Q Furthermore, the Prosecution submitted exhibit 234, this is 1549-PS, in document book IV-A, on page 1, that is a proposal for the amnesty for the so-called Volks-German, racial Germans, in the incorporated Eastern territories. Was the Party Chancellory concerned with that or did you have anything to do with that matter?
A. The staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, the predecessor of the Party Chancellery, was concerned in that matter, but at a time when I was not yet with the staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer. These letters are of 23 January and 14 March 1941. At that time the Deputy of the Fuehrer had suggested an amnesty of that kind. When the Ministry of Justice, however, in a letter of 27 March 1941, rejected that amnesty --at that time I was in the Party *ncellery for about ten days -- that suggestion, that is to say at the time when I was there, was no longer followed up.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted Exhibit 369; that is NG-424, contained in document book V--D, on page 227, in the German document book. That deals with legislation concerning Jews, and the question a rises whether you, or anybody in your group, was concerned with the drafts for these laws. That is Exhibit 369, NG-424.
A. Excuse me; first I want to make a correction. Exhibit 369, NG-424 is correspondence between the Auswaertige, the Foreign Office, and the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning the property of Jews abroad; and the Party Chancellery, or the staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, are not at all mentioned in that correspondence. You probably mean Exhibit 368, NG-300. That is about legislation concerning Jews from January 1941. That procedure -
(Dr. Schilf submitted a document to the witness)
Q. Would you please comment on both exhibits, 368 as well as 369?
A. Yes, in 369 the Party Chancellery is mentioned here also. It says here: "Attention, Oberregierungsrat Neubert." That was the man authorized to receive mail in the mail center. It is a letter from the foreign Office, Auswaertiger Amt, of 31 July 1942, and concerns the handling of Jewish property abroad and property of foreign Jews in Germany. That letter either went to Group III-A on account of its subject, or to Group III-D because it was a letter from the Foreign Office. However, one would much rather conclude that the Justice Group was concerned with Exhibit 368, NG-300. That procedure, which also occurred during a time when I was in Holland, shows that Group III-A, was competent for it and that it dealt with the matter in fact.
In the list of parties who participated, as representative of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, a man by the name of Keischauer, is listed. Oberregierungsrat Reischauer was Referent of Department III-A.
Q. In Exhibit 401, which is 4055-PS, in document book VIII-A, on page 103 of the German text, the Chief of the Party Secretariat is also mentioned. That is a file from the Reich Ministry of Justice with the designation, "Treatment of Jews", or "Total Solution of the Jewish Question". There is a letter from the Reich Minister of Justice of 5 April 1942, addressed first to the Chief of the Party Secretariat, attention Mr. Klopfer.
A. From the document itself it can be seen that the letter was addressed to the attention of Klopfer, the Chief of the Department. The letter never reached III-C, and I had never seen that letter until I saw it here as a document. It is quite possible that the Department Chief himself, or, together with III-A, dealt with that matter.
Q. Then, since you worked in the Party Chancellery, Exhibit 204 was submitted in connection with you. That is NG--151, document book III-H, on page 102, and, as far as you are concerned, page 108 of the German text. It is a proposal on the part of the Reich Minister of Justice of 3 August 1942, with the designation "Limitation of Legal Remedies in Penal Matters for Jews." On the page which I mentioned, 108, a letter is submitted which has the signature of Bormann. Next to Bormann's signature there is also the file note "III-C", that is to say, the symbol of the Justice Department.
I ask you to comment on that and to tell us whether you or your Justice group had anything to do with that matter.
A. To answer this intelligently I have to refer to the entire document submitted by the Prosecution.
The document comprises 25 pages, and that letter from Bormann is put at the end. The entire procedure, however, can be understood only if one puts these various documents in the correct chronological order, for only then can one see how this entire development can be subdivided into three phases.
On 3 August , 1942, the Ministry of Justice distributes its first draft, which is draft number 1. The letter of 13 August 1942 shows the approval of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, with supplementary suggestions. In the meantime, however, the Ministry for Propaganda, quite apparently, although there is nothing contained in this file about that, has made counter-proposals and distributed those to all offices concerned. That can be concluded from the fact that on 13 August -- that is to say, on the same day when the Ministry of the Interior first approved proposal number 1 with certain supplementary requests -- on the very same day the Ministry of Justice distributed suggestions for draft number 2, at the same time referring to suggestions made by the Ministry of Propaganda. That draft number 2 was approved on 20 August 1942 by the Food Ministry, which also stated requests for supplementation in its field, that is, in the field of civil administrative law. Then, on the 9th of September 1942, the Chief of the Party Chancellery states his approval, and in that letter also the request is expressed that the suggested draft concerning a restriction of legal remedies for Jews should be supplemented.
As for the second phase, dealing with draft number 2, there are two events to be noted: One, a certain activity of the Reich Chancellery, that is to say Lammers, who suggests to the General Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the Reich, that is, the Reich Minister of the Interior, that he should see to it that these suggestions are adjusted to meet the requirements and then submitted.
And the second is a letter from the Reichfuehrer SS of 25 August 1942, who suggests a conference regarding Draft No. 2. On 10 September 1942 the High Command of the Wehrmacht also states its approval, and that second phase of developments ends with the result that the leading part is transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of the Interior. The final conclusion of that phase is the letter from the Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the Reich, that is to say, the Ministry of the Interior to the participating supreme offices of the Reich containing Draft No. 3. Now the third and last phase of this development starts, and the procedure as submitted in documentary form by the Prosecution for more than half a year does not produce any results as far as matters developed. In the documents submitted by the Prosecution the only further development is that on 3 April 1943 the Minister of the Interior writes to the Reich Chancellery, that is to say, to Lammers and encloses a letter by Kaltenbrunner from the police of 8 March 1943 where the demand is made that the Jews should be completely removed from the administration of justice. These documents then contain only two further notations of the Reich Chancellery of 6 April 1943 and of 21 April 1943. The first notation deals with a conference between the Undersecretary Kritzinger on the part of Lammers, Reich Chancellory, Stukkart on the part of the Ministry of the Interior, and Klopfer for the Party Chancellory, the Party Secretariat. And the last notice of 21 April refers to a conference of various Undersecretaries, Staats-sekretaere, from the Reich Chancellory, Party Secretariat, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Justice, and Kaltenbrunner on the part of the police. The result of that conference is what we designate as the 13th Decree Amending the Reich Citizen Law. The Party Chancellery letter from 9 September 1942 does only refer to Draft 2 of the Ministry of Justice, that is the Draft of 13 August 1942. The problem of removing the Jews entirely from the Administration of Justice and to declare them incapable of inheriting property, that problem was not all under discussion at the time when that letter was written, and the suggestion made in that letter do not represent any change against the fundamental character of that draft.
They supplement the draft only to the legal systematic side. Inasfar as the Party Chancellery suggests that legal remedies should be included, they are suggestions of a minor weight compared to those that are already planned in the draft. According to the draft, limitations were provided to appeals and the revision, review, that is matters which are directed to the next higher resort. Whereas in the suggestion for supplementation made by the Party Chancellery legal remedies are referred to which are normally directed to the same court in the form of a reminder or a complaint. The next suggestion to limit the right of challenging a judge is the same provision which is also part of the IMT charter. This letter of 9 September 1942 I did not draft. Besides since it was issued more than one month after the letter of 13 August, other offices must have participated. Who it was in Group 30C who drafted that letter and who was the referent dealing with the matter I can no longer tell. I cannot even recall ever having seen that letter such as Borman signed it. It is quite possible that I was away on a duty trip and that my deputy signed it for me.
Q I believe, Mr. Klemm, that that is sufficient.
May it please the Tribunal, I should like to beg your pardon that for that Exhibit 204 we needed a rather detailed explanation, but we thought it necessary because that Exhibit 204 without explanation does not speak for itself. It is not meant to be a reproach to the Prosecution, but merely the fact that it is put together not in chronological order makes further explanation necessary. Therefore it seemed imperative to have it stated in detail.
A I should like to add one sentence. If one compares this letter of 9 September 1942 with the 13th decree concerning Reich citizens, one can see that there is no longer any connection between the two. The 13th Reich Citizen Decree is stated in a purely administrative form.
The Ministry of the Interior is the authority who issues provisions and of the problems mentioned in the letter of 9 September and in Draft No. 2 no mention is made at all. As for the later development, 3-C was not concerned with it.
Q Mr. Klemm, another document which was submitted is Exhibit 205, NG 283, also in Document Book 3-H on Page 114 of the German Document Book. It deals with the treatment under penal law of juveniles who were not Germans. That document was signed by you, although it deals with the juveniles of foreign race, and you explained in great detail to the Tribunal that juveniles of foreign race were a natter of so-called folkdom, Volktum, a Racial question, and would have belonged within the sphere of Department 3-A. Would you like to comment on that document?
A That letter of 7 September 1943 which I signed becomes altogether intelligible only if one regards it as an answer to a letter by the Reich Ministry of Justice to the Party Secretariat of 5 August 1943.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, that letter of 5 August 1943 is in Document Book 3-H. It has the number NG 279. The Prosecution did not submit that document as an exhibit. At the proper time I shall ask the Prosecution to put this document at my disposal so that I can submit it as an exhibit for the defendant Klemm. Since it is bound in the text and the high Tribunal may have it in Document Book 3-H, I think it is correct if I ask the witness about that document.
Q You may comment on it.
-
8 July 47 -A-17-1-ABG-Gaylord (Uiberall)
A. This is no longer a question of race or Volkstum, but these are purely legal questions as contained in that letter. The law concerning juvenile courts in the Reich had been issued and Article I of the law concerning juvenile courts in the Reich, Section 2, provides: "The law is practicable to Germans. As for people of different race, it has to be applied according to the meaning, unless it is provided that another law applies." The Reich Ministry of Justice in it's letter of the 5 August 1943 explains why according to the law concerning juvenile courts in the Reich, Poles and Jews cannot be tried on the basis of that law. That was evident on the basis of other legal regulations which had been published before the publication of the law concerning juvenile courts in the Reich. By sending that letter, merely the point of view of the Ministry of Justice in the legal question was approved on our part as to how on the basis of existing regulations juvenile Poles and Jews and gypsies compared to the law concerning juvenile courts in the Reich were to be dealt with.
Q. With your explanation, did you also refer to Exhibit 205, that was NG-283? You said that document could only be understood in connection with the document not submitted.
A. Would you repeat that, please? I didn't understand.
Q. Exhibit 205, that is NG-283, that is a document which was submitted. It has your signature.
A. Yes.
Q. Now you commented on the document which was not submitted, NG279.
A. Yes.
Q. And the explanations which you just gave us, do they refer to both documents, also to Exhibit 205?
A. They refer to both documents. Exhibit 205 is merely the legal opinion of the Ministry and the fact that the Party Chancellery has the same legal opinion on the basis of prevailing conditions.
Q. The Prosecution also submitted Exhibit 437, NG-919, Volume I Supplement, German Page 64 and following pages. The prosecution asserts that here also you acted for the Party Chancellery. In the case of this Exhibit, we are concerned with a conference dealing with the draft of a law which should simplify penal procedure. Would you kindly comment on that Exhibit 437?
A. I am indeed grateful to the prosecution that document was submitted because it reveals quite clearly how Department 111-C worked. Although this document is quite large and I spoke frequently in this conference, you will find nowhere that I made any political statements but always purely legal judicial statements. One can also see from these minutes that a dictate of the Party is quite out of the question. The minutes show: "Ministerialrat Klemm stated, he considered the solution as suggested not a very good one." It also says, "Ministerialrat Klemm states that an approval was possible-- or "he suggested"--"he asked but did not in sist--" and I could quote a large number of examples of that kind, only I do not want to tire you with them.
In particular, however, I want to refer to my statements concerning paragraph 153 of the Code of Penal Procedure. Paragraph 153 of the Code of Penal Procedure offers the possibility, in cases of minor offenses, to stop the procedure without filing an indictment. In connection with that, I suggested that the text of that provision should be kept in such terms that consideration could be taken of particularly tragic cases from the human point of view. I mentioned two examples: one that the father causes an automobile accident and that his own son would be killed in that accident; or that, for instance, a mother by negligence scalded her favorite child with hot water and it dies.
If I had spoken there from the Party point of view, I would have had to say just the opposite; that is to say, from the point of view of the Party, that any child is important for Germany and that the parents had to be punished all the more because they have lost their child for the future of Germany. I put myself on the human point of view which was quite the opposite, and I should also like to emphasize, and that can also be seen from these minutes, that the point of view of the Deputy for the Reich Protector, that is to say SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich's representative, was of the opposite point of view.
He, in the case of individual provisions, stated quite harshly, "Heydrich would never approve that."
Q. Herr Klemm, the prosecution also submitted Exhibit 75, that is NG-102, in Document Book I-C, on pages 52 and the following pages. That is the draft submitted by the Reich Ministry of Justice which provides for a right of confirmation of sentences in penal cases. That right for confirmation should rest with the Presidents of the District Court of Appeals. Did you ever write the letter of the Party Chancellery which comments on that suggestion, or did yon participate in its drafting?
A. This is a procedure which was already discussed in the witness box by Schlogelberger in great detail. It is indeed interesting how that same problem looked as seen from the point of view of the Party Chancellery, and therefore I have to explain that draft in some detail.
The Fuehrer had delivered his harsh Reichstag speech against the Administration of Justice in April 1942. He had had authority conferred upon himself according to which he could remove any judge. Herr Schlegelberger has stated here in the witness box that the draft which provided that the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal should participate in confirming sentences and similarly to the law authorities of the Armed Forces should have the right of confirmation of individual sentences and also the right for commutation--that the suggestion had been made in order to nullify the authority which the Fuehrer had conferred upon himself for the Reichstag.
When that draft reached the Party Chancery and Group III-C there was great commotion, but not against the Administration of Justice, but out of great concern for the Administration of Justice. This decree appeared to us to be a means to get from bad into worse. The draft provided, among other things, the following: Upon the motion by the general prosecutor, the president of the district court of appeals may commute a sentence after conference with two judges as advisors in open proceedings. For us, in the party chancery, this draft came as a shock because we knew the party even better than the Ministry of Justice. We imagined immediately that every Ortsgruppenleiter and every Kreisleiter and every Gauleiter immediately would approach a president of a district court of appeals or a general prosecutor and exert pressure on them whenever he disagreed with a sentence. We knew likewise that the presidents of the district court of appeals were of quite different types. There were upright men among them, but there were also some among them, though, who under those circumstances wanted to be on good terms with the local party office. I do not care to mention any names, because I don't want to appear spiteful. A further danger was contained in the fact that depending upon the varying interests of local party offices, and depending upon the leniency of the justice officials in various localities jurisdiction would have developed somewhat at variance in the different districts. And a further reason for concern was that that method seemed to represent a great danger to the self-assuredness of the judge and his professional ambition if by administrative channels the president of the district court of appeals could commute his sentences, and we considered it much more bearable if perhaps in two or three cases Hitler would make use of that power and authority -- in fact he never made use of that authority -- than that three hundred thousand judgments would fall under that regulation; and, therefore, we were against it. But from that time on the difficulties really started.
Namely, if Bormann would have thought it through and would have noticed what tremendous indirect influence could be obtained in this way by the local party offices, he might have supported that decree, because the system of the law authority and the difference in that system as it existed in the armed forces compared to the civil administration of justice would have been very great. The generals as law authorities did not permit any interference from the party offices, quite apart from the fact that there were not at all as many party offices so interested especially outside of Germany; and, therefore, in such terms as Bormann liked, on the part of the party chancery, that suggestion was rejected; in fact, however, it was done to support the Administration of Justice, to help the Administration of Justice against being subjected too much to the local party offices. The letter itself, of course, had to take into account Bormann's mentality, and, therefore, it is written in such terms.
Q. Herr Klemm, you just mentioned Hitler's speech of April, 1942, and that the suggestion on the part of the Reich Ministry of Justice was a repercussion of that speech. For completion's sake-since you were in the party chancery -- I want to ask you did the party chancery submit any material for that infamous speech by Hitler; or, were you informed in advance in anyway about that speech. May I explain briefly that that speech is Exhibit 24, NG-752, Document Book 1-A; that has been submitted against all the defendants in this case.
A. Exhibit 24. As in all speeches before the Reichstag made by Hitler, we never knew in advance what he would speak about. And I heard this speech with an admission ticket to the Reichstag, and I was so deeply shocked that after the speech I asked to be permitted to return to the armed forces again. I considered my work worthless if such speeches would be held.
Q. In this connection there is also Exhibit 27; that is NG-075, Document Book I-B; it's a memorandum from Dr. Rothenberger.
I ask you now, did he party chancery have any previous knowledge of that memorandum; was it submitted to Hitler through the party chancery and, sines it was a justice matter, through Group III-C?
A. No. As can be seen from the exhibit, through the intervention of Albert Bormann -- that is a brother of Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, chief of the chancery -- this was submitted to Hitler. We, Department III, and the Justice Group III had no advance notice of that memorandum.
Q. In this connection I want to ask you, did you personally , or your justice group within the party secretariat exert any influence to the effect that Thierack was finally in August, 1943 appointed Reich Minister of Justice?
A. I did not have any influence in that direction. I only had to do the following: One day Bormann called me on the telephone in connection with some other matters, and put the question to me -"do you happen to know Rothenberger?" That must have been during the days when Hitler read that memorandum; and we know from Bormann that he had the frequently ridiculed ambitions to be informed about everything when speaking to Hitler, and for that reason he also asked me whether I knew Rothenberger; and I told him : "Yes -- the Oberlandesgerichtspresident of the district court of appeal of Hamburg." Then I was charged with the mission to write to him quite briefly giving him the personal data on Rothenberger's career and life. For what purpose, for what reason, I did not know. That was the first time, and although it would really have been a matter for III P, that is the personnel department to compile such data, Bormann in his rather irregular way turned to me and requested -- I believe it was two or three weeks later --- such data of various well known jurists. From these names we could gather that apparently intended to appoint a new minister of justice. However, we did not know whether it was actually the position of the minister of justice or also a candidate for position as under secretary in the Ministry of Justice.
Thus, in the course of time several names were mentioned, and I had to compile these notes. I remember the following names: Froboese, president of the district court of appeals in Posen; Harmening, Ministerial Director in the food ministry; Lehmann, OKW.; Thierack of the People's Court; David, president of the district court of appeals; Leitmeritz; Weber, former minister of justice in Thuringia; and Dr. Best, who later was charged with German civil administration in Denmark.
DR. SCHILF: It seems you have sufficiently answered the question. Now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I believe it is time for the ten minute recess.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court-room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
Q Mr. Klemm we are now coming to the next exhibit which the Prosecution submitted as exhibit 65; that is the power of attorney which was given to the Reich Minister of Justice on 20 August 1942. Did the Party Chancellory or did you have any influence on this socalled justice power of attorney, administration of justice as power of attorney?
A No, I saw it for the first time and found out about it after the now Minister of Justice was appointed. The power of attorney itself was made out on the very same day on which Dr. Thierack was appointed Minister of Justice.
Q Exhibit 33 is connected with this, this is NG 341, document book I-B. This is a letter by the Chief of the Party Chancellory. It is sent from the Fuehrer's headquarters, dated 27 August 1942. It is in connection with Thierack's appointment as Minister of Justice, and with the so-called power of attorney for the administration of justice. Did you participate in the drafting of this circular letter of 27 August 1942? This letter is entitled "Reorganization of Administration of Justice"?
A Yes, I did participate in that, but I have to say something about this. Simultaneously with the possibility that a new Minister of Justice would be appointed, a crisis regarding the Leader of the Reich Legal office and Chief of the NS Lawyers League, Frank, the Governor General of Poland was created. And, we saw in it a possibility, at least for the administration of justice, to remove the dualism which existed in almost all State fields in Germany since 1933, that taken hold since 1933. No Landrat could work without having the Ereisleader interfere, and there was probably no sphere of the State in which some party organization or another did not govern it or interfere.
Frank had always tried to gain an influence into the administration of justice through the NS Lawyers League, and through the Reichs Legal Office, and the corresponding Legal Office of the Gaus and the Kreise of the NSDAP. When this crisis about Frank developed at the time, we in Group III-C, from the point of view of saving personnel and the lack of importance for the war effort suggested to him to have the Reichs Legal Office, the Gau Legal Offices, the Kreis Legal Offices, and the entire NS Lawyers League put to rest. The reasons were obvious in view of war time conditions, and from the temporary point of view, this suggestion was chosen well because Frank had come into disfavor with Himmler. And, this occasion is significant, too, in Munich, in Vienna, and in one or two other places, Frank had delivered speeches in which he spoke against the Police State and in favor of the Constitutional State, Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler had used this text of Frank's and misquoted it to Hitler. We, in Munich, heard about all this only through rumors -- I believe from a member of the Reichs Leader's Office who once came to Munich from the Fuehrers headquarters. These two incidents coincided. When the new Minister of Justice was appointed, our suggestions to put the Reich Legal Office, and the NS Lawyer's League at rest were approved only in part by Bormann, and the Reichs Legal Office was dissolved with the corresponding institutions in the Gau and in the Kreis. These two incidents were briefly incorporated into the circular letter and we in Group III-C even suggested to send such a circular letter to the Reich Leaders, Gau Leaders and Leaders of the affiliated organizations. The nucleus of the circular letter, its purpose, however, was quite another one. The real purpose is expressed in the sentence on page 2, I quote, "To this belongs, that it is avoided to have any, and every public criticism of institutions of the administration of justice, judges, and of individual court sentences." I changed the sequence of the sentence because of the translation. The circular letter then describes that whoever had a complaint against the administration of justice, anybody in the party sector, should address himself to the Party Chancellory; that is to say, III-C the legal group of which I was in charge of , would have dealt with these matters so that such complaints could be discussed with the Minister of Justice.
The Gau Leaders, in particular, had become accustomed to addressing themselves directly to Hitler. And the final sentence in regard to this is as follows; I quote: "In that manner it will be avoided that the Fuehrer is informed incorrectly and not exactly about matters of the administration of justice." The words are "incomplete" and "incorrect" and "inexact". That was the essence of the circular letter and that was what our purpose was; the avoidance of every public crisis of the administration of justice, that is what we were interested in; and secondly, in order to avoid that Hitler was informed directly, and then on the basis of a distorted or absolutely wrong presentation of facts, made some kind of a decision. Here, too, I have to add, we, of course, had to formulate that in the style and to bring reason which would cause a person like Bormann to sign it; but, the sentences which I did quote he signed.
Q. The next document which the prosecution submitted against you personally is Exhibit 357, NG-327 Document Book V-B. It concerns the interference of the Gau leaders in clemency matters. Kerr Klemm you know that Altmaier, a witness for the Prosecution, in his affidavit --that is Exhibit 441-- stated that this interference on the part of the Gau leaders in clemency cases was due to the initiative of the Party Chancellery, and in Exhibit 441 Altmaier mentions your name, too. Please explain this.
A. In regard to this measure, when death sentences were to be commuted to prison sentences, the Gau leaders were to be informed / by the Administration of Justice and were supposed to state their attitude in the matter. We in III-C heard about this Fuehrer order for the first time after it had already been issued. This can also be seen from Exhibit 359, because on 23 October 1942 Dr. Lammers writes to Thierack, "The Fuehrer has ordered that," and so on. Furthermore, Lammers writes, on this same date, to the Chief of the Presidial Kanzlei, Meissner, who was here as a witness: "On the occasion of the discussion of an individual case (Graf Stoerk), the Fuehrer has ordered," and then comes this order. At the conclusion of this letter Lammers states : "I have sent a further copy to the chief of the Party Chancellery and have asked him to inform the Gauleiters in accordance with that."
Then, in a conversation too, or perhaps it was a short note, we found out the following as to how this Fuehrer order came about. In Vienna there was a Count Stoerk, one of the leaders of the Hapsburg Legitimist movement. He had been sentenced to death for high treason. This sentence had been commuted to a prison sentence, and he had been freed of this prison sentence, or it was impossible to arrest him. In any case, this Count Stoerk was running around free in Vienna. Because of this treatment, the Gau leader of Vienna, von Schirach, addressed the Fuehrer directly and complained about it. He is supposed to have stated that this manner of handling the case strengthened the Legitimist movement in Vienna.
Thereupon Hitler is supposed to have reacted in the Allowing manner, that on account of the political results he asked that such clemency pleas would not be granted. The Justice was always supposed to ask for the attitude of the competent Gau lead r in regard to a clemency plea which he makes. What the witness Altmaier said about that in his affidavit is a false conclusion. After I have explained about these documents I don't have to go into that, I suppose.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, when I submit my document book I shall introduce an affidavit by the just-mentioned Baldur von Schirach which will clarify the matter entirely. This affidavit will prove that this was actually the way in which the witness Klemm described it just now.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Herr Klemm, the next document which the prosecution introduced is Exhibit 296, NG-324, document book VII-B. This is a letter which Thierach, as Minister, sent to you on 1 December 1942. It is addressed to you personally, not to the Party Chancellery as an office. Please describe the circumstances which brought about this letter. This letter is entitled: "Execution of death sentences against Plunderers."
A. The Gauleiter of Pommerania in Stettin, Schwede-Doburg, had written to the Party Chancellery directly, or to Bormann, and had made the suggestion that plunderers who had been sentenced would immediately be hanged on an emergency gallows on the top of the ruins of bombed out buildings. If this was not possible, the police was supposed to shoot them. He stated that the reason for his suggestion was that the Administration of Justice otherwise brought the hangman to an execution in a car, especially that it was outrageous that for such a purpose fuel, which was so scarce, would be wasted, and it would be simpler and would have a better educational effect upon the general public if the plunderers would be publicly hanged in that way.
Now, in order to avoid having death sentences executed in this irregular manner, I spoke to Dr. Thierach , to whom I showed the 1 letter first, and agreed with him that I would send this letter to him with a request for his opinion, and he would then s end an answer to me, which, in turn , would place me in the position of being able to make the suggestion to Bormann to refuse the Gauleiter Schwede-Coburg to intervene with the Fuehrer on behalf of his plan.
Document 296 contains this answer from Thierack to me, and it was refused to support the suggestion of the Gau leader Schwede-Coburg.
Q. The next document which was submitted against you is Exhibit 435 ; which is NG-889, Supplementary Volume I. This concerns an extensive transcript of 23 June 1943 signed by a certain Dr. Bergmann. This document is entitled, "Significance of Political Judgments by Party Offices in Court Proceedings."