I approached the case Schaefer first from my point of view, that is as seen from the point of view of the SA. I described to the Chief of Staff Lutze that it was incompatible with the reputation of the SA that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against an official, and that as far as the SA was concerned nothing would be done against that man. Thus I could only prepare the ground for an interview of Ministerialdirector Krohne and Ministerialdirigent Marx with Chief of Staff Lutze. Then in the course of the investigations against Schaefer, the whole case did not look as difficult any longer than it appeared in the beginning. Later, of course, I had to encounter bitter attacks from the SA. One of the Adjutants of the Chief of Staff, who was known as a particularly ruthless individual, even threatened me that I, myself, one day would end up before the disciplinary court before the SA. My best protection in that case was the Chief of Staff Lutze himself, who rather agreed with my trend of thought.
Another particularly tragic case occurred in SchleswigHolstein. There was a doctor who up to 1933 had sacrificed his entire fortune forturn for the SA. He was charged with commercial abortion. He was a doctor, as I said. The local SA officers questioned the Chief of Staff Lutze to see to it that the proceedings against the doctor be quashed on account of his former merits. In repeated conferences and with the greatest effort I finally achieved that the SA did no longer intervene for that man. When the main trial approached -- before that I had told the Chief of Staff Lutze that I expected that a sentence would be pronounced of about six to eight years penitentiary.
When the day of the trial came, the man finally was acquitted. But it was found later that the judges had been outvoted by the associate lay judges and that in bad faith on the part of the lay judges. In that stage, after the man had been acquitted, again I was attacked violently, and that only ceased when against the acquittal the Ministry of Justice ordered a revision which repealed the first sentence, and after in a second trial the man had been sentenced to six years in the penitentiary.
Here again locally interested SA offices demanded that I intervene; that a revision of the first verdict should not be carried out. I refused to intervent, and thus the trial ended according to the provisions of the law. Those are examples of the activity I had during the time.
Q As a liaison fuehrer with the SA, between the SA and the Ministry of Justice, did you also intervene in clemency cases for individual SA men? You just described two cases, two matters where you intervened for the principle of law against two SA men. Now, I ask you whether you intervened in the interest of other SA men, that is the SA within the Ministry of Justice.
A On the whole this is the way it happened: By decree it was stipulated that the SA should be informed by the justice authorities whenever a SA man had been sentenced by the Administration of Justice.
In the course of time, and that had already developed in about 1936. the SA reacted vehemently upon such informations, and by way of its own disciplinary jurisdiction expelled people who had received such sentences. That was first of all the case in the cases of dishonorable offenses -- theft, fraud; whereas, such things as traffic violations were not reacted upon, nor were simply negligant offenses; but, on the other hand, it did happen that on the basis of the old comradeship the SA also took care of the dependents, the wives and the children of a man although he had been expelled and was in prison. Then I was frequently asked whether a clemency plea for one or the other had any chances. Then I stated my opinion in the interest of the SA and stated, for instance, this would not be the right time to file a clemency plea; in accordance with the general principles in the Ministry of Justice it seems to be too early; the man has to serve a certain portion of the sentence first, which would be a longer period than the one he has served up to now. Or, I might have said in this case you would have some chances; such applications, however, would then no longer go through me, but through the chancellory of the fuehrer, which was under Reichsleiter Bouhler.
There was a party directive providing that applications from the party and its organizations, should be dealt with by the party chancellery of the fuehrer, that is Reichsleiter Bouhler; and that to be done in individual penal cases. But I also worked with the SA legal office, the supreme SA legal office, and together with them composed the draft for a directive of the Supreme SA Leadership for the handling of clemency matters by the SA. That directive provided, first of all, that in considering all elements of comradeship one still had to keep in mind and to consider how and to what extent it was compatible with the principles of the SA to intervene for a man who had been sentenced.
Q Herr Klemm, the Prosecution's Exhibit 466, that is NG-610, in Volume I Supplement, contains personnel files of the Ministry of Justice and also concerns your promotion in 1939, and the suggestion is made that you should be promoted from senior prosecutor to Ministerialrat. The suggestion is also justified by the reasons which are given as follows: There is one sentence on page 3 of the German Text, about the middle of the page, which I want to read. It says under Figure 2: "Senior Prosecutor Klemm is a member of the party since the 1st of January, 1931; he is Standartenfuehrer in the SA; and SA liaison fuehrer of the Supreme SA Leadership to the Reich Ministry of Justice. As such be gained great merits."
Mr. Klemm, will you please speak about this briefly.
A If in a suggestion for promotion the Reich Ministry of Justice makes that statement, that proves that I took care of the interests of the Administration of Justice against the SA.
Q Will you also comment on the fact whether that may have been a determining factor for your promotion.
A I don't think so, and that because my promotion from Oberrat to Ministerialrat actually came after five years. There were party members who three years after they had become Oberrat became Ministerialrat.
Q That is sufficient, Mr. Klemm, Thus we have finished our discussion of the subject of the SA liaison fuehrer. There were no further documents submitted by the prosecution concerning that point, Now, we come to the second phase, that is the time of your activity in the Netherlands; the indictment mentioned that activity, and I ask you to describe to the Tribunal how these events occurred -- in succession.
A When I received the order to go to the Netherlands, I was in France as a soldier, I was transferred to my home station, discharged from the Armed Forces and on the 1st of July, 1940, I assumed my position in The Hague in the Netherlands. When the German Civil Administration had been established about five weeks before, it was faced with the fact that in the occupied Netherlands there were fifty to sixty thousand German nationals who lived there. At that time one even mentioned the figure of one hundred nine thousand to me. The Wehrmacht had refused, for lack of manpower, to assume jurisdiction in penal matters over these German nationals, and the Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherland territories was forced to establish a jurisdiction for these German nationals, and to establish that penal jurisdiction was my first and uppermost task. The second task was to establish liaison between the Dutch Administration of Justice and the Reich Commissar Seyss-Inquart. The Dutch Administration of Justice in the field of penal jurisdiction, as well as in the civil field, continued without disturbance -- with one single exception: When I arrived at The Hague, all civil cases had been arrested where a German had appeared as a plaintiff or as the accused.
Court,3, Case 3 I immediately saw to it that the Dutch Administration of Justice was permitted to continue these cases without any supervision or guidance from the German Civilian Administration.
The penal administration of justice which I established in the German sector and which was competent, first, for all Germans who were not members of the armed forces, and, secondly, for all Dutchmen who had infringed German interests, unless they had to be put before military courts, before court martial.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take the regular morning recess of fifteen minutes.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court-room will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
Q: You may continue Mr. Klemm.
A: During this activity I had to deal a great deal with the General Secretary of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice. He repeatedly informed me that for the judges in the Netherlands, it would mean facilitation if those Dutch nationals would be sentenced by a German court who had committed crimes against German interests; by these means the Dutch judges would be saved many conflicts of conscience.
Q: An interim question. Would you tell the Tribunal the name of the Secretary General of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice?
A: The name was Secretary General Tenking, who during the course of 1941 resigned, and immediately after the German troops had evacuated the Netherlands in 1945, returned to his position as Secretary General in the Netherlands Ministry of Justice. In 1945 he resigned -- I meant to say in 1941, approximately I believe actually during the same week when I was transferred from the Hague to Munich. The German penal administration of justice which I built up in the Netherlands was an especially gratifying task. It pleased me to show the Dutch people, too, how the German administration of justice worked. And, I was supported extensively in these efforts by the Reich Commissar Seyss-Inquart. Very careful attention was paid to it that German defendants would not be treated any differently than Dutch defendants. As far as I remember during the time when I was at the Hague, the German courts did not pronounce a single death sentence. For the prosecution as well as the courts in the Netherlands, I appointed as my assistants only people whom I knew personally; I did not accept any single suggestion which was made to me by party offices.
The presiding judge of the German Landgericht, district court, District Court Director Dr. Thierbach, was not a party member. I was interested in having only legal points of view, and not political points of view emphasized. Due to the outbreak of war between the Netherlands and Germany all of the treaties between the two states were rescinded. Difficult situations arose and conflicts, especially in the field of civil law. I was to it that the Ministry of Justice in Berlin, and the Reich Commissar for the occupied Dutch territory issued orders which had the same contents, so that a short time afterwards, again legal remedies in civil cases between the Netherlands and Germany were possible. The cooperation between the Netherlands offices of the Administration of justice was absolutely loyal and without conflict.
Q: Mr. Klemm, we can now leave this field. The Prosecution did not submit any further documents in regard to our activities in the Netherlands. As I have already stated your activities there were only pointed out in the indictment. We come now to the third phase of your activity, namely, your activity in the Party Chancellory in Munich. I ask you, first of all, how did it happen that you came into the Party Chancellory at all? Please also tell the exact dates to the Tribunal, first.
A: I began my activities in Munich on 17 March 1941. At that time the Party Chancellory did not exist at all. At that time there was only the staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, and that was Reich Minister Hess. Reichs letter Bormann, who had the position of Chief of Staff was not in Munich at all, but since the beginning of the war, in the Fuehrer's Headquarters, in the immediate proximity of the Fuehrer.
And that remained the same way during the entire course of the war. From the Party Chancellory I knew the Chief of Department III, that is Under-Secretary Klopfer. I have known him since 1924 or 1925; that is from my student days. We had not seen each other at all for one or two years, and had not written to each other. We met by chance in Berlin in January 1941 in front of the Reich Chancellory, on the occasion of the funeral of the Reich Minister of Justice Guertner. I had come for this funeral from the Hague and Klopfer happened to be in Berlin. At that time Klopfer had just been given Department III in the Staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, and he asked me whether I would like to work in his department, and to take over the group in charge of the administration of justice. That group consisted at that time of two or three people, and there was no group leader because he was employed in other matters.
Q: I believe that is sufficient to describe the cause A: (Interposing) I said at the time to Klopfer that I kiled it very much at the Hague; that I had an independent position there.
I was able to work independently, but during the war things were not done in accordance with the personal wishes of a person; that I would work whereover I was assigned to work. I never heard anything about it again until one day Seyss-Inquart called me to him and told me that he had a lengthy correspondence with the Party Chancellory, that the Chancellory had asked for me, that he had fought against this, but in the end had to give in after all. And he had agreed to the Chief of Staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer to put me at his disposal and, therefore, he instructed me to start my service in Munich four days or a week later.
That is how I entered the Staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer at the time.
Q: Before we now turn to your activities in detail in the Party Chancellory, it seems to be necessary to tell the Tribunal the most important facts about the organizational structure of the Party Chancellory or the Staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer. You know that the Party Chancellory has a bad reputation. We want to tell the Tribunal first the outside organizational structure.
A. The staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer had that name until the middle of May 1941, until the time when Reich Minister Hess-that is, the Deputy of the Fuehrer--secretly flew to England, At that time the staff was transformed into the Party Chancellery, and for the sake of simplicity I shall only use the name "Party Chancellery" from now on.
The Party Chancellery was an organization with, in my estimation, from 750 to 1,000 persons; there was one office in Munich and one and one in Berlin. The Party Chancellery was divided into three divisions, and these divisions were again subdivided into groups:
Division I, which is of no interest here, was in charge of management, building, and maintenance; and in that division the personnel of the Party Chancellery itself was administered. Furthermore, the registry was there, and the telegraph and teletype system.
The nucleus of the Party Chancellery as a Party office was Division II, the Party Political Division. Here was the actual leadership of the Party, that is, the NSDAP, and here was the direct channel to the Gaue, the Kreise (Districts) and the local groups. A certain Friedrichs was in charge of this Division.
Division III was the state or constitutional division, as it was called; the later Undersecretary, Dr. Klopfer, was in charge of it. Here everything was dealt with which had to do with the State and the State functions of the Party Chancellery, while, as I have already stated, purely Party matters were dealt with in Division II.
Q. Would you please explain to the Tribunal the contrast between this office, the Party Chancellery, and the purely Party offices of the NSDAP?
A. In addition to the Party Chancellery, the Party had different offices on the level of the Reich Leadership, for instance, to cite an example, the Reich Legal Office, the Office for Agricultural Policy, and the Office for Public Welfare. Thus, there were a number of different agencies.
Party jurisdiction went through up to the supreme Party court. It also was divided into Gau and Kreis courts. In addition to that, there were also, of course, some other Reich offices, such as the office for Reich Propaganda Matters and Reich Organizational direction, and so on.
Within the Party Chancellery, in addition to these three divisions, there was also the so-called Reichsleiter Bureau, Reich Leader Office, That was so to speak, the staff closest formerly around Reich Minister Hess and, later on, around Reichsleiter Bormann. This Reich Leader Office Bureau, which at times had up to three jurists on its staff, met partly in Munich and partly in Berlin, in the office there, and partly at the Fuehrer Headquarters immediately with Bormann.
Q. You spoke of Division III as the state or constitutional division. I ask you whether it was anchored on a legal basis.
A. If I speak of a state or constitutional division, I give it this designation because of the nature of the work of that Division. Division III was, so to speak, the counterpart of the state organization in the Party sector. Division III was divided into seven groups. I shall describe this organization somewhat later.
In accordance with the law for the securing of unity of Party and State, the Deputy of the Fuehrer had been made a Reich Minister. Supplementary decrees and orders laid down that the Deputy of the Fuehrer, in the case of national laws and ordinances, had to participate, by having to approve the drafts of such decrees. This right was then transferred to the leader of the Party Chancellery, and, in a more stringent form--as the witness Schlegelberger has already testified-quite clearly in a circular, or perhaps in an ordinance it was repeatedly stated that the leader of the Party Chancellory always had the position of a participating minister. In the same way as in the purely legislative field, the Deputy of the Fuehrer entered into state personnel matters. No higher official could be employed or promoted if this measure in the state sector was not approved by the Deputy of the Fuehrer and later by the leader of the Party Chancellery.
In order to fulfil these state and constitutional functions, Division III had been formed in the Party Chancellery, or rather earlier, in the staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer. As I have already stated, it consisted of seven groups:
Group III-A, above all, dealt with the sphere of the Reich Ministry of tho Interior and questions of nationality (Voekstum). During the last period of my time in Munich, the witness Anker was in charge of Group III, who was examined here as a witness for the prosecution.
In Group III-B, all economic matters were dealt with: economics, food, traffic, mails, and armaments.
Group III-C, the group of which I was in charge, dealt with laws and orders as far as they had been issued by the Ministry of Justice, and Party legal questions.
Group III-D worked on educational and ecclesiastical questions, as well as matters of the Foreign Office.
Group III-E dealt with financial questions, and Group III-P (Paula) dealt with personnel matters; that is, all state personnel matters, without consideration of the fact as to whether they originated from the Indiciary, the Administration, Finance, or anywhere else.
Then there was a group, III-S, which had special tasks in the cultural field.
Q. You mentioned Group III-P, which dealt with all of the state personnel matters. The prosecution has submitted documents in which, in the case of promotion of three defendants who are present here, the Party Chancellery was mentioned in the files. This is Exhibit 408, NG-599, document book IX-A, page 46 in the German book; and Exhibit 410, NG-587, in the same document book, IX-A, at page 84 and following pages in the German book.
In order to explain to the Court the position of your own legal group -- that is, III-C--it seems necessary to me to clarify, by means of these two exhibits whether your legal group participated in these personnel matters.
May I ask you, do you have Exhibit 408 before you?
A. No.
Q. Exhibit 498 on Page 11 contains a letter of 18 December 1940, current nr.6; at that time Deputy of the Fuehrer Stab. It concerns Landgerichtsrat Rudolph Oeschey in Numberg. On he letterhead one can see what department composed this letter. Munich, Brown House, and now comes the decisive file note, 3-P. In Exhibit 410 there is also a remark on Page 13 at the bottom current nr. 96 NG 587, a letter this time by the leader of the Party Chancellery because it was written at a layer time, namely 12 May 1943. It concerns the appointment of Ministerial Councillor Dr. Joel in the Reich ministry of Justice as General Public Prosecutor. Here, too, you can see from the letter hear that the file note 3-P is mentioned. Mr. Klemm, by means of these two documents would you please tell the Tribunal which were introduced in connection with your case, as to how personnel matters were handled, in respect of employees of the Ministry of Justice?
A. From this file note 3-P it is appaent, even though in both cases Justice officials are concerned, that these matters were not handled in 3-C. Such questions and such approvals or refusals were not even submitted to the legal division for information. The individual groups were not asked about these personnel questions. The personnel division in the Party Chancellery 3-P worked entirely independently. It was pure coincidence when by chance one spoke with one of the experts of 3-P during lunch that one happened to hear that the general public prosecutor's office at such and such a place, would be filled, but this was only on the occasion of a luncheon conversation without finding out details.
Q. Witness, you have now listed the individual groups, seven, as you stated. I now ask you to make a statement as to how the individual groups of the Party Chancellery were in contact with each other or how they worked together.
A. In my description I omit Division I, because it only dealt with technical matters of the management of the office, administrative details within the Party Chancellery. I can limit myself to the relationship of Division 2, that is the purely Party political division, and Division 3. These two divisions worked not with each other but against each other. Already this structure was quite arbitrary and unorganized. For example there were fields of work which had the same name in both divisions. In the course of time Division 2 arrogated this to itself. This battle between the two divisions was not based only on purely factual reasons in the fields of work but also had other, deeper reasons. In Division 3 officials were working who had almost exclusively been detainled by their ministries for such work. In Division 2 only political leaders were working whole-time who, for the most part, looked down upon the jurists with contempt. The word "jurist" was a kind of epithet, and they saw in the people of Division 3 only civil servants and deputies of the ministries. They did not concede that we did any political work at all, and especially not work of a party political nature. They did not acknowledge us a political leaders at all. We in Division 3 were only a necessary evil in the Party Chancellery; that is how they saw things, because without the experts they could not get along. This disrespoct--I cannot call it anything else -this disrespect on the part of Division 2 was especially strengthened by the attitude of Bormann toward Division 3. He had approximately the same attitude. The result was that between Division 2 and 3 there was a constant malicious fight for competency. Division 2 constantly tried to arrogate to itself matters which could have something remotely to do with Party matters. These attempts took place also when state matters were predominantly or exclusively concerned. That is, if the effects would take place in the state sector.
This situation was favored by the unbelievable conditions that existed in the registry. This registry had been built up by laymen. In 1933 Germany had several million unemployed and an effort was made to find a place for these people and again give them an opportunity to make a living. The result was that people were put in such positions only to find a place for then, people, who had no idea about an organizational structure. In this registry former street car conductors and violinists were employed, only not people who knew anything about it. Therefore the entries were constantly directed to wrong places and then the other division did not let them go out. Whether a letter went to Division 2 or Division 3 or directly to Borman was in many cases just a question of luck.
Q. I wanted to ask you also, in Division 3 was there also a financially worse position compared with the people in Division 2?
A. We were paid the same way as we were paid when we were in the employ of the state, while the political leaders, the Main Office political leaders had their own salary scale and I do not want to repeat here, I can refer to what the witness Anker stated who explained that a political leader of Division 2 in the same position as Anker got about double the amount of salary than an official.
Q. I want to demonstrate to the Tribunal the borderline of competency between Divisions 2 and 3. I have here a document which the Prosecution believed they could bring into some kind of connection with your case. It is Ext. 108, NG 364, Document Book 1-E, Page 51, in the German Document Book. This is the infamous letter about the lynching of Allied Airmen who had baled out. The letterhead is the NSDAP, Party Chancellery. Further, the leader of the Party Chancellery and the place from which it was sent is the Fuehrer Headquarters. The date is 30 May 1944.
A.- Even though this is a circular from the Party Chancellery at a time at which I had been out of the Party Chancellery already for five months, I do know that such circular letters in principle were not submitted by Division II to Division III when they were in a draft form or *** cooperation, even if the police, the Wehrmacht and the Administration of Justice and their spheres of work were discussed in it.
Q.- The letter is signed by Bormann. In the same document, that is Exhibit 108, there is contained another letter which also has the date 30 May 1944. It is addressed to all Gau Leaders and Kreis Leaders, and refers to Bormann's circular letter. It is signed by Friedrichs. Is Friedrichs the Chief?
A.- Friedrichs is the Chief of Department II.
Q.- Before, when you were speaking about the registry and the delivery of letters, you mentioned that many letters went directly to Bormann, to the Fuehrer Headquarters. Thus these letters did not go to Munich to the divisions that had been established there. Was there any standard in regard to the distribution of these letters, to whom they were to be sent?
A.- If personal letters to Bormann in his position as Reichsleiter or as Secretary of the Fuehrer were received by a Minister or a Reichsleiter or a Gauleiter or any other prominent person in the service of the State or the Party, these letters went always first to Bormann in the Fuehrer Headquarters. Other letters went quite frequently first to Bormann. It depended entirely on who of the people I described before who did not have the requisite training, at the registry and the mail got such a letter into his hands and how he forwarded it. Of course, efforts were made to make as few mistakes as possible which would arouse Bormann's. The result was that as much as possible was sent to Bormann so that the reproach could not be made that he had been skipped.
Q.- Perhaps we can clarify this by means of an example. The prosecution introduced Exhibit 143, that is NG-558, Document Book 1-B. This is a personal letter which Thierack wrote to Bormann, dated 13 October 1942.
In this letter the information is passed on that in the extermination of Jews and Poles the Administration of Justice wanted to give a helping hand, In the form in which it is submitted, this letter is addressed personally by Thierack to Bormann. I am asking you whether this letter went via your Department III-C, that is the legal division, or whether Bormann later sent it to your legal division and thus informed you about it?
A.- Whether this letter was sent to Bormann too by Thierack, I don't know. It did not come to Munich to Group III-C. I personally saw this letter for the first time here when the document was submitted.
Q.- We have another document here, that is Exhibit 70, NG-280, Document Book I-C, page 19 in the German book. It is a letter which Lammers, who was then Chief of the Reich Chancellery, sent to Bormann. It is a complaint about an inadequate sentence regarding a Pole. This document contains several letters. We are here concerned with the third letter with the address: To Reichsleiter Bormann. I ask you to also make a statement in regard to this whether the legal group or you personally had this letter, as shown to you, put at your disposal.
A.- This letter came to Bormann personally, and in the same way as the preceding letter from Lammers to Bormann which was written by him personally. Department III-C was not informed about this correspondence: Bormann-Lammers. I have to add something here. Bormann had, after all, two functions. He was leader of the Party Chancellery and he was Secretary to the Fuehrer. He stayed almost exclusively in the Fuehrer Headquarters. It was often difficult to find out whether Bormann acted as Leader of the Party Chancellery or as Secretary of the Fuehrer. In a case like the one here, Exhibit 70, certainly the Fuehrer exercized critism and to that extent Bormann then acted as the Fuehrer's secretary. He then referred the matter to the State sector via Lammers. In addition an exterior circumstance must be considered between the Fuehrer Head quarters and the Party Chancellery in Munich, there were thousands of kilometers.
For some time the Fuehrer Headquarters was in Winnitsa in the Ukraine. In the immediate proximity of the Fuehrer Headquarters were the Field Headquarters of Lammers, that is, of the Reich Chancellory. For purely technical reasons the mail went immediately back and forth between the Fuehrer Headquarters and Lammers' Field Headquarters.
Q.- Another interim question, Mr. Klemm. You characterized Bormann in two capacities; one, as Leader of the Party Chancellery; and secondly, as Secretary of the Fuehrer. This letter which I am just showing to you however contains the designation: Reichsleiter Bormann. Was that a third capacity in which Bormann worked?
A.- In contrast to other Reichsleiters, as far as I know, Bormann became Reichsleiter more in title only. Goebbels, for example, was a Reichsleiter too because he was in charge of the Reich Propaganda Office. In spite of that, he was also Reichsleiter Goebbels, the Gauleader of Berlin. At the very moment in which Bormann became Leader of the Party Chancellery and in addition Secretary of the Fuehrer, the concept Reichsleiter did not signify a special office or a special function any more.
Q. That is enough. Since you have described the geographical and technical conditions in which the correspondence went as a rule, I now want to ask you in principle did you at all receive information about that correspondence which went to Bormann to the Fuehrer Headquarters or which went from Bormann from the Fuehrer Headquarters or which went from Bormann from the Fuehrer Headquarters to other State offices or Party functionaries?
A.- That depended. There were several possibilities. Either Bormann answered such letters immediately himself, or those parts of the Reich Leader's Office which were also in the Fuehrer Headquarters dealt with them. I have already mentioned that sometimes up to three jurists belonged to the Reich Leader office who advised Bormann.