The certificate was already made out on the 13 July 1946 for a different purpose. It is not an affidavit, but it is a certificate by an authority of the church which bears its seal. Only with that restriction in it, in the sense, I offer that document in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor, please, I acknowledge all those statements but nevertheless it is a letter by the Protestant Bishop of Berlin or a copy of it and the certificate, as translated, is certifying the conformity of the above copy with the original. There is a seal of the church but there is no indication that I can find that any person other than the signer acknowledged the knowledge and there is no statement under or contained in it. I must object to the introduction of this document No. 47.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection is sustained.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to Document No. 48. That is an affidavit by Alexander Wiedow. I read only the last paragraph on the second page of that document, page 61 in the Document Book.
"Personally, I had the impression, from the time of our first conversation, that he was an enemy of the National Socialist system and an opponent of HITLER and I was glad to have found in him a faithful Christian member of the parish who felt responsible for the maintenance of tho Church."
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Wiedow is the competent superintendent; that is to say, the senior Protestant Pastor of the Parish to which Schlegelberger belonged. I offer this document as Exhibit 104.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I wish to object, because there is no certificate of any kind in this document.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I just see that. The objection is quite justified. I withdraw the document. I refer next to Document No. 49. That is an affidavit by Mrs. Anneliese Goerdeler, the widow of that man who today was mentioned in the course of the examination of the witness Gramm. Karl Goerdeler, the leader of that movement which led to the attempt of tho 20th of July, 1944, and who was designated to be the future Chancellor of the Reich after the removal of Hitler.
On that ocassion, may I refer to tho examination of the witness Roeder who said that among the people belonging to the resistance movement, Schlegelberger was considered to be the future Minister of Justice.
I read the second paragraph.
"Dr. GUERTNER, the former Minister of Justice, was very well known to my husband who was very familiar with him. I know of many conferences which my husband had with Minister GUERTNER. On those occasions both quite openly discussed the various bad conditions. Both of them treated the conversations as absolutely confidential. Various bad conditions could be aleviated. My husband very much appreciated GUERTNER as a human being, and with GUERTNER he was of the opinion that he should stay in office in order to avoid that justice would fully slip into HIMMLER's hands. My husband knew how big the sacrifice was which GUERTNER thus had to make. My husband was convinced, as he said at GUERTNER's death, that GUERTNER had died of a broken heart. As highly as my husband esteemed GUERTNER, my husband also esteemed State Secretary Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER, whom he had known for decades and with whom, same as with GUERTNER, he had personal and official conferences. He also fully trusted SCHLEGELBERGER and never doubted his integrity. My husband considered GUERTNER and SCHLEGELBERGER as a last resort who endeavored to make tho principle of right respected in spite of all the attacks against it."
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I offer this document as Exhibit 104.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 50 is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Sauerbruch. I read the second and third paragraph:
"In 1942, the present University Professor Prelate Dr. SCHREIBER, a wellknown politician of the Roman-Catholic (Zentrum) Party of the years before 1933, was involved into a criminal procedure. He was accused of embezzlement.
The case was raised on a purely political basis and was prosecuted by the Gestapo with every possible rigor.
Prelate SCHREIBER with whom I was friendly since the time of our joint work in the "Emergency Community of German Scientists" applied to me and I then undertook a great number of steps in order to help Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER, who gave real positive help and he saw to it that the criminal procedure was suspended and prelate Dr. SCHREIBER freed from prosecution."
I offer this document as Exhibit 105.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 51 is an affidavit by the just mentioned Prelate,pr. Schreiber. Its contents arc related to the affidavit that I have just read by Sauerbruch. I offer this affidavit as Exhibit 106, Document 51, Exhibit 106.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 53, affidavit by Hans Joachim von Rohr. I read the second paragraph.
"I was to have been arrested by the Gestapo in the Spring of 1943 but secceeded in eluding this arrest and had to remain in hiding. The cause of this persecution was that I had arranged a Christian burial for two Soviet prisoners who had died in my enterprise and that I myself, together with my wife and secretary, attended the funeral. My arrest was attempted shortly afterwards; while I managed to evade it, my wife and my secretary were taken into custody. In the further course of events, my relatives, and after her release, my wife too tried to prevail upon the Gestapo to abandon their plans to arrest me. In those endeavors they encountered the most extensive help in the Reich Ministry of Justine, which in the end culminated in the fact that the Chief Public Prosecutor at Grcifswald to whom the conducting of my judicial prosecution had boon transferred in the meantime was instructed to abandon plans for my arrest and to effect a similar restraint in my favor, on the part of the Gestapo at Greifswald.
This was successful, and I was from then on free to practice my profession. Upon a visit at the Ministry of Justice."
I was told by a referent that the kindness shown to me had been due to the attitude of Undersecretary Dr. Schlegelberger, the then acting Minister. A complete quashing of the proceedings against me was then considered. All this changed at one full swoop, when Dr. Schlegelberger resigned from office, and Dr. Thierack took over the Reich Ministry of Justice. From this moment on, the persecution of me started anew."
I offer this document as Exhibit 107.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The next and last document 53, I am not offering as an exhibit. That brings me to the end of my presentation of evidence. I have only one request. The position of the defense counsel for the first defendant is a difficult one. The case usually is the largest one as for its extent, and it is the first one to be dealt with. Consequently, I have not finished with all my preparations, not 100 per cent. I am still to receive some documents which I should like to offer later in a supplement volume. I should like to enclose in that volume also those affidavits which have been objevted to and which have to be supplemented. I ask for the permission that I may do that later.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal concomettantly are opposed to ruling in advance of the issue, but we will rule upon your further offers when they are made. You may make the offers and we will pass upon them when the offers are made.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Another point, Your Honor. The decision concerning the affidavit Hecker and Miethsam had not been made. In case that I shouldn't be permitted to submit these affidavits, I also would like to ask for permission later to call both of them as witnesses; that of course only in case the affidavits would not be accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is ready to rule upon those two affidavits. It has been recognized, both by the prosecution and the defense, and by various expressions from the members of the Tribunal, that there are many difficulties with the procedure which involves the receipt of affidavits in place of the verbal testimony of the witness. Notwithstanding objections which have been made by the defense, the Tribunal has acted upon the rule which was established by Ordinance No. 7 and has received exhibits. As exhibits, it has received affidavits. That practice has increasingly disclosed the inconveniences which are involved in carrying it out.
As to the affidavit of Miethsam; as we recollect it was stated that he was available but that he is not in Nurnberg and is at a distance. My next point is that during the sittings of the judges now on the bench as commissioners, we first attempted the procedure of allowing direct examination in addition to cross examination of affiants. Objections which were raised established that that was impracticable and we therefore limited the defense to what we deemed to be proper cross examination of the affiants who had been produced by the prosecution. So the right of the defense to produce evidence in some form is dear in connection with their cases in chief. As to Miethsam, his case very closely resembles numerous affidavits which were offered by the prosecution, and the Tribunal has decided that the affidavit will be received and we will be compelled to follow the clumsy system which we have already established and permit the prosecution to call him back for cross examination, as we did in the case of the defense who desired to cross examine. These difficulties are multiplied greatly or would be multiplied greatly if the same ruling were applied to a witness who is actually here now in the witness house, I believe--Hecker--he is either in jail or in the witness house.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Yesterday he was still in the witness house, but he intended to leave today. I had him informed that he should stay here, but I don't know whether that information still reached him.
THE PRESIDENT: As to witnesses who are actually available here in Nurnberg, the Tribunal feels that it is a matter of greater fairness to both sides that such a witness who has twice already been examined in this Tribunal should be presented as a verbal witness rather than to present his affidavit. Any other procedure would regain involve calling him back for cross examination for a third time. The affidavit of Hecker is rejected. The affidavit of Miethsam is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: As for Exhibit 74, the affidavit of Miethsam, I don't have to say more and submit it to the Secretary-General. May I ask the Tribunal to kindly let me know when an examination of the witness Hecker would be convenient? Would it be all right for me to call the witness if I can reach him for Monday morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is all right.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Thank you.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, as a matter of possible information and for orderly procedure, my present thinking is that it would be more more orderly if affiants like the affiant Miethsam are eventually called after all such cases have been disposed of, in other words, at the end of all the defendants' case, unless it's possible for us to get the man in during the presentation of a particular defendant's case. I don't know whether Miethsam can be produced for cross examination on Monday. If he can and if the Tribunal will permit, we will try to get him here; if not, may we assume that all those cases will be head at the end of the direct testimony of all the defendants?
THE PRESIDENT: You should be entitled to the same privi lege which the defendants had to call affiants back for cross examination at the end of their case.
I am sure counsel for both sides realize that it is a matter of great convenience and assistance to the Tribunal whenever possible to have the witness present and at least to have the cross examination in close connection to the direct examination or the affidavit, so that we have fresh in mind the testimony in chief when we are hearing the cross examination. It's a matter of some substance as well as of a rule.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I quite agree with you, Your Honor, and for that reason I will say now to Dr. Kuboschok that if we can get Miethsan here, we will have him here Monday, also so that we nay cross examine him and in case you wish to redirect. I don't know whether we can but we will try to have him here Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: One suggestion only, on which I have as yet not conferred with my associates, but I know they will agree. The Tribunal is very anxious that evidence having probative value which is offered by the defendants should be in such form that it can be received and considered. I want simply to commend to counsel for the defense and to each of then that they read the very simple rule with reference to statements in lieu of oath and attempt so far as they possibly can to comply strictly with it so that we will not make rulings which appear to be technical rulings. You will remember that those rules are adopted by all of the Tribunals and apply to all of them, and there is very little that can be done except to follow them. The procedure is so simple that we commend it at your attenrtion that you do not require the court to rule on technical issues of this kind. We should be ready for the next presentation.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, may I in connection with the statement made by Mr. LaFollette say the following: I still have the cross examination of two witnesse who have submitted affidavits against the defendant Klemm. The witnesses are the affiants Horst. Guenter Franke and Altmeyer. I want to ask the high Tribunal for a decision as to whether subsequent to the submission of evidence for my defendant Klemm I can cross examine these two witnesses, and that in the interest of seeing that at least part of the evidence remains close together. The witness Altmeyer, who has given an affidavit, is here in Nurnberg. The witness Horst Guenter Franke is at present in an English camp, and I spoke to Major Schaeffer today and asked him to call that witness for the end of next week, to come to Nurnberg, but he informed me that he had sent cables repeatedly to that camp and that the gentlemen of the Prosecution had even encountered the same difficulties with this witness Franke. The witness, therefore, had to be interrogated in the came Fallingbostel by a gentleman of the prosecution. Major Schaeffer thinks that the witness cannot be brought here; he was frozen, so to say, at the camp; he was registered under that designation as being frozen; and, therefore, he could only be brought here through the intervention of the British Military Government Office.
Now, the question arises since the Prosecution, as well as the Defense Center, do not seem to have any means within their power to bring that witness here, whether the Court or the Secretary General have any possibility in that direction, according to the rules of Control Council. Then, I would like to state that request today that that decision be made because otherwise the witness Franke could not come subsequent to my submission of evidence in the case Klemm, but many weeks later; and then, of course, the connection with the case Klemm is again disrupted.
Then, I have another question. In my document book for Klemm I have two affidavits by Hecker. I am just told that Hecker will be brought here on Monday, perhaps, as a witness for Schlegelberger. Now, I wonder whether I could also examine Hecker for my client Klemm, or whether Hecker should be examined as a witness by me only after I have examined Klemm -- as I intend to do now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is safe to say that the Tribunal wants to get through with Hecker. You can examine him on the first occasion that you see him in this Courtroom as soon as the rest of them get through with him. What is the situation with reference to Altmeyer. He was an affiant for the Prosecution?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Was he on the list that you requested?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: For cross examination?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President. Also Horst Guonter Franke.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't get that.
DR. SCHILF: Also the witness Franke.
THE PRESIDENT: I heard about that. The witness Altmeyer is in Nurnberg.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: You can produce him and cross examine him.
DR. SCHILF: Yes. Mr. President, I should like to do that subsequently to Klemm, but the problem is whether we can get Franke in time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I am a lettle confused now. Would you give me the English channel and see if I am getting it. I never understood why Altmeyer wasn't produced for cross examination. Do I understand there was an objection by the Prosecution about him being produced? At the time I wondered why he wasn't produced, because he was here. Now, do I understand that he is to be cross examined or a witness in chief for the defendant Klemm. I would like to have that cleared up.
THE PRESIDENT: If he was on the list, as one whose name was presented to the Court as an affiant for the Prosecution, and whom the Defense desired to cross examine, and he has not been cross examined, the Defense is at liberty to get him here now and cross examine him.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: There is no question about it. I wanted to know whether a cross examination confronted me upon his evidence in chief of the Prosecution or whether he is to be made in addition a defense witness. That I would like to have cleared up; I would like to know that.
THE PRESIDENT: That depends upon the information in the possession of the Defense Counsel.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: But we are entitled to our 48 hours' notice, and I don't know anything yet.
DR. SCHILE: I want to call Altmeyer only for cross examination; not as my own witness, but excuse me, Mr. President, in this connection I still have the following to say. The cross examination of Altmeyer is to be very extensive, and that because I have to put to Altmeyer the Document Book III-L of the Prosecution.
I have to discuss page for page of that document book with him, and that document book has 143 pages. Therefore, I intend to make the motion that the cross examination of the witness Altmeyer be made before a commissioner, so that I don't have to bother the Tribunal with all these detailed questions.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honor, it occurs to me that that matter will arise when it comes. I don't recall that our affidavit of Altmeyer covered the material of all of Book 111-L, as I recall it.
THE PRESIDENT: We have great doubts about that. We know of no reason now, as long as the present judges are able to sit on the bench, why we should call any commissioner unless some special circumstance arises examinations will be held before the Tribunal.
Now, with reference to Franke. All that the Tribunal can do is to make an order, such as has been made before, upon the Secretary General to exert his best efforts to secure the witness. We have no more knowledge -- in fact much less knowledge that counsel for both sides have as to whether it is possible to secure him; but the order will be made, and the Secretary General in good, faith will attempt to secure the witness for you.
You may proceed with the case Klemm.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal I call first, as a witness in his own case, the Defendant Klemm.
HERBERT KLEMM, a defendant, took the stand and testified as follows;
BY JUDGE HARDING:
You will raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for the Defendant Herbert Klemm)
Q: Herr Klemm, I ask you first to tell the Tribunal your birth date, the place of birth; and to give the Tribunal a short description of your life, and which should also show your professional career.
A: I was born the 15th May, 1903 in Leipzig. After I went to public school, to secondary school, and the Gymnasium, I studied at the Universities of Leipzig and Goettingen. In 1925 I passed my first state examination in law and then went into the preparatory service in Saxony, and in various cities in Saxony did my service as referendar there. In 1929 I passed the second state examination, the so called assessor examination. I passed that examination in Dresden, and immediately thereafter I was appointed assessor with the prosecution of Dresden from the 15th November, 1929.
A. There I had a Referat of my own such as prosecutor until March 1933. At that time as personal Referent and adjutant to the Minister of Justice of Saxony - that was Dr. Thierack - I came into the Ministry of Justice for Saxony, where I remained until the 31st of March 1935. On the 1st of May 1933 I became prosecutor; on the 1st of May 1934, senior prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) with the designation of first prosecutor. On the 1st of April 1935 the administrations of justice of the Laender were definitely dissolved and merged with the Administration of Justice of the Reich, and on that day I was transferred to Berlin and started to work in the Reich Ministry of Justice in the then Department III, which later became Department IV. I was there until the outbreak of the war. On the 27th of August 1939 I was drafted into the armed forces and participated in the Polish campaign. Then I was stationed along the West Wall and then I took part in the campaign in France as an engineer officer. On the day of the armistice with France I was sent back home and declared indispensible in order to, upon military orders, go to Holland and to enter the office of the Reichcommissar as a civilian official in order to establish there the department for civilian administration of justice. I assumed this office on the 1st of July 1940 and was at The Hague, in charge of the main department of justice with the Reichcemmissar for the occupied Netherlands, until 16 March 1941. I still have to mention that on 20 April 1939 I had been promoted to the rank of Ministerialrat. In the middle of March 1941 I was again transferred. I was assigned to the Party Chancellery in Munich in order to take over there the group "justice", the so-called group III-C. My military assignment order, that is to say, the certificate which contained the disposition of the armed forces where I had to work, said that I had to follow the directives, the orders of the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands at all times, and I got the directive from the Reich Commissioner to go to Munich and to work there in the Party Secretariat (Parteikanzlei). There I took over the Group III-C, the Justice Croup. At the end of 1942 I became Ministerial Director without any change in my job or in my official posi tion, and I continued in that position until the end of 1943.
On the 4th of January 1944 I started in the position as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Justice in Berlin. I held that position until the surrender.
Q. There is one supplementary question I should like to ask. When you were working in the various offices which you have mentioned, did you only deal with penal matters or civil matters, or primarily with one or the other?
A. As long as I was an assessor with the prosecution in Dresden, I had to deal with non-political penal cases only. As personnel Referat of the Saxon Ministry of Justice I had to handle civil matters and penal matters to about the same extent, depending on how these matters had to be submitted to the Minister. But apart from that I had special tasks from time to time dealing with penal cases. That was in the Ministry of Justice in Saxony. In the then Department III of the Reich Ministry of Justice, that is to say, from 1935 until 1939, I exclusively handled penal matters. Then I was a soldier. During my activity in the occupied Netherlands I dealt with about sixty percent penal matters and forty percent civil matters. At the Party Secretariat (Parteikanzlei) there were also penal and civil cases to handle, and as Under Secretary, again, cases were submitted to me from various departments.
Q. Mr. Klemm, I should like to ask you now about your connection to the NSDAP and the SA or other organizations. Please explain first the circumstances of your entrance into the Party, your activity in the Party, and your offices in the Party.
A. I joined the NSDAP on the 1st of January 1931. I held no offices and was not active on the whole during the years up to the seizure of power by the NSDAP. The Party at that time, at least in Saxony, did not insist on open activity within the NSDAP in the case of people who at that time, because they belonged to the NSDAP, under certain circumstances might have incurred professional difficulties. I was at that time an assessor with the possibility of receiving a notice of discontinuance of work in a Quarter of a year, and the possibility really existed that I might have been dismissed on these grounds.
Therefore, I did not make any public appearances, but was only a member of the Party. I joined the SA as late as the 30th of June 1933, and upon request and explicit demand by the Brigadefuehrer of the Dresdner SA, and upon the request of the Saxon Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack; the SA Brigadefuehrer -- having approached Dr. Thierack with the request that he nominate a legal advisor for him-
Q. Dr. Klemm, I think we will interrupt now. The time has come.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn at this time until Monday morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 7 July 1947 at 0930 hours.)
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 7 July 1947, 0930-1630, Justice James T. Brand presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
TEE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused. Let proper notation be made.
The Tribunal has an announcement of interest to counsel for both sides. The time set for the argument upon the sufficiency of Count I of the Indictment, with reference to the charge of conspiracy, is Wednesday morning, July 9th, 1947, at 9:30, in the large courtroom I take it that is the courtroom of Tribunal I. At that time there will be a joint session of the judges to hear arguments upon that issue. For that reason Tribunal III will not sit at any time on Wednesday of this week. On Tuesday evening we will adjourn this Tribunal until Thursday morning.
You may proceed with the examination of the defendant Klemm.
HERBERT KLEMM - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SCHILF (Attorney for defendant Klemm):
Q May it please the Court, with the permission of the Tribunal I am now going to proceed to examine the witness Klemm.
Q Witness, before we adjourned you had. talked about the fact of your entry into the Party. Please proceed. You have told us that before the seizure of power, on the part of the NSDAP, you were, as an assessor, in the Ministry of Saxony, not active in the service of the Party.
AAlso, immediately after Hitler had become Chancellor of the Reich I did not play any part in the Party until, as I have already mentioned, on 30th of June, 1933, I joined the SA. I have also already mentioned that this occurred at the request of the SA Brigadefuehrer in Dresden to the Minister of Justice in Saxony and that Dr. Thierack, the Saxon Minister of Justice, expressed the wish that I should assume that office so that we should be able to exercise influence on the SA. As legal advisor of the then Untergruppe - it was called Brigade at a later time - of the SA, I began work but after a few months, in the fall of 1933, I was transferred to the SA Group of Saxony. This was the supreme SA authority for the whole of the land of Saxony. That again was highly desirable for the Administration of Justice because now the field of competence of the SA Saxony and the field for which the Ministry of Justice for Saxony was competent. I was fully aware that I was not able to do active SA duty, that is to say in a Standarte or a Storm, for the simple reason that my time did not allow me to do any duty for the SA. If I meant to do any work for the SA.as afar as I was able to do so, then, because of professional duties, this was possible only if I, myself, arranged my time accordingly. Thus it happened that I was appointed legal advisor for the SA. when in 1935 the Administration of Justice was centralized, and I became to Berlin to the Reich Ministry of Justice. I had to be transferred from the SA point of view, and I joined the adjutant's office, of Lutze, Chief of Staff of the SA, again to work there as legal advisor.
Q Witness, the Prosecution also mentioned your work in the NSRB, the National Socialist Jurists' League. Please give a brief account to the Tribunal of your work there.
A In the National Socialist Jurists' League I only entered in the middle of 1933.
that is to say after Hitler had become Chancellor of the Reich. In the Jurists' League I did not do any work. Only in 1944, and that was in the fall of 1944, Thierack, who was the head of the Jurists' League, appointed me his deputy. That work existed only on paper, for as Thierack's deputy I did not do any individual work of my own, but I was only to deputize for him in his absence, but it never happened that I in his absence had to deal with any question of the Jurists' League and had to settle in his place. Every now and then the manager of the Jurists' League came to see me, and merely told me that he had been to see Thierack and had discussed with him one point or another.
Q Herr Klemm, what were the outward circumstances - there is trouble with the sound system. I will repeat my question.
THE PRESIDENT: The mechanical system seems to be out of order. We will recess for a few moments until such time as it may be repaired.
(A short recess was taken at 9:45 a.m.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, you were going to tell us something about your relations with the National Socialist Jurists League. Please continue.
A I wanted to supplement my account to this extent. When I was in Munich, Thierack appointed me liaison officer between himself, the head of the NSRB, and the Reich Leadership agencies of the Party as far as they were located at Munich. I am only mentioning this here to give a complete picture. I am going to refer to these matters when I come to talk about my work at the Reich Chancellery.
Q You have described to the Tribunal your outward relations with the Party. I would now ask you to tell the Tribunal about your inner relations to National Socialism in brief.