katzenberger's conduct is particularly contemptibel. Together with his offense of racial pollution he is also guilty of an offense under paragraph 4 of the ordinance against people's parasites. It should be noted here that the national community is in need of increased legal protection from all crimes attempting to destroy or undermine its inner cohesion.
"On several occasions since the outbreak of war the defendant Katzenberger erept into Seiler's flat after dark. In these cases the defendant exploited the measures taken for the protection in air raids. His chances were further improved by the absence of the bright street lighting which exists in the street along Spittlertorgraben in peacetime. He exploited this fact fully aware of its significance because thus he instinctively escaped during his excursions being observed by people in the street.
"The visits paid by Katzenberger to Seiler under the protection of the blackout served at least the purpose of keeping relations going. It does not matter whether during these visits extra-marital sexual relations took place or whether they only coversed as when the husband was present, as Katzer berger claims. The request to interrogate the husband was therefore overruled. The court holds the view the defendant's actions, done with a purpose within definite plan, amount to a crime against the body according to paragraph 2 of the ordinance against people's parasites. The law of 15 September, 1935, has been passed to protect German blood and German honoe. The Jew's racial pollution amounts to a grave attack on the purity of German blood, the object of the attack being the body of a German woman. The general need for protection, therefore, makes appear as unimportant the behavior of the other partner in racial pollution who anyway is not liable to prosecution.
The face that racial pollution occurred up to at least 1939-1940 becomes clear from statements made by the witness Zeuschel to whom the defendant repeatedly and consistently admitted that up to the end of 1939 and the beginning of 1940 sh* was used to sitting on the Jew's lap and exchanging caresses as described above.
"Thus the defendant committed an offense also under paragraph 2 of t** ordinance against people's parasites.
"The personal character of the male defendant also stamps him as a people's parasite. The racial pollution practiced by him through many years grew, by exploiting war-time conditions, into an attitude inimical to the nati** into an attack on the security of the national community, during an emergency.
"This was why the defendant Katzenberger had to be sentenced both on a charge of racial pollution and of an offense under paragraphs 2 and 4 of the ordinance against people's parasites, the two charges being taken in conjunction according to paragraph 73 of the criminal code.