The Prosecution now would like to introduce the Document NG 071, which when formally offered will become Exhibit 98. This is to be found, it is a rather lengthy document, beginning on page 110 of the English Document Book 1-D; and it is on page 159 in the German text; I believe.
We call the Court's attention to the fact that the first page is merely a cover page, and it indicates that it is a report from the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, and it is a secret document to be submitted to the Reich Minister. And, there is a note in the box which says:
"This report is strictly for the addressee personally and contains no material transmitted un-reviewed in order to leave them their character of fresh news."
It is dated Berlin, 5 September 1942.
We would like to read a portion of the document beginning on page 111, under Roman Numeral IV:
"Administration and Law. Reports on the control of penal jurisdiction.
"Under the impression made by the Fuehrer's Reichstag speech of the 26 April 1942 and by the general criticism of penal jurisdiction, the former leadership of the Reich Ministry of Justice had, according to additional clauses already previously existent, been persuaded to reinforce the so-called control of penal jurisdiction. This control consisted in an extensive participation of the Ministry and of the magisterial supervisory officers and higher provincial court and provincial court presidents in the arbitrament individual criminal judge on the principle that, especially in criminal cases with a political implication, the judge must receive assistance when pronouncing a sentence. Actually, it involved then a substantial extension of the already existing consultative obligations of the bodies of attorney generals to the Ministry, and, on the other hand, the introduction of a consultative obligation also in the relations of the Tribunals to the Minist "According to numerous reports from the whole territory of the Reich, these measures have met with an extremely dissentient reception among juri circles.
The complete break with the hitherto prevailing conception of magisterial independence which the control of penal jurisdiction meant is said to have been, to a certain extent, very unfavorably commented upon with the magistrature.
In certain cases, this is even said to have led to outspoken judgements against the National Socialist State which allegedly wishe to suppress magisterial independence in order to surrender justice to a right of control by political headquarters. The origin of this attitude on the part of certain judges in this respect is always the conventional conception of magisterial independence according to which the judge was exclus subordinated to the written law and therefore did not need to follow any directives, even of the most general character, that may be issued by the administration of justice with reference to any precise line of conduct in jurisdiction.
"Politically enlightened judges have likewise, according to the reports viewed the control of jurisdiction with misgivings. In this, they have indeed not so much perceived a danger for magisterial independence,-for it clear to them that its implication up to now, namely exclusive subordination of the judge to the law, has been deeply altered to suit the National Socialist juridical philosophy, as in the fact that the obligations to the National Socialist ideology must have precedece on the obligations to the la if jurisdiction was not to be in opposition to the political objectives of the nation's leadership. Since jurisdiction in the National Socialist State has important political tasks to fulfill, a certain influence on the judges must be made possible in the form of instructions on important political viewpoints which the individual judge cannot grasp outright by himself."
We now skip three paragraphs, beginning on the bottom of page 112 in the English text:
"The following example extracted from a series of similar cases is characteristic of the situation created by the introduction of the control of jurisdiction.
"Roaming about at night in his place of domicile for several months, a Polish civilian workman stole from gardens and adwelling places, money, num* articles of underwear and clothing as well as other articles of daily utili* As the competent Special Court established, he had carried this out under cover of the blackout.
"In line with provisions introducing reporting as a duty, the head of the competent Higher District Court had brought the case by telepyone to the knowledge of the Reich Ministry of Justice. In its reply to the telephone message the Ministry advised the following day that probably the death penalty was not deemed necessary for the Pole. That in any case the public Prosecute would receive explicit instruction before opening of the court hearing as to the penalty which should be asked against the Pole. The Ministry thereu* instructed the Public Prosecutor to propose ten years of particularly rigid confinement in a place of detention.
"The Court ruled accordingly. As reported, the hypotheses under which this verdict ook place, as well as the degree of the sentence itself, met wi* lively criticism on the part of Jurists politically elucidated. On the other hand, it caused concern last by directing the administration of justice in s** manner the judge might from the outset be relieved of personal responsibility for his verdict. Inasmuch as in very great number of cases it becomes known * the Court that the public Prosecutor is being supplied with instructions regarding the application for criminal proceedings it merely needs to comply with the request of the Public Prosecutor, thereby evading embarrassment which might possibly result from a mistrial through reference to the concept of the Ministry. On the other hand, the case as described illustrates that the succ** of such control stands and falls with the person to whom such control is entrusted. If confusion prevails in the Ministry itself as to the line which administration of justice should follow in regard to the Pole, there natural is no guarantee that mistrials are excluded through the concept of control. The verdict in the case under consideration must be considered a faulty judge ment; because under prevailing conditions there is no justification for the leniency which it expresses on behalf of a Pole who commits crimes under the cover of the blackout.
"In connection with this and a series of similar cases reports of judge whom this development fills with serious concern stressed over and over again the need for informing the body of judges about the great goals of the leaden of the State.
At the present time there is but a comparatively small number of judges who make an earnest endeavor to analyze the State political necessities as such, and the political foundation for the administration of justice. Unfortunately, it has so far been a fact that any civil servant in the administration who just passed his second state examination in law has been more fully informed about the political goals of the State leaders and the political opportuneness then perhaps any president of a senate."
That is all of this document that the Prosecution wishes to read at the time. We, therefore, offer formally, as Exhibit 98, the Document NG-071.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (for defendant Dr. Rothenberger): I protest against to admission of this document into evidence for the following reasons: Obvious it is, at best, a document which deals primarily with penal law, the influence and the control of penal justice from the point of view of the State political.
This letter which obviously contains a tremendous amount of details, receives its basic information from an anonymous source, in that in many instances it reads, for instance on the front page, the first paragraph of document, of the frequent report of judges, considering the control of penal administration a critical factor. In consideration of this factor of amenity is hard to control and many reports of facts which are incorporated here bear close scrutiny of the authenticity of this document is desirable.
May I point out that from this document it can not be seen what Ministry of the Reich was supposed to have received this letter and from the end of this document, the last page, on page 165 of the German copy, I do not know the number of the English copy, the page number, there is no signature to be seen. For that reason also the relevancy of this document has to be objected to by me.
MR. KING: Your Honor, we should like to point that this document came to us in the course of systematic document search in Berlin and el where and it is covered under the various paragraphs in the Coogan affidavit As we pointed out at the outset the report purports to be and upon examination of a photostatic original it does indeed seem to be a report from the Child the Securities Police and of the SD. It is true that as counsel has pointed out, it isn't signed. It is also true as is evident from an examination of original and the mimeographed copy as well, that it is not entirely complete However, we think that it is obviously a part of an official report. It also shows on its face to have been a report by these organizations and we feel as such it certainly has some evidentiary value. We therefore would like to offer it as Exhibit 98.
DR. GRUBE: Dr. Grube for the defendant Lautz. I consider it necess to point out some more doubts in connection with this document. On the first page of this document it can be seen the following remarks3 this report is certainly and contains material and information which, on account of its actuality has been transmitted without further examination. It can be seen from that there are not guarantees given to the statements in this document are absolutely correct in detail.
MR. KING: Your Honor, with reference to that, it seems to us that reasons he has given, not only do not detract from the importance of the do* ment but actually add to it because it is -- if it is, as purported, an unedited document, a report from the SS and the SD, it means that it went direct from the person making the report to the Minister who received it. F* that reason we feel it has even more probative value than it would if it have been an edited copy. Perhaps the Court would like to examine the protestant original?
THE PRESIDENT: It is true that no particular authentication has be proven in this case but it also seems from the affidavit of Mr. Coogan that this is a captured document found in the Archives of the German Reich and being true would have some probative value, not so much as if the authors was known but, nevertheless, as a captured document it has been the dispose of the International Tribunal and other Tribunals to accept all captured doc ments found in the possession of the German Reich.
We therefore, receive it for what it's worth.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court now to turn to Document Book 1-E; the next series of Documents which the prosecution will present will be taken from that book.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you again state the document number?
MR. KING: I am sorry. I haven't advanced that far, your Honor. The prosecution at this time would like to introduce the Document NG-466, beginning on page 25 of the Document Book 1-E. I believe that's page 19 of the German test. This will become, when formally offered, Exhibit 99. This is a letter dated 15th October 1939 addressed to the Court of Appeals:
To the Court of Appeal Public Prosecutors at the Courts of Appeal (inducing Ostmark and Sudentenland).Concerning:
Establishment of a Special Section The increase in crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the Special Courts, requires special measures to strengthen the striking power of the crimind law.
Therefore I established at the Reich Ministry of Justice a Special Section immediately subordinate to the chief of division III for all criminal matters concerning the competency of the Special Courts, Excepting the Special Section's competency in such cases as:
a) a crime or an offence denoted in the law against malicious attacks on the State or Party and for the protection of Party uniforms of 20 December 1934 Reich Law Gazette I page 1269
b) an offence against paragraphs 134-a and 134b Reich Penal Code
c) a contravention, denoted in paragraph 4 of the decree for the Protection of the People and the State of 28 February 1933 (Reich Law Gazette I, page 83)
d) a crime or an offence denoted in paragraph 8 of the law against treason of the German economy of 12 July 1933 (Reich Law Gazette I page 360 -).
I appointed as special section consultant the District Court Prosecutor von HAACKE.
"I ask the Court of Appeal Public Prosecutors to establish in their turn a Special Section for their sphere of activity at the offices of Public Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal and to notify me of the name of the section consultant within 2 days. These special section consultants who have to be appointed special advisers have to start work immediately.
On 24 October, 1939 at 0900 hours they have to be present at the Reich Ministry of Justice to receive instructions."
MR. KING: The prosecution now formally offers Exhibit 99 or rather the Document NG- 466 as Exhibit No. 99.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Prosecution's Exhibit 100 we desire to offer formally in evidence the Document NG-674 which is to be found on page 28 of the English text Document Book 1-E and page 21 of the German text. We do not wish to read any portion of that document.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please, your Honors, I would like to refer to the probative value of Exhibit No. 98 which was just introduced, out of Book D, at page 110, Book D. That was the Exhibit 98.
I should like to read to the Court from Exhibit No. 42, which was introduced into evidence by the prosecution on March 6, and is found at page 85 of English book 1-B. It is NG-219. I will read slowly, and I think the interpreter can follow:
"The reciprocity contained in the Executive Order of the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning the cooperation of the justice authorities with the Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS of 3 August 1942", the agreement of 3 August 1942, "(German Justice S. 521), is only very conditional. The Justice works openly, and the Security Service secretly. So, as a general rule, the justice is not at all informed of the work which is being carried out by the Security Service and is there fore also not in the position to request information. It is usually accidentally informed about such investigations."
I think that exhibit has also probative value in consider ing the character of Exhibit 98, which was from the Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS. In other words, I don't believe that it is competent, I mean, that it is a very strong argument for the defense counsel to object to the secrecy of anything that comes from the Reichsfuehrer SS, whereby from its very nature it worked that way, as this document indicates.
MR. KING: The prosecution would like to introduce at this time, and offer formally in evidence, document NG-346, which exhibit will become No. 101. This is to be found on page 51 of the English text, and on page 48 of the German.
THE PRESIDENT: Fifty-one of what book?
MR. KING: Of book 1-E, Your Honor.
The next document which the prosecution desires to introduce is NG-687, which is to be found beginning on page 73 of the English text, and, if my information is correct, on page 48 of the German text, of document book 1-E. My information as to its source in the German text may be incorrect. However it is document NG-687.
I am informed from the translating booth that it is also found in the German text on page 73.
The prosecution does not desire to read from this document at this time, so we offer it formally in evidence as Exhibit 102.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence, and at this time we will supply an ommission of a moment ago. We also receive in evidence Exhibit No. 101.
MR. KING: Thank you.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please your Honor, the prosecution has been completely fair with this Tribunal and defense counsel. We have up to this time presented every bit of evidence that we could present under the rules and which is in shape to be presented. By the very documentary character of this evidence, a tremendous amount of work has to be done to keep the English books straight, to coordinate the English translations with the actual exhibits and, as we have seen, to get the German books often, even in shape where the job should be only to directly typewrite from the German documents.
We have distributed today book 2, which we assume will reach the Bench today, and should reach defense counsel today. In connection with book 2 we want, in order to present a coordinated pattern, documents and cases which will be in book 3. Book 3 is one and a half times as large, at least, as book 1, which we have been working with, and which came out in five parts.
Without handicapping the prosecution tremendously, as a result of our original inspection of the English documents, and requiring us to work long hours and then to run the risk of repeatedly asking the Court for temporary recesses, we would like to have the balance of this week to prepare that document book 3 and the documentation in it, so that it can be presented in an orderly manner, and we hope, and we will use every effort to make the presentation go forward smoothly, and also to clean up, where we find them, errors in the German book so that defense counsel will not be handicapped or taken undue advantage of.
For that reason I very respectfully, but at the same time urgently to the point of almost pleading, ask the Court that we recess until next Monday so that we may have time to do the job that we can do without having to work almost sixteen hours a day to get the job done; and I don't believe that any real time will be lost in the presentation of this case, because I have no disposition to delay it, I assure you.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire at this time whether you have introduced all of the documents included in book 1-A, B, C, D, and E?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I would say there are not more than ten, and probably a half dozen which, because of various troubles, have not been put in. But there are quite few. We have completed everything that we could in book 1, and we have held back nothing. The only thing is that certain exhibits themselves, the actual photostats, have had to be rearranged. That has caused a rearranging of the document book, the English text, for instance, and the German text, which could not be served, under the rules, on defense counsel in time. Other than that, we have put in everything that is available.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is only to determine, not to foreclose the prosecution against any documents that have not yet been put in. But they are getting a little voluminous and we wanted to know whether we could file them away, that is all.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am afraid you cannot, as much as I would like to accommodate the Court. But we will make a special effort to get that out of the way.
THE PRESIDENT: The request of the prosecution seems to be a reasonable request and we will therefore, at this time, recess until Monday, March 17, at 9:30.
(A recess was taken at 1430 hours, 11 March 1947, until 0930 hours, Monday, 17 March 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 17 March 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshal, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will please ascertain whether the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendants Rothaug and Engert, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper notation will be made.
Is the Prosecution ready to proceed?
MR. KING: Your Honor, we request a slight delay. One of our documents is missing-- the one we wished to proceed with first-- and the young lady is on the way down with it. It will be a matter of minutes, I hope.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question before you proceed?
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: You gave us a cross-index to be attached to Exhibit 87, 1-E
MR. KING: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: What do these numbers refer to?
MR. KING: Your Honor, I do not have the particular index before me. However, in general the plan was to try to coordinate the statement of the facts of the case together with Thierack's comment as to how the judges should have decided the case.
JUDGE BRAND: We fully understand that. "Richter briefs, Case No. 1." What would the "1" refer to? Then you say "page of English text." Does that refer to the document book, or to some other book?
MR. KING: Your Honor, if I may see that for a moment?
JUDGE BRAND: Yes.
MR. KING: Your Honor, the third column, I think, is the one that is confusing. The third column is merely a duplication of the first. It refers to the same paragraph as the first column. I other words, it is the statement of the facts of the case, and the second, or rather the last column, is the one that refers to the comments. The page numbers-- and I think I am correct-- refers to the pages in the document rather than to the seriatim pages in the back. I think that is correct, Your Honor.
In other words, taking number 1, I think the only purpose that the index serves is to point out to you that you will find the comment concerning number 1 of Exhibit 87 on page 19. That third column seems to be surplus.
This morning we would like to take the time to clean up the introduction of exhibits from the book 1 series which, for one reason or another, were not introduced last week. I will ask the indulgence of the Court and defense counsel in skipping around from book to book as we clean up these tag ends.
The first reference will be from the document book 1-B. It will be document No. NG-207, originally 207, which is to be found in the index listing as at page 176. However, there was a misunderstanding in connection with that and the document did not actually appear at that page in the index. It has now been re-issued as NG-208-B, and it should be inserted in document book B, at page 176, and instead of bearing the number NG-207, it should bear the number NG-208-B.
JUDGE BRAND: That is document book B?
MR. KING: Document book B of the 1 series, Your Honor. May I ask if the defense counsel and the translators have the English and German of 208-B at this time? They were distributed to the Defense Information Center last Friday afternoon, I believe.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't yet know where it is found in the document book.
MR. KING: It is not actually in the document book, Your Honor. It was to have been at page 176, but it was inadvertently omitted and it has been distributed separately. It should be placed eventually in the document book at page 176.
The index lists it as appearing at that page. However, it was distributed separately. Your Honors should have had copies delivered to you.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not seem to have it on the desk.
MR. KING: Just a moment. I see she is coming in now; perhaps she has extra copies.
The distribution having been made-- Your Honors, I am sorry, we seem to be missing one or two copies of that for distribution. Why the requisite number of copies were not delivered in advance I do not at this moment know. However, we will soon have extra copies here.
Let me proceed, then, in the same book, to document NG-157. It too was missing from the document book B. It is listed in the index as appearing at 177, but it was inadvertently omitted, and I believe at this time I can supply additional copies to the Court and to the Secretary-General and to the translators. Defense Counsel, I assume, have copies of the document NG-157 in German.
That is a document dated Berlin, 18 October 1944, and it is addressed to the President of the People's Court, Dr. Freisler, from the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack. It reads:
"Dear Mr. President:
"The importance of the People's Court for the maintenance of the home front has greatly increased and is bound to increase still further after carrying into effect of the Fuehrer's Decree of 20 September 1944. The functions of the People's Court must, therefore, not be confined to meeting out adequate punishment to the accused, they must moreover fulfil the specific task of political leadership.
"This is inherent in the fact that the population not only recognizes the sentences of the People's Court as right, but that, moreover, it also learns why any particular sentence has become expedient.
"The President of the Senate is often hampered in conducting the proceedings, because in some politically particularly important cases including cases occurring frequently - to political evaluation of the offence is not always sufficiently shown up with a view to the prevailing situation of the people and of the Reich. If it is sufficient in non-political criminal cases to show up the perpetrator, the deed and the effects of both on the national community and thus to find a just sentence, this is not sufficient for cases tried in the People's Court. With due stress far the political aspect of the case it is necessary to discuss the conditions of the Reich and of the people. When conducting proceedings the president must be able to justify why this particular offence is especially danger us for the population and. the Reich and why it is especially grave. Everybody who is taking part in the proceedings must have the inner conviction when leaving the courtroom not only that the punishment was just, but also why it was just. This also and quite particularly applies to the so-called cases of defeatism which from now on will be tried in an increased measure. Likewise utterances must not be allowed to spring up which, for instance, say that proceedings before a certain Senate mean certain death, or that the term "General Public" is stretched to far in its legal definition. "Whenever such utterances occur they can only be parried by a manner of conducting the proceedings which is superior, calm and - if need be - stone-cold. In that case the people must always be apprised why in those crucial months of the war the instigator deserves death - but not so the gessip-manager unless it happened not to be merely silly gossip but a gossip which became danger us because it was unscrupulous.
"The above applies in corresponding measure to all other cases tried before the People's Court.
"I therefore would like to ask you, Mr. President, to make a special endeavor especially that only such judges will preside in particularly important political cases, who master the material involved also along political lines and who warrant that they are able not only to pass just sentences but also by their manner of conducting the proceedings to convince those present of the correctness of the sentence. If any difficulties as to personnel should occur here, please let me have your oral report."
That is signed "Dr. Thierack".
The Presecution would like to formally introduce in evidence Document NG-157, which will become Exhibit 103.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
JUDGE BRAND: Where are you putting that in the document book?
MR. KING: That, Your Honor, goes in Document Book 1-B at Page 177. The missing pages or the missing document 208-B has now come into the court room, and we will proceed at this time to introduce that.
JUDGE BRAND: Is that Exhibit 104?
MR. KING: This will become, Your Honor, when accepted into evidence, Exhibit 104. I would like to point out again that it appeared originally in the Document Book 1-B as BG 207 at Page 176. However, because of mechanical difficulties in reproduction that has now been restyled NG-208-B, but it should be inserted in Document Book 1-B at Page 176. This is a letter dated Berlin, 17 September 1938. It is addressed to Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery Dr. Lammers. It is signed "Thierack".
"Dear Herr Lammers:
"I thank you for the copy of your circular decree of 12 July 1938.
This decree and its contents had not been made accessible either to my staff or to me personally, although I once a month preside in the Disciplinary Division of the Supreme Court of the Reich besides my other activities. It is unknown to me how the other branches proceeded in this matter.
"I herewith take the liberty of briefly giving in writing my opinion on the problem discussed in Nuremberg, a problem which, as you will understand, interests me greatly as a judge. I shall be glad to give verbal explanations if necessary. Heil Hitler; Yours truly Thierack."
That enclosure of which he speaks is attached as pages 3 and 4 of Document NG 203-B, and we would like to read that in its entirety.
"The Independence of Judges.
"1.) It will not occur nowadays, any more than in the past, that a judge makes a decision contrary to the working or the meaning of law as he realizes it. Most of the mistakes in sentences can be traced back to the fact that:
"a) our laws still have the, wording of the liberal era and 2b) that the greater part of the judges are not yet, or only very slightly, imbued with the national socialistic ideology, or have acquired a sense of it.
"Such mistakes incompatible with the conceptions and the ideal of national socialism would not be possible if the judges had been educated since 1933 in this respect. But this would have been necessary all the mere as judges, or at least the bulk of them, while falsely referring to their so-called independence, particularly refused to make themselves acquainted with what we call matters cf politics.
"Thus the problem is one of education and guidance for the judges. Nothing has as yet been done about it and it is hardly to be expected that anything will be done."
I observe that there is something amiss in the translating booth. The paragraph which I have just read, is that contained in the Germany copy? It begins: "Thus the problem is one of education and guidance." Should I take that again?
"Thus the problem is one of education and guidance for the judges. Nothing has as yet been done about it and it is hardly to be expected that anything will be done.
"2.) I held that the so-called independence of the judge has undergone a change in its substance. Nowadays a judge no longer can justify himself merely by haring complied with the wording of the law, but he will have to inspire this wording with the ideology of national socialism. But also in the third Reich the judge must remain independent in so far as any influence from a third party which could influence his decision must be precluded.
"The contrary would not only break the judge but also the state and the community.
"3.) Since the education of the judges so urgently needed is still missing, one will have to look out for other methods to avoid mistakes in judgment without doing harm to the state and the nation. But these methods can only be applied during a transition period. The fact that we are obliged to think of them now, in the sixth year of national socialism, proves that something has been omitted up to now.
"4.) It is not possible to solve the problem by having the case shifted tc another court of the same level by the presiding judge of a court.
"a) these presiding judges who want to evade an unpleasant decision will always choose this way (which leads to a deterioration of the sense of responsibility and, with weak characters, to a camouflage of their weakness.)
"b) it does not preclude cases in which the presiding judge with his associates does not even realize what ill--conceived sentence he is about to promulgate, just because he lacks all training in national socialistic ideology.
"5.) But one can subject, for a transition period, final sentences, that is, (res-adjudicated) to a subsequent reviewing by another court which, of course, should held sufficient authority.
"Guoertner and Freisler have chosen for that purpose the Reich Supreme Court (i.*. a so-called "trustee division") in which the President of the Reich Supreme Court is to preside and in which, besides the regular Reichsgerichtsraete (Councillors of the Supreme Court of the Reich) men of the people should act as associate judges - as is the case in the People's Court. For the latter position, the president of the supreme Party Court as well as myself were thought of. But I promtly declined for myself. The Supreme Court of the Reich has no support in the people, neither will it have in a near future. I am not going to discuss the reason why I have gathered sufficient information about this matter. This projected division of the Supreme Court of the Reich will very soon join in the general trend of the Supreme Court as I outlined it and the "trustees" will become puppets. 6) In my opinion it is altogether wrong to create a new kind of court for the solution of this problem. There exists no court which enjoys more confidence of the people or of the party or probably of the Fuehrer, too, than the People's Court enjoys. Evidences of this are the many letters to me from simple people, or visits from them, requesting that the People's Court helped them, since they believe already today that the People's Court is a court to which the Fuehrer gave the task of righting wrongs.
"The people's Court, of course, should be detached from the Department of Justice, as would be correct already today.
"Mussolini, in establishing his Court for the Defense of the State in 1926 created a court similar to the People's Court. He subordinated this court by the law of 4 June 1931 to al Cape del Governo Prima Ministro, that is to say, to himself. During my last visit to Italy at the end of June of the current year I discussed this problem with Italian authorities and, above all, the motives which inducted Mussolini to subordinate this court to himself. I had to recognize the reasons. They are valid and decisive for Germany also. I cannot discuss them within the scope of these statements. But I believe I ought not to conceal my opinion, for in these regard I have only the Nation as a whole in my view. Anyhow it was interesting to me to discuss this problem repeatedly with leading members of the party.
It was not I but these persons who, in these discussions repeatedly called my attention to the fact that the people's Court, which enjoyed their highest confidence and, in their opinion, also that of the Fuehrer, should only be placed under the jurisdiction of the Fuehrer. This gave me a lot to think about. I today am convinced that this opinion was correct.
Signed: Thierack" The Prosecution formally offers in evidence the exhibit NG-104 which is Document 208-B.