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.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence. You mean Exhibit 104, Document Number NG-208B?
MR. KING: That is correct.
May I now ask the Court, the translators, and defense counsel to refer to Document Book 1-E? We have distributed copies of 209. You will find German copies in the book. I believe the German text was not deficient in that respect.
I think I have made a mis-statement. I believe that 209 was missing from the German Book, but it has been circulated as of either Friday afternoon or Saturday morning. Defense counsel should now have copies of it.
It should further be pointed out that the Document NG-209 should have been included in the index of Document Book 1-E following Document NG-421. It was omitted, however.
This will become when formally offered and accepted in evidence, 105.
THE PRESIDENT: May I have the page in the Document Book?
MR. KING: One moment, Your Honor, I will give you the page number. Its page number in the English Document Book will be 28 -- excuse mo Your Honors, we will run into difficulties there, I think. The page numbers, Your Honor, will be 24-E and 24-F of Book 1-E.
This is a letter dated Berlin, 14 September, 1937 to Dr. Lammers from Thierack.
Defense counsel has pointed out that the page numbers in the German Book are not clear. I wonder if it would not be expedient to defer the pagination of the German Book until after I have finished reading and offering this document in evidence.
I hope that will not be too great an inconvenience. I will submit the German page numbers after I read this in evidence. I am not too efficient as a German linguist. I would rather have that job done by some one who is.
This letter is dated Berlin, 14 September, 1937.
"Dear Herr Lammers:
"As I informed you already in Nurnberg, I call together once a year the judged of the Peoples' Court including the honorary members who are for the most part SA and SS leaders, officers in the Wehrmacht and in the Police for a meeting which I intend to take place at the end of November, this year.
"I consider this necessary for the following reasons:
"1. The experience and knowledge which are won by the different senates in the course of their work during the year must be made available to all judges of the Peoples' Court since the fighting methods of the foreign countries against the German people with treason and high-treason are steadily changing and increasing.
"2. The professional judges and the honorary judges of the Peoples' Court must get to know each other and learn to feel like one in order to fulfill their task completely.
"On December 1, 1937, the Fuehrer spoke in the Reich Chancellery to the Senate President of the Peoples' Court on the topic of treason. The Fuehrer's speech produced a very impressive effect. It was at that time a great help to me in my endeavor to harden the men of the Peoples' Court for their work. However, I know, and them are sentences which prove that they still failed to recognize with ultimate consistency that our people are fitting a struggle of life and death which must be encountered correspondingly.
"If the Fuehrer could rake up his mind once more to disclose before all judges of the Peoples' Court, his opinion of the task of these men in the fight against reason which recently is developing into high treason in an increasing measure, this would promote the future work of these men in the frame of their activity as judges of the Peoples' Court in a degree I, myself, would never be able to achieve.
"The visible success of 1 December 1936 encourages me to address the Fuehrer with the request of speaking to us again on the said topic.
"Heil Hitlers.
"Thierack."
The prosecution now offers in evidence as Exhibit 105, the Document NG-209.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received in evidence. That page will that be in the book?
MR. KING: That will be Page No. 24-E and 24-F of Document Book 1-E in the English. I will supply the German page numbers very shortly, I find that we do not have a copy of the German Document Book 1-E here, but it will be procured and I will supply these page numbers at the earliest possible moment.
We will also, at this time, try to present another document to be found in Document Book 1-E, in which the German copies, I believe, were correct and included this document. May I ask if NG-421 is to be found in the German Document Book?
INTERPRETER: No, it is not in the German Document Book.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 106, Your Honors, the prosecution desires to offer in evidence, without reading, the Document NG-421, which is cited in the index of Document Book 1-E, beginning on Page 24. The page numbers of this document will begin with 24 and continue through 24-D in the English.
JUDGE BRAND: I thought it ends with the Page 24-C.
MR. KING: The pagination of 421 should run from 24 through 24-D, and 209 in the English should be 24-E and F of that book.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Document 209?
MR. KING: 209 should be pages 24-E and F respectively. With 421 which precedes 209 in the book, Page 1 will be 24, Page 2 of the Document will be 24-C, and Page 4 of the Document will be 24-D.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not have 24-D.
MR. KING: You do not have 24-D of the document? Your Honor, the difference results in a different system in lettering that you and I were using. I started out with the second page as being 24-B rather than 24-A; so there is no difference really in the document. As I stated previously, we do not wish to read any parts of this document except to call attention to the fact that the document represents appointments to the People's Court or represents suggested appointments to the people's Court, Vic would, at this time, offer as Exhibit 106, the Document NG-421.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR.KING: I think we can now straighten out the pagination in the German Document Books for the Documents NG-421 and NG-209. In the German Book 1-E, the Document NG-421 will bear the page numbers 14-A through and including 14-D. The Document NG-209 will bear the number 14-E in the German Book.
I should make a correction. I said that 421 would near the numbers beginning with 14-A. I should have said beginning with 18-A and run through 18-D, and 209 then becomes 18-E. I think that straightens everyone out.
Your Honors, I regret the necessity of re-opening this question of pagination, but it seems that there is a mistake; there has been an 18-A already included in the German Document Book which apparently escaped our notice. Let's try to end once and for all the pagination of these two document in the German book: Beginning with NG-421, that first page will become 18-B in the German book; the second page will become 18-C; the third page 18-D, the fourth page will become 18-E; and the Document NG-209, which in the German book is a one page document, will become 18-F; is that correct? That is correct.
We will ask the Court to turn to Document Book I-C, the Document NG-612which should be inserted following page 41 in that book. German and English copies have been distributed. We would at this time desire to introduce the exhibit, which will become Prosecution's Exhibit No. 107; this is Document NG-612. Do you have adequate copies at all points? This document is a series of letters, decrees and sentences which we will try to make selfexplanatory as we proceed through the document. The first portion which we would like to read begins on page 1; it is a letter dated Berlin, 4 December, 1941; addressed to the State Secretary Schlegelberger, in charge of affairs at the Reich Ministry of Justice: Re: Criminal Proceedings against the Hauptwachtmeister of Police Klinzmann.
"Dear Herr Schlegelberger:
The Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police in the Reich Minister of the Interior has sent me the verdict of the Lower Court Stendal, a photostat copy of which is enclosed. The Reichsfuehrer-SS states the following with regard to the verdict:
Essentially I have to agree with the arguments of the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Especially I do not understand why no doubt that the Fuehrer would reject this verdict completely, and therefore I respectfully ask you, to examine, if possible immediately, whether the proceedings can be cancelled or to how the verdict could be eliminated otherways. According to the information I have received from the Reichsfuehrer-SS, Klinzmann is having the verdict contested, I would be thankful to receive information about the measure you intend to take.
Heil Hitler. Your obedient servant. There follows the name of the Reich Minister."
The next portion which we would like to read begins on page 2 of the English, at the bottom of the page.
"Dear Minister: On the occasion of a discussion I informed you that a Hauptwachtmeister of the police, who had a good reputation up to now, had been sentenced by the Lower Court Stendal to a prison term of 6 months for inflicting bodily injury and unlawful detention whilst on duty, because he admonished a long wanted public enemy by slopping him and giving him two blows on the buttocks with a rubber truncheon.
The Hauptwachtmeister furthermore, with the knowledge of the mayor's deputy, kept the criminal under police arrest for 18 days for investigation of the offences.
You, Herr Minister, assured me that you would represent my point of view towards the Ministry of Justice, and therefore I take the liberty of informing you herewith of the facts and of my point of view. " That is all that we will read from that particular portion.
We now skip to page 6 of the English text, at the top of the page. This is the same letter, continuing:
"I at any rate am going to take the action of the Hauptwachtmeister of the police Klinzmann as an occasion to express gratitude for his farsighted conduct which was only beneficial to the community. I know that I have the full agreement of the population of Seehausen and vicinity in doing so, because this strange verdict caused not only astonishment, but also considerable excitement among them. Furthermore, I have promoted the Hauptwachtmeister of the police Klinzmann to Meister of the police without considering the seniority, because he earned this regard by his actions as policeman. I must reward his action because otherwise the joy of serving in the police would be destroyed by such verdicts. But finally K. has to be rehabilitated in public because his being sentenced by a court is known in public."
And the last paragraph on the English page 6:
"I beg you, Herr Mininster, to take the appropriate steps and I would be grateful if you would inform me about the results of your efforts. A copy of the sentence of the Court is enclosed.
"Heil Hitler. Yours faithfully Heinrich Himmler."
We would next like to read a few paragraphs from the sentence enclosed in the letter of Himmler's, parts of which we have just read. The first paragraph we would like to read begins on page 14 of the English text, and is from the sentence of the Court. The paragraph begins "In the first place", and he refers here to the police officer charged with the crime:
"In the first place he has intentionally, without being authorized to do so, prolonged the duration of a deprivation of liberty by not bringing witness Bloedling before the judge without delay after his arrest. It was clearly an arrest subject to articles 127, 128 Code of Criminal Procedure, as is admitted by the defendant and which he carried out in his capacity as an official of the criminal prosecution office, because suspicion was against Bloedling in the first instance owing to the report of the Labor Office, and later on he was suspected of arson. It was his duty, therefore, pursuant to article 128 Code of Criminal Procedure, to bring the arrested person without delay before the Local Judge of Seehausen, that is, without unlawful defrement. This he did not do. He arrested Bloedling on 15 July 1940 and on 2 August 1940 only he brought him before the judge. He deferred this bringing before the judge unlawfully. The deferment cannot be justified by the fact that the Labor Office did not send the report which it had promised. Even if we grant that the defendant, for practical reasons, might have waited a day or two for the above-mentioned report to come in, any duration of time beyond this must in any case be considered as exceeding the conception 'without delay', especially since the missing report was no impediment of real importance.
The defendant could have compiled a report himself corresponding to the information which he received by telephone. In this case the District Judge would have been equally well informed on the subject as the defendant himself and could have made his decision for which he alone is competent according to article 128, section 2 of Criminal Procedure, whether he considers the arrest as justified or its causes not removed."
Continuing with excerpts from the judge's opinion, we turn to page 16 of the English text, beginning with the first full paragraph on that page, referring again to the accused police officer:
"He furthermore is found guilty in two separate instances of beating witness Bloedling on 16 and 23 July 1940. He did so whole performing his duties, since he acted in his capacity as police official when he examined Bloedling on 16 July 1940 and questioned him concerning his escaping prison on 23 July 1940. There are no reasons whatsoever which he could bring up to justify exemption from punishment. If he asserts that on 16 July 1940 he feared Bloedling might attack him, this cannot be accepted. Witness Bloedling is a feeble young man compared with the defendant, a fact of which the Court is aware from the aforementioned trial against him, and while he might be liable to be impudent in his speech, he certainly would never have the courage to attack a police official of such bodily superiority in the offices of the town hall. The impression is so obvious that even the defendant himself had it and could not seriously have feared an assault on the part of the witness Bloedling. Moreover, the similarity of the cases Brandt and Utesch bears witness to the fact that the defendant responded with boxing Bloedling's ears when he was giving impudent answers. Consequently, his action was neither prompted by self-defense nor supposed self-defense. Nor could he allege that the witness Wackenroder and Schadd prompted him to be very severe and if necessary not to hesitate to deal out a few boxes on the ear. Even accepting the advices of these two witnesses as official order of a superior to commit bodily injuries while in office, he was not justified to obey such an order pursuant to article 7 of the law for civil servants of the Reich, to which he is subject as indirect official of the Reich, and he should have drawn his superior's attention to the inadmissibility of the order.
Any possible error in regard to bodily injury not being punishable if sanctioned by a superior, would be a penal error of small importance. Besides there are no circumstances traceable on the strength of which punishment could not be meted out in case of bodily injury."
We now turn to page 19, the last principal paragraph on that page in the English text--continuing with the judge's opinion:
"Taking all these circumstances into consideration, a sentence of imprisonment of five months for deprivation of liberty in office, for bodily injury with a rubber cudgel in office inflicted on Bloedling three weeks imprisonment and one week's imprisonment each for the other three bodily injuries inflicted on Brandt and Utesch, are deemed necessary but at the same time sufficient. Pursuant to article 74 of the St GB, these individual sentences of imprisonments had to be merged in the adequate total sentence of six months' imprisonment."
We would next refer to the letter which begins on page 20. It is dated Berlin, 10 December 1941, and it is addressed to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery. We would read only the last paragraph of that letter, which is to be found on page 22 of the English text:
"No sooner had the verdict passed on Klinzmann become known here, orders were, for this reason, given to the effect that the sentence, in case of its validation, should not be carried out for the time being. Instead, reports concerning the granting of a pardon should be made as soon as possible. In the meantime, however, the sentence passed on Klinzmann became valid by decision of the Reich Court of 24 November 1941, which abandoned the procedure of revision as apparently unfounded.