Therefore, Dr. Huess had the great kindness and courage to continue asking about us there when he talked to that gentleman for the last time. I think his name was Hesz but I could not say that for sure.
Q. Your Excellency, I haven't heard the name Hesz.
A. It is H-E-S-Z-, I believe, but I couldn't say for sure.
Dr. Hesz then, I assume it was on the 23rd of April, had the conversation which I have described, and, since it was necessary to make speed, he took the steps which were successful.
Q. If I have understood you correctly, your release took place on the basis of an orderly certificate by the Reich Ministry of Justice.
A. I could not say who signed that release permit, whether it was that gentleman of the Reich Ministry of Justice who, somewhat pushed by Dr. Heuss, did so, or whether it was the superintendent of the prison, whose name I also do not remember since I do not know who the people were who were competent for that. I only know that Dr. Heuss, during the fury of the battle of the 23rd of April-with which you gentlemen are probably familiar-- that Heuss insisted, and he finally achieved it that we were traded, so to speak, against a loaf of bread.
Q. I am only interested in clarifying this, that the so-called coup de main by Dr. Heuss was on an administratively correct basis. It wasn't done in a manner whereby he did something quite aside from the regulations in order to release you or to save you, but he had the approval of a gentleman of the Reich Ministry of Justice, or some other office?
A. He persuaded these gentlemen, that is true, I admit that; and they have signed, testifying that he did not intrude with violence.
Q. Thank you, that is sufficient.
Your Excellency, may I ask you, is it possible that gentleman of the Reich Ministry of Justice had the name Dr. Hesse?
A. That may be so. I only heard of the name through a newspaper article, which dealt with the death of Mayor Elsass, since we had been liberated together with his widow.
Q. I have a further request to you to give me a supplementary explanation. Yesterday, on the occasion of your testimony to the representative of the prosecution, you mentioned a Freisler motion picture, and you made a statement where you were interrupted. May I ask you-
MR. KING (Interposing); The witness did not testify as to the People's Court film. She started to, but if the Court will recall I interrupted and told her we were not interested in that and to leave it out.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, she hadn't completed the answer to the other question; it didn't seem as if she had completed, when you started another question. It seems that she ought to be permitted now to repeat that answer.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. SCHILF: I put this question, Your Honor, only because, in my opinion, the interruption was not quite correct.
An interruption of the witness by the prosecutor took place, and I only wanted to give the witness an opportunity to continue to say what she had started to say.
MR. KING: May I ask the witness one question at this point?
THE PRESIDENT: You know that is irregular.
MR. KING: Then I point out to the Court that the witness has not seen this film, and anything she said in connection with it was mere hearsay. That is why I interrupted her, and I am quite sure that was a correct procedure so far as direct examination is concerned.
JUDGE BRAND: You say that she had not seen the film?
MR. KING: To my knowledge-
JUDGE BRAND: Wait a minute.
MR. KING: I beg your pardon.
JUDGE BRAND: You say she had not seen the film relative to the trial of the persons who had been accused of attempting to take the life of Hitler?
MR. KING: To my knowledge and belief the witness has not seen the motion picture film which was admitted in evidence before this Court as Exhibit 192.
JUDGE BRAND: I suggest that one of you ask her if she has seen it. If she has not seen it, then, of course, it would not be advisable to make a comparison as to the manner in which the two trials were conducted. If she has seen it, I think she should be permitted to make the comparison.
MR. KING: That, Your Honor, was the question I was about to ask the witness. However, I would be happy to have the defense counsel ask the same question.
DR. SCHILF: I should only like to make a technical remark. I do not consider it admissible that the representative of the prosecution, while I conduct my cross-examination, request that he be permitted to put a question to the witness on his part. That is the way I understood it.
JUDGE BRAND: Will you put the question?
DR. SCHILF: Yes. I have already started, in fact, to put the question.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. You have hear the question, Your Excellency. Will you please answer it?
A. I have not seen the film.
Q. I thank you very much; that takes care of that. Now I come to a third point. You have told us about your experiences in the concentration camp Ravensbruck; also about the fact that you were in that concentration camp at the same time with other Germans and foreigners and also habitual criminals.
I would like you to tell us whether, according to your observations, there was a difference in treatment between foreigners and Germans which took place or which could be seen.
A. As to the prisoners who were with me at Ravensbruck, as far as I can remember there was only an Italian woman of Belgian descent who was treated well, better than we were. However, in the penitentiary of Cottbus, as well as in the prison of Moabit, I met many foreigners. In the penitentiary of Cottbus, there alone were 300 French women who were sentenced to death, and five Dutch women sentenced to death who, after a week or two, were pardoned to penitentiary terms and whom I saw in the court yard. The 300 French women sentenced to death were sent to Ravensbruck at the end of November 1944. The night before they were transported they had to sleep on a bare stone floor. One of the auxilliary wardens, who was also an interpreter for them and who had a great deal of courage and a kind heart, came to me in order to ask us political prisoners to give them our blankets, which we certainly did.
Of course, I also met Ukrainians, Poles, Zcechs, and many other women, some of them only casually. However, I know and have seen for myself that, for instance, in Moabit, some of the brutal wardens kicked them and shouted at them for reasons which seemed very, very unjust, because these women did not understand what they were supposed to do.
Q. My question was only intended to mean whether, in principle, Germans were treated better or worse than foreigners, male or female, so far as your experiences go, or whether the treatment essentially was the same.
A. That depended, of course, on the character or the nature of the wardens.
I believe there were Polish women who were certainly treated worse, because the Poles were considered an inferior race. They had to have the letter "P" on their garment so that they could be distinguished. But that is only one observation.
Q. Your Excellency, yesterday you mentioned occurrences at the penitentiary at Brandenburg, and if I understood you correctly you were told about these occurrences by Herr von Mumm. Is that correct?
A. I have. I remember these in connection with Mr. von Mumm, because he was a friend of our family. But at the same time I was told about the figure of those killed by a gentleman whose name I do not remember. However, there is a gentleman here in this building who received a similar report of these last occurrences in Brandenburg.
Q. Was that Professor Havemann?
A. No.
Q. You say a gentleman here in the building; that means in the Courthouse?
A. Yes.
Q. I am only interested in finding out what Herr von Mumm told you.
A. Herr von Mumm could not tell me anything any more, because he belonged to those who were executed on the 20th of April. As I have already explained, he was in prison for three years, sentenced to death in the spring of 1944. They kept him for my trial so that he could testify against me.
I was in a certain connection with him, because my clergyman, Priest Poelchel, who was truly an angel for the prisoners, came to see me and also, from time to time, had an opportunity to go to Brandenburg to speak to the prisoners. He had an opportunity to see von Mumm, and I had an opportunity to find out that he was still alive. I was convinced that he would survive the catastrophe. After the collapse, all those who had been prisoners and were now saved gathered together and tried to find out about the fate of others who were not present.
At that time, on that occasion, I found out that von Mumm was not among those who were saved, but that he had been executed together with about thirty others. I received the same confirmation of that report here from the gentleman whom I had an opportunity to meet.
Q May I ask you what the name of the gentleman is who gave you that report?
A Who gave it to me in Berlin?
Q Both.
A The one in Berlin, the one who gave me the report in Berlin, his name I am sorry I do not remember, because I met too many people at that time.
MR. KING: I remind defense counsel that the answer to this question may also be embarrassing to the defense, but if they want to go ahead and ask it, it is certainly all right with us.
DR. SCHILF: I am sorry, I could not understand.
THE PRESIDENT: You are insisting on your question, are you? Dr. Schilf, you are asking for an answer to your question, are you?
DR. SCHILF: I only put the question to give me the name, if it should be known, of the gentleman, who, here in this building, gave to the witness a report about conditions at the penitentiary in Brandenburg, apparently very recently, these days.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will answer the question.
A That was Dr. Nath, if I remember the name correctly. I saw him only for one moment.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q However, in conclusion may I say that the occurrences in the penitentiary of Brandenburg which you have briefly described yesterday, and may I recall to you that you said it was a counsel, a Reich Prosecutor, an official, at any rate -- an official of the Ministry of Justice who appeared at Brandenburg?
A Yes, there were -
Q Excuse me. And these matters were told to you very recently?
A The information about these matters I received perhaps one month after I was freed in Berlin and they definitely confirmed reports, or they were identical with reports that I received day before yesterday by Dr. Nath Q I have one last question.
You reported to us that von Mumm was executed with about thirty others?
A Yes.
Q You have also told us that von Humm had already been sentenced to death by the People's Court?
A Yes.
Q You have voiced the assumption that the sentence had not been executed because he was to be kept -- he would have been a witness at your second trial?
A Yes.
Q When people told you about these occurrences, was it also mentioned that all the other who were executed on the 20th of April 1945, that they were people who had already been sentenced to death?
A About that I do not know anything.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
JUDGE BRAND: I should like the privilege of asking one question. Without asking you to go into details, I should like to know if, according to your recollection, there were additional accusations or charges in the second indictment which were not contained in the first indictment in your case.
THE WITNESS: In the second indictment, if I understood correctly, in the second indictment there were the same charges as in the first, and they would have been discussed again. In the second indictment I was charged, apart from that, together with my friends Count Bernsdorf, Geheimrat Kunze, and others, with having spoken against the government. However, in general it was precisely the same thing as the first, and I could not remember my individual points of difference. Only my daughter had been included, who had contributed in the welfare work and courageously stood for those who were persecuted.
JUDGE BRAND: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I should also like to put a question or two. You have referred to the fact that your daughter was taken into custody.
Had she been taken into custody prior to your first trial?
THE WITNESS: My daughter was arrested together with me at the same time and was also liberated at the same time as I was. For some time we were in the same prison, but always in solitary confinement, and for some time I was already in the penitentiary at Kottbus while she went through the hard times after the 20th of July, where she was also put into a cell in the cellar and all the more severe measures after the 20th of July were inflicted upon her. She was seriously ill and for two months did not know where I was, or whether I was still alive. Then at the end of October she came to Moabit together with Count Bernsdorf and the other gentlemen. She was brought there and remained there until the end.
THE PRESIDENT: You have answered the question. Now let me ask you another one. Was your daughter at the tea party?
THE WITNESS: At the tea party -- no. My daughter was not present at the tea party.
THE PRESIDENT: Had your daughter anything to do with the writing of the letters which you gave to the gentleman at the tea party?
THE WITNESS: No, she had nothing to do with them at all. They were absolutely harmless private letter, the contents of which I could repeat here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you know what charges were stated in the indictment against her?
THE WITNESS: The indictment was the same. She was charged with having participated in all conversations which were directed against the government and by her statements and by her attitude before the Gestapo she did not leave any doubt. She was almost too courageous in stating her views which, of course, were definitely against the attitude of the Nationalist view.
THE PRESIDENT: Was you daughter ever brought to trial?
THE WITNESS: My daughter received the same indictment as I did at the end of November, 1944. It was addressed to Solf and five others.
She was one of those five. Then she was in prison until the end, and she was charged with high treason and would have been sentenced for high treason.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the real sentence against her on the trial?
THE WITNESS: As I have said yesterday, it never came to the second trial, firstly on account of Freisler's death, and then, of course, by our liberation on the 23rd of April. The trial was scheduled for the 28th of April.
THE PRESIDENT: I am referring to the first trial. Did she come to a trial on the first indictment, and if so, what was the verdict?
THE WITNESS: In the first trial on the first of July, 1944, she was not included. She was there only as a witness and as a hostage.
THE PRESIDENT: I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:Q One short question only.
Defense counsel for defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg asked you a few moments ago about the execution of von Mumm. You replied that he was, so far as you knew, under sentence of death, but his execution had been delayed so that he could testify against you. So far as you know, what promise was made to him if he would testify against you?
A What promises were made to him I, of course, could not say, at least not literally. But he was tortured, severely tortured, and signs of these tortures were seen by coincidence by my daughter when for a short time he was brought to Ravensbrueck for interrogations. One can only assumed that he may have been promised pardon, because my daughter was asked the same questions. She was told that her mother would be sentenced to death, but that she may have a chance to improve her situation and possibly mine if she would finally agree to testify against our friends. My daughter's answer was probably surprising for the interrogating Gestapo officials. She said, "I am sorry; then you have to execute my mother."
Q Mrs. Solf, it is true, it is not, that your daughter, the Countess Ballestrem, accompanied you to Nuremberg from London and has been a spectator to your testimony, both yesterday and this morning, and would, if the Court wishes or defense counsel insist, be available as a witness in this case?
A My daughter came with me from London and is present here. She had been here yesterday and she is here today as a visitor. I am sure that in the interest of the cause, she will be ready to testify as to what she knows.
MR. KING: The prosecution has no further questions on redirect.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions to this witness, she may be excused.
MR. KING: In connection with the testimony of this witness, the prosecution will offer as a formal exhibit, the document NG-1249 at the earliest possible moment.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number are you assigning to that?
MR. KING: Perhaps, Your Honor, we should wait until we formally offer it before we assign it an exhibit number.
May we ask the Court to turn again to Document Book 1-B. The Court will recall yesterday when I started to introduce the document NG-199that after some preliminary discussion of it, it developed that copies of certain portions of the document NG-199 had not been included in the German Document Book. Since then, that deficiency has been remedied and we would like at this time to proceed with the introduction of NG-199. I have some additional copies of the document in German for the benefit of defense counsel if per chance they didn't bring the ones which were distributed yesterday with them.
At the possible risk of repetition, I would like to begin again with the reading of the letter which appears on Page 126 of the English text. That is dated Berlin, 20 October 1942. I should like to read the first two paragraphs, and also point out two errors which appear in the English text. The inside address is in error in that it should read: "The Reichminister and Chief of the Reich Chancery" instead of "The Reichminister of Justice." Also, at the end of the third paragraph, the initials: "TH" in Thierach's handwriting should appear. The end of the third paragraph is the end of it, not as is evident from the original sent and signed by Thierach.
THE PRESIDENT: That is on the second page?
MR. KING: That is on Page 126. The initials should go opposite the words: "Page 6 of the Original" which appears in parenthesis.
"To the Reichminister and Chief of the Reich Chancery; and Head of the Party Chancery.
"The task assigned to me by the Fuehrer of establishing a National Socialistic Justice requires that I be not hampered by present legal dispositions in the enforcement of measures affecting personnel. On the one hand it may involve officials of my ministry who on grounds of their personality are not suited for the new tasks and will need to be transferred to other more suitable positions. On the other hand, the possibility may arise that directors of offices and leading officials of the higher grades of service which do not fit into the new set-up, may have to be used elsewhere or be retired. Finally it may become necessary, in some particular cases to transfer or to retire such judges as cannot be kept on in their present positions.
"The authority given me by the Fuehrer on the 20 August '42 provides the legal basis for the execution of such individual measures. I therefore ask for your approval, so that in urgent cases judges and officials of the Reich Administration of Justice may by me be transferred to other positions with the same rate of salary, or to positions with a scheduled lower salary--but allowing them to keep the titles and the salary rate of their former positions--or may by me be retired."
That is all of that portion which we will read at this time. We turn now to Page 128 in the English text, which is a short note signed: M. Bormann, and dated the Fuehrer's Headquarters, 3 March 1942. I will read just the body of that note which says:
"The desired approval is given herewith in general terms. Insofar as Reich Minister Dr. Lammers proposes to reserve to the Fuehrer the pensioning of a Justice official to the same extent as before, I approve this change.
"Heil Hitler!
"M. Bormann."
We turn now to the next page 129. That is a letter dated Berlin, 11 November 1942. It is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice, and refers to the letter of October 20, 1942, which is the first letter I read. It says:
"I have taken note of the fact that in order to carry out the task assigned to you by the Fuehrer of organizing a national socialist system for the administration of justice, you consider it unavoidable in certain cases to utilize elsewhere judges or officials of the Reich Administration of Justice. In consideration of your statements, I agree in general terms with the fact that in cases of emergency you transfer judges and officials of the Reich Administration of Justice to another office on the same salary scale or, retaining the titles and salaries of their former office, to an office of the same nature but theoretically on a lower salary scale. I base this on the assumption that you will make sure in the first place of the existing legal possibilities of organization, especially of the measures laid down in article 1 of the second ordinance about measures in the sphere of the Civil Service Law of 9 October 1942 (Reich Law Gazette I, P. 580). According to your statement, the general regulation proposed by you excludes the Presidents of the Reich Court and of the People's Court, the Chief Reich Prosecutors of the Reich Court and of the People's Court, the Chief Presidents of the Courts of Appeal and the Attorneys General of the Courts of Appeal, for whom my approval or that of the Leader of the Party Chancery must be obtained in individual cases."
That is all of that letter we care to read. It is signed by Dr. Lammers.
We turn now to Page 131. That is a note signed on the original by one, Letz. That name does not appear on this mimeographed copy, but it is an inadverdent omission on the part of the Translating Division.
THE PRESIDENT: Where does that name appear?
MR. KING: That name appears under Berlin, 14 November 1942. The name is Letz.
"Point 1. The Secretary of State has informed me that the Reich Chancery has approved the assignment of officials to equivalent or lower posts or their transfer with the same title and salary. The Reich Chancery considers, however, that pensioning off can only be effected through the Fuehrer."
"The Reich Chancery will shortly send a reply to that effect. Please prepare:
"(a) a list of the transfers necessary so far in the separate offices (here for instance Sauer and Creutzfeldt).
"(b) a list of the cases known so far in which final retirement is necessary. This list will be submitted to the Fuehrer as a collective list."
And then there is another sentence: "Please inform the district offices accordingly. Signed: Berlin, 14 November 1942". There is an additional letter in Document NG-199and from that we wish to read only the first tow paragraphs. This appears on page 132 in the English, and is to "The Reich Minister of Justice, from Lammers: dated Berlin 21 May 1942." The headnote indicates that it "Concerns Measures with regard to personnel for the purpose of building up a National-Socialist organization for the administration of justice."
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Prosecutor, you are referring to page 132?
MR. KING: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: You said 1942.
MR. KING: I am sorry; it is 1943. There are other headnotes which I will not read. Beginning with the first paragraph:
"In accordance with your proposal I agreed, on the grounds of the Fuehrer decree of 20 August 1942 (Government Journal 1, page 535)" -- I venture to say that is the Reichsgesetzblatt -- "among other things, that in urgent cases you transfer judges and officials of the Reich Administration of Justice to an office affording the same career at a lower salary scale, allowing them to retain the official designation and salary of their present office. The Reich Minister of the Interior has expressed to me his fears that the entire civil service administrative code might be endangered by this possibility, which is modeled altogether on paragraph 5 of the law for the reorganization of the professional civil service, of 7 April 1933, especially if other Department Chiefs wished to carry out far-reaching reforms based on powers such as you received, to be requested from the Fuehrer.
He therefore believes it necessary, taking into consideration the effect on civil servants generally, that you, together with himself and the Reich Minister of Finance, should thoroughly clear up all questions of civil service and budgetary rights in connection with this."
That is all of the Document NG-199 that we wish to read into the record at this time. However, in connection with NG-199, as the Court will recall, from what was said yesterday, we also wish to introduce the Document NG-199-A which is the list referred to which appears on page 131 of the English book. So far as the numbering of 199-A is concerned, may I suggest that the first page be called 134-1 and so on through, and the last page in the English be called 134-32.
JUDGE BRAND: I am sorry to interrupt on this small a matter. 134 is the first page of NG-560; wouldn't you prefer that it be 133?
MR. KING: You are entirely right; it should be 133-1. I don't wish to read any extensive portions of NG-199-A. I do, however, call attention to a few examples as they appear in the pages of the document NG-199-A. Each case is numbered, and I will refer both to the number of the case and the number of the page. First on page 1 of the document, as circulated, let us look briefly to case 1:
"Case 1. Judge of the Local Court Berthold Altmann, Charlettenburg, born 21 August, 1896; married, two children"-- and the handwritten note: "at present not unfit for work." In the other colum: "Person of mixed race second degree, pronounced Jewish appearance, British wife. State of health slightly impaired by rheumatism of the joints, good average."
Turn to case 7 on page 2: "Judge of the Local Court Kurt Michael, Leipzig; born 28 March 1886; married, two children," and the handwritten note: "is to be realized for the organization of judges." On the opposite column: "Not a party member. Republican Judges Association 1923 to 1933. Stahlhelm (Steel helmet) from 1 April 1933 to its dissolution. Front line fighter during World War. Prisoner of war with the French. Little interest in official work, not very sure of his aim and lacking discipline, incomplete professional knowledge, small capacity of judgment. Depends on his staff and has great difficulty in entering into the spirit of the National-Socialist conception of law. As Public Prosecutor, before 1933, he gave offense in party circles, by his attitude in political criminal proceedings and after the taking over of political power, he was transferred to leipzig as Judge of the District Court. Disciplinary proceedings in which he was charged with having made hateful statements on the party and its leaders, did not result in sentence, owing to lack of evidence."
Case 8, on Page 3: "Judge of the District Court; Erich Paul; Dresden; born 21 September 1885; married, three children; is to be released from the Reich organization of Judges." The opposite column states: "Not a party member, Republican Judges Association 1922 to 1927. Front-line fighter of the World War. Iron Cross second class. President of the Appellate Court and the Gauleiter do not consider him politically reliable. In 1938 disciplinary action for disparagement of the German salute. Acquitted through lack of evidence. Criminal Proceedings (1940) for hateful remark about Reich Minister Goebbels (Special Court Dresden) were discontinued in accordance with the law concerning exemption from penal law, since the penalty could not be expected to amount to more than three months imprisonment.
No penalty imposed, except disapprobation in accordance with the decree for pardon for state officials of 21 October 1939."
Case 11 on page 4: "Judge of the District Court; Kurt Schille; leipzig; born 29 July 1886; married, one child; handwritten: To be released for the Reich organization of judges." In the opposite column: "Not a party member. Front-line fighter of the first World War, twice wounded. Iron Cross second class. Person of mixed race in the first degree. Lieutenant on the retired list. Employed in the work of transfers in the Land Register. Average gifts, moderate knowledge."
Case 15, 16, and 17, "wife Jewish."
Turning to page 8 of the document, as circulated, case 29: "Judge of the Local Court; Anton Rheinlander; born 11 August, 1895; married. Wife Jewess. Combat veteran of the first World War. Thirty per cent war disability (bullet wound through chest). Passed final state examination satisfactorily at second attempt. Proved himself an efficient judge in practice. Not a party member."
And we turn to Case 52, on page 22. "Judge of the District Court; Dr. Beyersdorff in Oldenburg; born 17 February 1885; handwritten note: married, two children;" The Opposite column: "Half Jew of the first degree; took part in World War. Average worker. At present not dispensible without replacement. A few years ago rescued a child in a manner worthy of acknowledgment."
Case 64, on page 27: "Judge of the Local Court; Bach in Stuttgart; born 6 July 1887; married, two children". In the opposite column: "Does not belong to the party or any of its affiliations. Member of NS public Welfare Association and German Air Raid Protection League.