The American physicians were of the opinion that the defendant Engert was not in condition presently to be examined in court, and the German physicians were of the opinion that he could be. The Tribunal is not ready to rule upon the matter at this time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The report is in the possession of the Tribunal, and in due time will be made known to counsel for both sides.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: In the meantime, Engert's counsel is responsible for the proper defense of his client.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already made that announcement and that rule continues unless and until it is modified.
HERBERT ENGERT (Resumed) CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. Mr. Klemm, you discussed rather often in your direct examination the constitutional state. I would appreciate it if you would elaborate and give a statement as to what you mean by that term, if you will, please.
A. By "constitutional state" I mean a state in which people act according to the law and according to justice.
Q. You also told us about your experiences as prosecutor and adjutant to Dr. Thierack in Saxony at the time of the Hohenstein case. However, you did not tell us about the facts that you found in that camp in 1934. I would appreciate it if you would tell us that now.
A. We received the denunciation that abuses had occurred in the concentration camp Hohenstein. Thereupon we considered it to be obvious that these criminal deeds had to be prosecuted by a court.
Q. Yes. Excuse me just a minute. I don't mean to interrupt you or to deny you the right to answer. What I am particularly interested in is, what were the facts that you found in the camp?
A. We were told that the inmates were abused and tortured in a sadistic manner.
Q. Who were the inmates of that concentration camp at that time? Were they in there because of race or because of party affiliation; or, who were inmates of concentration camps in Germany in 1934?
A. I don't know that so exactly. I know only that in Hohenstein there were as well inmates who were known as anti-Nazis. However, I also remember one, two, or three cases among those who were abused, who were old National Socialists, who were in this concentration camp, who had opposed any one line or any one political chief. I remember that only because I know that in some cases of abuse it was especially emphasized that they were old party members who had been mistreated. The majority of the inmates in Hohenstein must have been Marxists, that is, Communists, and Social Democrats.
Q. You went to the Netherlands on or about the 1st of July, 1940?
A. Yes.
Q. In your testimony here--I cannot recall the exhibit number, but you elaborated upon a description of the term "Plenipotentiary for the German Reich" as being another term or official definition of the Minister of the Interior. Did that prevail in 1940, that definition of the Minister of the Interior?
A. In connection with my activity in the Netherlands, I spoke merely about the Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands Territories. That was the Minister Seyss-Inquart. I do not recall having spoken about a Plenipotentiary of the Ministry of the Interior, or about anything in that connection. That must have been a misunderstanding, or else I misunderstood your question.
Q. Well, my question was this. You referred to and described a document--and unfortunately I can't lay my hands on it now--which was signed, "Minister, Plenipotentiary for the German Reich". And in your answer to Dr. Schilf you said, "I want to explain that means the Minister of the Interior."
Do you recall that?
A. No. I do not recall what subject you are referring to there. Is that supposed to have been in connection with my activity in the Netherlands?
Q. Oh no; it was some time later, Mr. Klemm.
A. Well then, I would like to ask you in what connection.
Q. I will have to come to it. I recall that you described a signature in that way.
Now, when you went to the Netherlands, where did you go from to the Hague? Where were you when you went to the Hague?
A. I was a soldier, and when I was with the troops I received the order to go to the Netherlands.
Q. Yes. Where were you located? That is what I want to know. Where were you with the troops?
A. At that time my troop unit was in Burgundy, near Dijon; that is, in the center of France.
Q. Did you have any feeling that you were deserting the troops in battle when you went to Holland?
A. Not at all. I had received an order that I was to be declared essential, and the troops also received the order that I was to be detailed to Holland. In other words, it was a military order that I should go to the Netherlands. Moreover, already at that time Marshal Petain had offered an armistice, and the very day after I had been sent away by my commander on the basis of that having been declared essential, the armistic was concluded. In other words, I obeyed a military order.
Q. Yes. Thank you. The shooting had an end in France and Holland when you went to the Hague?
A. About six weeks g*fore that all of the battles had been concluded already in Holland. The German civilian administration had already been established, or rather it was being established. The Germans, the people who had been detailed for the German civilian administration, had already arrived in Holland six weeks before me.
Q. Yes, and you wanted to set up a special civilian and criminal legislation for folk Germans or German nationals within Holland, is that correct?
A. Not I. The Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherlands territories did that. I did not have any authority to issue laws. I only prepared them by drawing up the drafts.
Q. Yes. You prepared the drafts, though, for him?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you said you were interested in having only legal points of view and not political points of view?
A. Yes.
Q. And in these courts which you set up, the ones that had criminal jurisdiction, they had jurisdiction over Germans, as I recall and over Dutch who had committed offenses against German interests. Would you define for me what German interests it was that you made these Dutch responsible for?
A. Outside of this group are all those matters which concerned German military interests. To that extent the jurisdiction of the "Wehrmacht was competent. Before the German civil criminal court came, for example, a Dutchman who had, been involved in a fight with a German who was not a soldier, and for example it became necessary to protect him because of bodily injuries. Then the Dutchman came before the German criminal court if the person who had been injured was a Reich German. That is just an example I want to cite.
Q. When you went to this position at the Hague were you acquainted with Article 4, Section 13, of the Hague treaty with reference to land warfare of the Hague Convention of 18 October 1907, which reads as follows:
"The authority of the legitimate power having, in fact, passed into the occupation of the occupant, the latter shall take all measures in his power to restore and insure as far as possible public order and safety while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in that country."
A. At that time I did not know the exact wording of this Article 4, but the preservation of public order and security was primarily a task of the police. As far as the Administration of Justice had to deal with that problem, I acted in accordance with that directive. I considered it obvious without having to know it in its exact wording. It was even like this, the Netherlands authorities of the Administration partly requested us to undertake the sentencing of some cases against Dutchmen , that we include them in the German jurisdiction so that the Dutch jurisdiction would not have to enter into a conflict of conscience in regard to his own countrymen, but I don't remember individual cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Klemm, what Dutch authorities asked you to do that?
THE WITNESS: That was the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, a Ministerialrat. I don't remember his name any more. I would have called him a Ministerialrat. And I discussed these matters with him frequently. We also discussed this establishment of this German civil criminal jurisdiction with Generalsecretaer Henking and his deputy, whose name was Houykas. We frequently discussed these problems, discussed about them.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Permit me to read to you from Page 16855-16856 of the mimeographed sheets of the findings of the IMT:
"There is no evidence before the Tribunal to justify the contention that the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg were invaded by Germany because their occupation had been planned by England and France. The invasion of Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg was entirely without justification. It was carried out in pursuance of policies long considered and prepared and plainly as an act of aggressive war. The resolve to invade was made without any other consideration than the advancement of the aggressive policies of Germany."
Did you know anything about the reasons for invading Holland at the time you were in the army? I think you said you fought in the west.
A. I was first in the East and later in the West. I did not have the least knowledge about the reasons. Only for about half an hour on that morning when the border to Luxembourg and Belgium was being crossed I head about it on the German radio. They read the note which had been sent, I believe, to Belgium by the German Government. Before that I neither heard anything about it nor did I hear anything about it at the moment we marched into the country except for this radio announcement, nor did I hear anything later about the reasons for it.
Q. In 1923 you were in a Free Corps organization, in the Orgesch, Escherich Organization, Schleswig-Holstein, and from 1929 to 1933 you took training in frontier defense at the infantry school of Dresden. You as a lawyer, I ask you whether or not such organizations certainly in 1923 were prohibited by German law.
A. In 23 my activity in the Free Corps Escherich consisted of the following: I was a student, and during the vacation I was in SchleswigHolstein as a tutor on a farm. On these farms -- this was during the vacation from the University, and on these estates, the farm laborers had formed so-called Red 100 Groups, Hundertschaften, and on every estate for the protection of the family in addition to the proprietor, usually the inspector of the estate, in my case the student who was present there in a capacity of a tutor, had been combined in such a manner that they should protect the family against attacks on the part of these Red groups.
This protection of the estate, I was told, was supposed to help also neighboring estates if anything should happen there. This mutual help had been organized by a man of the Escherich organization. The name of the organization was Orgesch. At that time I was in Schleswig-Holstein for two months and neither before nor after that period did I hear anything about these matters.
Q. Yes, excuse me. You also were in training in the Wehrmacht Reserve in 1936 and 1937, is that correct?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood counsel to ask the witness if he knew that some organization which was mentioned was illegal at the time. I didn't hear any answer to that question.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Well, I -
THE PRESIDENT: Did you want an answer?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would like an answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Then ask for it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought maybe this was one.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. The organization to which you belonged and this Free Corps organization and the training that you took as a pioneer in 1929 and 1930, was that prohibited by German law and by the Versailles Treaty?
A: Whether the Escherisch Organization was illegal or not, I don't know. In Bavaria, for example, the Escherisch Organization appeared quite publicly. Whether at that time German domestic authorities had forbidden it, I don't know. At least I don't recall. Up there in Schleswig-Holstein, that association of the protectors of the family estate owners on some of the large estates was kept secret. In consideration of the overwhelming superiority in numbers of the Marxist organized farm workers, in effect this up there was only a protection of the families on the individual estates. The training which I received in Dresden was a theoretical education and not a practical one.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have answered the question.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q: Now I read to you a notation in your personnel file. It says that the Minister of Interior asked for the deferment of Klemm on the grounds of a Fuehrer order and that you be sent to the Hague. When you went into the Armed Service you were still in the Ministry of Justice, were you not?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: And do you remember that the first request for your deferment was dated the first of June 1940, and that a request was then made by the Deputy of the Fuehrer's staff on the 21 of June 1940 to the Ministry of Justice that he hasten your being sent to the Hague?
A: I don't know anything at all about that. I was a soldier at the time. That I was supposed to go to Holland, I heard it for the first time due to the military order that I was supposed to be deferred and had to go to Holland.
Who caused that and what the negotiations about that were, I never knew.
Q: During the time that you were Assistant Undersecretary in Charge of Personnel, do I understand that you never were interested enough to look at your own personnel files?
A: Of course I looked at them, but at the time when I came to the Netherlands I did not know who really had initiated it, and when I came to the Netherlands I still assumed that the Ministry of Justice had suggested me for the position. Only at a much later time did I find out -- and I believe that I was already one-half to three-quarter years in the Netherlands -- that the civil service machine for the civilian authorities in the Netherlands was bandied by the Minister of Interior, as it had to be organized by the Ministry of Interior as Plenipotentiary for the Reich Administration and that I had in that manner not been suggested by the Ministry of Justice, but the Ministry of Justice had been requested to let me go.
Q: So that the Minister of the Interior who had jurisdiction over the whole German Reich then requested your appointment, and while you were there you set up a special law for folk Germans, is that correct?
A: No, not for folk Germans, but for citizens of the German Reich. They were subject to the German criminal jurisdiction. Netherland citizens were subject to it only when they had violated German interests; for example, if they had stolen something from a member of the German Reich, that is, a German citizen.
Q: I hand you Document NG-584, which is your Personnel Record. First I ask that it be identified as Prosecution's Exhibit 528.
(Personnel record offered to the defendant Klemm) I ask you to turn to the letter in there dated, the Hague, 1940, which is addressed to Dr. Guertner. I read it to you:
"I do appreciate that Klemm is an expert in criminology, as we are not to build up a new jurisdiction in the low countries nor to take over the juridical administration. Our task is the political control and guidance. A special jurisdiction is being scheduled as to criminal cases only. A respective regulation is, so to speak, nearly ready. Dr. Klemm composed that affidavit with a thorough discussion of the facts, and I think it is a good piece of work."
Now will you explain to me at least why you testified here that you were interested only in legal points of view and not political emphasis, when your superior at the Hague says that after you had been there a week he was glad you were there because your job was of a political character.
A: Yes. It says here, "I appreciate particularly that Klemm is a criminal expert because we are not supposed to establish a new jurisdiction in the Netherlands nor take over the Administration of the Netherlands' jurisdiction, but only to supervise it politically and to guide it." This happened thus, that for the Reich Germans and for Netherlanders who had violated German interests, this German criminal jurisdiction was established so that the Dutch judges would not get into conflicts among themselves. In effect, supervision and guidance of the Netherland's jurisdiction did not take place in the subsequent period. This letter, according to the letterhead, was written by the Reich Commissar himself after I had been already in the Netherlands for nine days.
Q: When you went there, all military operations had ceased. How will you explain to me what was the necessity in International Law for you to set up a special law in Holland for folk Germans?
A: A special substantial law for Germans was established, but a law of criminal procedure and a German judiciary was considered necessary, as I have already stated repeatedly, for one thing, for reasons of prestige, above all; however, in order to avoid that a Dutch judge would enter into conflicts with his conscience if he was supposed to sentence a German in a country which was occupied by the German Wehrmacht.
Q: May I read in part the finding of the IMT and ask you if these facts were true when you were there?
"As Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherlands, Seyss-Inquart was ruthless in applying terrorism to suppress all opposition to the German occupation a program which he described as annihilating his opponents. In collaboration with the local higher SS and police, he was involved in the shooting of hostages for offenses against the occupation authorities and sending to concentration camps all suspected opponents of occupation policies including priests and agitators. Many of the Dutch police were forced to participate in these programs by threats of reprisals against their families. The Dutch courts were also forced to participate in this program, but when they indicated their reluctance to give sentences of imprisonment because so many prisoners were in fact killed, a greater emphasis was placed on the use of summary police courts."
What do you have to say to that in view of the fact that you set up these German courts?
JUDGE HARDING: On what page is that?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honors, that is Pages 17053 and 17054 of the mimeographed edition of the IMT finding.
THE WITNESS: At that time until 16 March 1941 I was after all in the Netherlands. I never heard anything about these occurrences which are described here. Neither on the military nor on the civilian side did I at that time ever hear anything about the shooting of hostages or the other matters which are described here. These must all be occurrences and facts which happened after the time I was in Holland.
At the time I was there, the German administration of justice did not have to concern itself with things of that kind.
Q. Now, you described in some length your experiences at the party chancellery, and I think you said that Bormann had a very low opinion of the people on the so-called justice side of the party chancellery headquarters. Is it a fact, from your testimony today, that it was Bormann who requested you to be sent to the party chancellery -- or rather, your testimony on the first day you testified.
A. When I was transferred to Munich, the party chancellery did not exist yet at all, but rather it was the staff of the deputy of the fuehrer, and the chief of staff of the deputy of the fuehrer was Hess. Bormann was chief of staff at the Fuehrer Headquarters. Klopfer was the only one who knew me -- and that from my student days -- and he as chief of department III was the one who succeeded me. Whether Klopfer ever discussed this with Bormann or with Hess, I don't know. In any case, I first met Bormann and Bormann met me after I had already been in Munich for some time when Bormann happened to come once to Munich from the Fuehrer's Headquarters.
Q. I am returning a minute now to the time you were in the Reich Ministry of Justice. You discussed Exhibit 376, which is NG767, in Book V-D; this is dated 21 January, 1939, and is headed Leitmeritz. The subject is application of the law for the protection of German blood and German honor in the Sudetan German territories. You said that it was in your opinion by accident that this was actually sent to you, and I want to ask you in view of the fact that there are on the fifth page of that document, dated 24 February, or rather, circulation of the ordinance which you say was circulated somewhat later, but there are some forty names, and after your name there, Klemm 21/8. Why didn't you sign just once along with the other some forty or fifty names in the party chancellery, rather than sign where it is written "the consultants for political and internal penal cases in the Sudetan territories, further to chief public prose cutor Klemm," if you handled no racial matters at all?
A. That is exactly the same that I have already stated. I cannot recall at all that at that time I was supposed to receive this special order where on page 4 it says "further to Klemm and von Schroeter," but particularly within the scope of this list on which there are forty to fifty names -- there I signed together with the others; that was the circulation within the entire division; it was shown to all those who worked there, and within the scope of this circulation I co-signed as everyone else in the division. That happened very frequently, namely, that rather than make the effort to ferret out singly those who had to deal with these matters, the, offices circulated such memoranda in the entire division. It is also apparent from the dates which are on this list, behind the remarks that they have seen it, after the other peoples' names, that this memorandum was circulated day by day, from one to the other within the entire division until everybody had seen it, and without consideration of the fact whether the individual was competent for it or not. I could name quite a number of colleagues who were not competent for this work, and in spite of that, signed this circular memorandum.
Q. May we return to this Hague matter again. I think you have before you your personnel file. On the 13th of March, 1941, on the stationary of the Reich Commissar there is a letter signed by you which states "at the request of the Reich leader Bormann, the Reich Commissioner for the occupied territories has agreed to transfer the undersigned to the deputy of the fuehrer's staff, effective 17 March, 1941." Will you explain, if Bormann had never heard of you, how you yourself write that it was Bormann who asked to have you transferred?
A. According to this letter I did not ask at all that I should be transferred, but the letter read as follows: On the request of Reichleader Bormann, the Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherland territories agreed that the undersigned should on the 17th of March, 1941 be transferred to the staff of the deputy of the fuehrer.
At that time it was as follows: Klopfer had suggested me to Bormann as to the chief of staff, and Bormann, the chief of staff of the deputy fuehrer, wrote to Seyss Inquart. There is a second point. The staff of the deputy fuehrer at that time probably had got in touch with Seyss Inquart who was in the Netherlands, but not with my competent home office, - that is the Reich Ministry of Justice; therefore, I on my own reported immediately when Inquart informed me that I would have to go to Munich, and when I asked him whether my home office, that is the Ministry of Justice knew about it, and when Seyss Inquart said they did not, I immediately sat down and addressed this letter to my home office in order to inform them.
Q. Yes, but it was the Minister of Interior that requested you to go to Holland, and Bormann who requested you to come to the deputy fuehrer's office. That is true, and I don't believe we need a long explanation on that.
A. Not the Minister of Interior in his capacity as Minister of Interior, but the Minister of Interior as Plenipotentiary General for the Reich Administration. He organized civil service for the civil authorities in the Netherlands. I don't understand the meaning of your question.
Q. Well, you write on your own stationary that Bormann asked that you be transferred to the party chancellery; that is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes.
A. Because that is what I was told -- that he as the chief of staff of the deputy of the fuehrer wrote it; that was his task as chief of staff.
Q. Now, on Monday, Mr. Klemm, you discussed with Dr. Schilf Exhibit 456, NG-326, which is dated June 12th, 1937, at the time that you were in the Reich Ministry of Justice, and have consistently testified that you had nothing to do with matters involving race, or Jewish or Polish questions.
This is in V, supplement, on page 7. You say Dr. Schilf said it is a decree by Heydrich, as Chief of the Reich Security Main Office; and, you say you did not know anything of that. That decree is from 1937 Heydrich's decree, as can be seen from the directions in the lower left-hand corner, exclusively addressed, directed to the Offices of the Police. I think that there has been some mistake in discussing this document. You state that it is marked "cancelled 28/8/38" and the whole decree, of course, is not marked "cancelled"; it is the provision "for secrecy" which is marked "cancelled." I am going to hand you this original and ask you whether or not that is not your signature?
A Yes, but this is a different copy of this document then the one which was introduced as Exhibit 456. According to that document book I do not have it here at the moment, it had a file note there of "II-A"; according to this photostat the file note is III-A, the one that is on this copy. Moreover, I did not speak about cancellations, but I believe that Dr. Schilf made those statements. I did not speak about this cancellation.
A Yes, I think Dr. Schilf said, "may I point out that Exhibit 456, on the right side bears a note in German, "cancelled." It seems, therefore, that decree was rescinded later by Heydrich, himself. You find on examining it that your initials are beside the cancelled point, do you not?
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the original exhibit the one which is now in the possession of the witness?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, the original one is in the possession of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. KLEMM (the witness): Unfortunately I do not have that document book with me here; there must be another document because in that it said Division 2-A.
THE PRESIDENT: You may rely upon the original exhibit which is in your hands.
Q That speaks of protective custody for Jewish race despoilers. And, you said on 7th of July; "on the whole, as a general referent, I had nothing to do with these matters because police did not only commit such perpetrators in critical penal cases but also in non-political cases. Consequently, it was the task of the main general referent; however, I personally had nothing to do with these matters."
A Yes.
Q When you look at that exhibit there is some mistake somewhere is there not in what you said on Monday, and what you want to say now on that subject. Do you want to explain?
A Since I have seen this, and I must have seen it since I had my initials on it, I must also assume that I put that question mark on it. Then, after I signed it, it was forwarded to the main general referent who worked on general matters; that is the only way I can imagine it. That, after all, happened ten years ago.
Q Yes, thank you. Would you case to see this Dr. Schilf.
(The document was handed to Dr. Schilf).
Now, returning a minute to Exhibit 367, NG-767, Book IV-D, that is page 323 in the English text; that also deals with racial matters to the extent of the application of laws for the protection of blood German blood and German honor of 15 September 1935, in the Sudeten German territories; that has number 3 on it, but as we have observed, it went to you first. Did you have some special arrangements whereby you were to see racial and police matters while you were in the Ministry of Justice for the benefit of the Party?
A No, within Division 3, my activities were exclusively to work as an expert on legal matters only. My activity as a liaison leader for the SA was in that connection also applied outside of this division, or divisions in matters concerning the SA. If the referent submitted it to me, it was shown to me.
I did not work in Division 3 as a political exponent.
Q In that Exhibit 376, before we leave it, Dr. Mitschke, I believe is mentioned.
A Mitschke.
Q How long did you know Mitschke?
A I met Mitschke in the Ministry of Justice in Berlin.
Q How long did he remain in the Ministry of Justice; was he there until the end - do you remember?
A If I remember correctly, he was still in the Ministry of Justice in 1944; whether he remained there until the end, that is, 1945, I do not know.
Q Now, with reference to Exhibit 256, NG-366, about which you testified on Monday - you stated that: "I never kept the official minutes," and then you said "as for the notations which are compiled in Exhibit 256, these are notations which I made for the Department Chief, Dr. Crohne." Let me read the last paragraph on page 9 in the English book: "The Ministry concludes the discussion by indicating that it is to be the task of the presidents of the courts of appeal to see that arrests in courtrooms by the State police are avoided, and recommends for the rest to maintain the connection with the State police"; and, then, there is your signature.
A Yes, the Minister spoke the concluding words and in so doing he made the statement which is written down in telegram style.
Q Well, do you not find that the ending is in the form of the minutes of a meeting, more than what you would use if you were merely taking notes for your Minister. Would you say the Minister concluded the discussion; that is all you were doing?
A I did not understand the meaning of the question.
Q Well, if you were merely taking notes for your Minister and not notes of the general meeting, would you say "the Ministry concluded the discussion" if you were going to send the notes right over to your Minister?
A But that was not that, that transcript was not for the Minister but for the Ministerialdirector, Dr. Crohne. I could just as well have written "the Minister stated at the end after the individual, presidents of the district court of appeals and the general public prosecutors had made the statement -- the Minister declared the following," and then could have written it down.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The time has arrived for the morning recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Mr. Klemm, I think you testified that you were given considerable control over personnel matters by Minister Thierack. Where was the office of the personnel division of the Ministry located from the fall of 1943 until the fall of 1944?
A From 1931 to 1944 -
Q Sorry, that is 1943 to 1944.
A Whether in 1943 it had already been evacuated I don't know. In 1944 it had been evacuated to Leitmeritz.
Q And where is Leitmeritz?
A That is in Sudeten Land. As far as I remember, when I went to the Ministry as Under-Secretary, it had already been evacuated but I cannot say for certain.
Q Witness Miethsam was in that section, was he not?
A Yes, he was.
Q Under questioning by Dr. Schilf, Dr. Schilf asked him: "May I ask you where your Department "one" was located during the last years after it was evacuated from Berlin?" And he said, in answer, "From the fall of 1943 until October, 1944, in Leitmeritz on the Bele in Bohemia. From October 1944 until the middle of March, 1945, in Prenzlau in Uckermark." Is that approximately correct, as your memory goes?
A That may be about correct, yes.
Q In discussing Exhibit 376, NG-767, which we have previously discussed in Book V-D, Dr. Schilf says that is the statement from the Reich Ministry of Justice made to the chief of the prosecution at Leitmeritz, which at the time of that letter, January, 1939, was in the so-called Sudetengau. That is the same Leitmeritz that Dr. Miethsam was talking about, wasn't it?