A The police had the right in the case of transgressions to issue penal regulations. Such transgressions could be punished by fines up to 150 marks or up to six weeks' imprisonment; in many cases only up to imprisonment of a fortnight. By way of simplification and the conference was concerned for reasons of a shortage of staff and other war time reasons to simplify the administration of penal justice, and for those reasons the suggestion was made that in such minor cases a further authority, that is to say, the Administration of Justice, was not to be appealed to. But that suggestion too -- and it was no more than a suggestion -- was not maintained. That again is evident from the transcript.
Q The police were then under the jurisdiction of the Reich Minister of the Interior. Did you know that he was interested in such a proposal as you made at that meeting?
A I heard that at that conference, yes. The representatives of the Ministry of Justice told me that in their reply. The arrangement which I suggested would have been applicable for as my knowledge of those regulations at the time was concerned, that arrangement would have applied mainly in the case of traffic violations and concerned mainly motorcyclists. In fact they were matters which concerned, above all, the traffic police, the road police.
Q May I read to you what the minutes say about this? This was injected by the representatives of the Reich Ministry of Justice? and the pointed out that at present a special draft of the decree was being prepared by the Reich Ministry of the Interior which would provide for certain restrictions with regard to serving motions for judicial decisions they said they would give their consent to this decree, although reluctantly. May I ask you if the Reich Ministry of Justice opposed your suggestion and stated that they would oppose any further attempts by the Ministry of the Interior to simplify criminal procedure in this regard -- do you think that your proposals were all highly judicious and in favor of the constitutional state at this meeting? That is what I think you said.
A Oh, yes, in their full extent.
Q Thank you. This meeting took place on 21 April 1942, I believe. I think it was delayed one week. If not, it took place on 14 April. Now you discuss rather fully here Exhibit No. 75 which we have all discussed from time to time here. That is NO 102 in Document Book 1-C. That was the proposal made by Dr. Schlegelberger, following Hitler's speech of April 22, 1942 to control the handling of clemency petitions and to control a situation where, let's say just mildly the criminal judgments were not uniform, and considering the war were not sufficiently severe; is that correct?
A I assume that you are referring to the matter of the right of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal to confirm penal sentences.
Q That's right. And you said that when it reached you, you were very upset about the matter and you drafted the letter of June 10, 1992 for Bormann, which stated that the Party Chancellery could not concur in that proposal.
A I did not say that I drafted that letter. I said that it was drafted in 3-C, because at the top it bears the file note. I can no longer tell who in 3-C drafted the letter. Wthout the documents of the Party Chancellery I cannot say whether I initialed it, that is to say, whether I approved it before it was submitted to Bormann, nor do I know whether the draft which was made in 3-C was signed by Bormann in the form in which it was prepared or whether Bormann redictated the draft. That happened quite frequently, and that is what I said about the letter. But the rejection of a suggestion by the Reich Ministry of Justice, that I affirmed, because that law to me seemed to involve a great danger that the local Party agencies would exercise pressure on the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal and the Public Prosecutor, if they, that is to say these Party agencies, did not agree with a sentence.
Q Let me read some of what you said and let's see if you still want to say you had no part in drafting this letters "We likewise knew that the Presidents of the District Court of Appeals were of different types. Perhaps in two or three cases Hitler would make use of that power and authority. In fact, he never made use of that authority, "then", that 3,000 judgments would fall under that regulation -- this was the Schlegelberger regulation -- and therefore we were against it. 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 he might have supported that decree. That letter itself, of course, had to take into account Bormann's mentality and therefore it is written in such terms. Now do you want to say that Bormann wrote it or do you still want to take credit as you did on the 8th of July for drafting this clever letter in support of the constitutional state? Which is it?
A I stated that for the judiciary it would not have been so disadvantageous if, effect, in three to four cases Hitler had changed a sentence, but actually he never did so. That would have been better than having 300,000 sentences threatened with the uncertainty of later being changed through the administrative decision of the President of the District Court of Appeals. From the point of view of legal safety I would have considered the second state of affairs in practice less desirable than the first state of affairs of which one did not actually know if it would come into effect and which did, in fact, not take effect.
Q Did you write the letter or did Bormann?
A I did not write it.
Q Did Bormann write it?
A The letter was drafted in Group III-C, as I can conclude from the file note at the top of the letter - the file note III-C -- whether it is the same letter which was drafted in Group III-C and which later Bormann signed I cannot say without referring to the files from the Party Chancellery and without instituting comparisons because it happened frequently that at the Reich Leader's office at the Fuehrer's Headquarters such letters were redrafted or redictated. That is really all I can say.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, if I remember rightly you testified that III-C was the department which was under your direct supervision.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And at the time in question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, but when I was away on an official trip, a deputy signed for me.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q But I want to get back to your testimony about the letter of June 10, 1942 which you gave on Tuesday, and in which you said, "If Bormann had thought it through and would have noticed what a tremendous indirect influence could be obtained in this way by the local party offices, he might have supported that decree --"
A Perhaps -
Q Let me finish. "because the system of law authority and differences 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 Chancellery, the suggestion was rejected.
The letter itself, of course, had to take into account Bormann's mentality and therefore it is written in such terms."
Now you were referring to the letter as it at present stands in the document book. Do you want to say now that Bormann maybe changed the letter and wrote it in a style to fool himself?
A Because I am under oath here, I must make this restriction. Today, after I don't know how many -- after three or four years -- I can no longer know whether word for word that draft was made in III-C. I cannot say that under oath. Therefore I must point out that it was possible that the draft which was made in III-C could have been changed.
Q Now then in Exhibit 27, NG-075, Document Book I-B, is a memorandum from Dr. Rothenberger, and there is also in evidence, I think as part of this exhibit, a request -- an intervention by Albert Bormann to Lammers, sending to Lammers a copy of Rothehberger's thesis. That is dated June 7th -- I beg your pardon -- that is dated May 11th. Did you know about that letter when you wrote your letter of June 10th?
A My letter of June 10th? May I ask you what letter you're referring to?
Q I am referring to the one that you wrote rejecting from the Party Chancellery the Schlegelberger proposal.
A Whether I at the time that letter was written already knew of the Rothenberger memorandum?
Q That is right.
A No.
Q Did you know it had been requested by Hitler through Albert Bormann?
A That memorandum by Albert Bormann?
Q Yes. Did you know of the existence of that?
AAlbert Bormann is the brother of Martin Bormann and Martin Bormann was the Chief of the Party Chanceller, not Albert Bormann. At the Adjutant's office of Hitler, those matters were proceeding without the Party Chancellery playing any part.
If I remember correctly that memorandum came to my knowledge only a great deal later. I cannot say now whether and when Martin Bormann, the Chief of the Party Chancellery, received that memorandum. I don't remember that.
Q You testified that "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. Now the memorandum is the Rothenberger memorandum?
A Yes.
Q It's about that time.
A But I do not know what was the reason for Bormann asking me about Rothenberger.
Q Now there you testified, that (1) Frohboese, (2) Harmening, (3) Thierack, (4) David, (5) Weber, (6) Dr. Best, and (7) Rothenberger were candidates for the job of Reich Minister of Justice in June 1942 to your knowledge, is that right?
A I was asked about those persons. I was asked about dates concerning their life history, their character, and also their political history. The Reich Treasury of the Party had all the personnel documents and it was there at the Party Chancellery that we made inquiries as to when these persons had joined the Party. I was asked because I knew the people, both as regards their persons and as regards their qualifications, because I had been at the Reich Ministry of Justice. I was asked to pass on these details to Bormann. Only when those cases became more frequent cases of such inquiry, then we found out why we were asked. There were also more cases, not only the names which I have mentioned -- but I don't remember the other names -- whether the people were scrutinized for the position of Reich Minister of Justice -- we didn't know that at the time but we began to notice that evidently a plan had been made to fill the position of Minister at the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q And you did know that at the time you wrote the letter of June 10th for the Party Chancellery rejecting for the Party Chancellery the Schlegelberger proposal?
A It may have been at that time. It is possible. But I don't think it happened so early. Those things were not connected.
Q Of the seven candidates that you named, Dr. Thierack was your candidate, is that right?
A I did not have to give my views on the subject at all. All I did was: concerning every candidate whose name appeared, I had to state what I knew about him. I had to say who he was, what positions he had held, what his age was, when he had joined the Party, whether he was a Party member at all. Among the names were people who were not Party members after all. Those were the matters on which I passed information. To speak of my candidate as far as Bormann was concerned, that was not a thing one could discuss at all. Bormann allowed no interference, nor did I know exactly for what reason Bormann was instituting inquiries about these names.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question. Just tell us briefly, was your report on Thierack a favorable report or an unfavorable one in your opinion?
A I gave an account of Thierack, -
THE PRESIDENT: Can you answer my question directly?
A On the basis of my experiences I had made in Saxony and the acquaintances I made -
THE PRESIDENT: I fully understand; you told us all about that. Now, as a result of your knowledge of him, would you be willing to venture an opinion as to whether your report on Thierack was favorable to him, or unfavorable -- the report itself. You discussed his political affiliations, no doubt.
A I said that Thierack had joined the party before 1933.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. By reason of the nature of your answer, I assume that you cannot now give an opinion as to whether the report you made was favorable to him or unfavorable.
A I am sure I gave a. good account of Thierack, a good opinion; I don't remember any details, but the account as a whole that I gave of Thierack was favorable.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all I asked you. Thank you.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Thierack was appointed in August, 1943 -- 1942, I beg your pardon, and you were made liaison officer of the National Socialist Lawyers' League at the party chancery simultaneously with his taking office; is that right?
A Not simultaneously, but when he took over the direction of the Rechtswahrerbund, Thierack appointed me liaison man between the Munich offices and himself. That must have happened a little later; without referring to the document I cannot say.
Q You testified -- I withdraw that. You are in favor of the constitutional state, I know; is that right?
A Yes.
Q How does it happen that simultaneously with the opening up of this position as to be the minister of justice, Frank, who was then governor general of Poland, delivered speeches in favor of the constitutional state, and that you in Munich heard about it.
Did you consider that Frank didn't believe in the constitutional state, or was it because Himmler opposed Frank that you were no longer interested in Frank?
A I never heard those speeches nor read them. All that was said was that Frank had made several speeches in which he attacked Himmler and his police, and that thereby Frank had been discredited with Hitler. That is all we knew about at the time, and we heard no details; I never heard any speeches and I did not read them either.
Q You signed Document 541, Exhibit 35 on the 27th of August, 1942 with Bormann. This is a letter addressed to Reichleiters, Gauleiters -those are political characters, are they not -- political personalities in the Reich?
A Yes; they are official agencies of the Nazi party.
Q And Division II of the party chancery, you testified, dealt with political matters; that is correct. I wonder if you would explain how in these political matters -
A Yes.
Q -- having to do with the administration of justice, you were called upon by Bormann to sign this circular with him.
A I did not co-sign the circular, but F.D.R. means for the accuracy (Richtigkeit) the fact that my name appears under FDR is for the correctness fur die richtigkeit. It merely means that the circular is sent out in accordance with the original. If Department III wanted to pass on any information to the political leaders, only Bormann could give permission to do so. Such a suggestion could only be submitted to Bormann if Department II, which was in charge of the political agencies was in agreement. When all those formalities had been settled, when Bormann had signed the circular, it was sent out in printed form, and the department that originated the circular in the first place had to certify to its correctness by such a note -- this is to certify that the original and the printed copy were the same.
TEE PRESIDENT: Did you make these certifications of correct copy, which were purely mechanical matters, for all of the other departments as well as your - own? Were you the one who merely certified that copies were correct copies?
A Only if they had originated in Department III--C, that is to say in the legal department.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q And on 23rd October, after Thierack came in, in III-C, the party chancery, there was an Exhibit 357, Document Book V-B, that gave the gauleiters the right to interfere in party clemency matters. Recalling your objection to Schlegelberger's plan, I ask you to tell me whether or not there had been an improvement under the constitutional state of Thierack which now gives the gauleiters a direct right to interfere with clemancy pleas?
A May I ask you to explain the matter to me in a little more detail. At the moment I don't know what Exhibit 375 is; I do not know what that exhibit dealt with -- whether this is a matter of obtaining the opinion of the gauleiters in cases where a death sentence was to be commuted.
Q That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit was 357 -- not 375.
A That arrangement naturally made things more difficult for the Administration of Justice, but it was made in virtue of an order by Hitler, and did not involve a final solution, that is to say, the gauleiter could express his opinion but that did not mean that a legal decision on the matter had been made. That opinion of the gauleiter -- which was attached to the report -- simply brought it to the attention of Hitler when the report was made to Hitler. It is quite correct to say that the participation of the gauleiters made matters more difficult for the judiciary, but neither the judiciary or the party chancery brought about that participation of the gauleiters. It was brought about by Gauleiter von Schirach calling on Hitler and thus making Hitler aware of this idea, which finally caused Hitler to pass an order.
Q Yes. This followed shortly after the letter that you and Bormann sent out to the Gauleiters and kreisleiters that they were to contact the Ministry of Justice whenever they had any complaints; that is correct, isn't it -- just in time.
A In that circular we just addressed ourselves to the party agencies and had told them do not approach the Ministry of Justice hut approach the party chancery when you believe you have reason for complaints; that we would examine the matter and the files and that in that way false information is to he prevented from reaching Hitler. In fact, the very opposite was intended.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 14 July 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court-room Will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors, please, I request the Court to permit me to have Mr. Wooleyhan to conduct the cross examination with reference to exhibit 252, NG 414, that is the material in document book III-L. There will be no duplication. After Mr. Wolleyhan finished I will not address any questions to that issue, but I would appreciate if if I may be relieved temporarily.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Mr. Klemm, on Thursday morning of last week, you made several statements of which I am going to remind you. First of all with regard to the document which I have just showed you-- this compilation of lists of death sentences. You stated that throughout that document the pencilled letter "T", which as we discussed it that day stood for "Todt" or death; and, also the crosses out case numbers which as you indicated, represented the fact that each case so crossed out had been reported. Throughout the document those notations were made by you. Furthermore, you stated that that document which you hold in your hands is complete for the thirteen months of January 1944 through January 1945, except for roughly a five weeks period in August and September, when you were out of town. You then stated that your estimate of numbers of cases reported to you from those lists would necessarily increase beyond your estimate of 83, if the missing lists were added, and you had not been out of town. You then went on to say, Mr. Klemm, on that same morning last week, that of a total cf 2390 executions of death sentences, which appear as decided on those lists, that you personally decided 85 of them or as you estimated three and one half percent; and, then you said that during that same thirteen month period in which you decided three and one half percent of death sentences, the cases that were reported to you alone for decision on five days, as compared to 38 days on which cases were reported to Thierack, that leaves us with a percentage of 13.
6% of the time in which you decided cases all by yourself. Now I ask you, Mr. Klemm, accepting your figures and your estimates, and not arguing at all with your arithmetic, why is it that of all the death sentences on those lists you only decided by your estimate three and one half percent; and, yet, by your own figures, you were deciding cases all by yourself, nearly fifteen percent of the time? Why is that?
A. It is very easy to explain that. I have already stated that there are lists on which there are only individual cases, but pending penal cases, and then there are lists on which only death sentences are listed; that is, cases that have already been concluded, and that in the third place, there are lists on which individuals pending penal cases which do not enter in the death sentences are listed, and in addition to this, on the same list, death sentences, and these figures which I quoted and on the two days on which I handed down decisions, are days on which the cases which had to be reported to me were very few, especially few. There are lists included in this document on which the Minister had more than a hundred death sentences reported to him in one single day; but, there are also lists, and as it happened those lists about which I had to decide, are among those on which only twenty-one sentences are listed.
Q. Now, that is all very interesting, Mr. Klemm, particularly in view of the fact that you have such an excellent grasp of the number of cases you decided and the number of days on which they we were reported to you or to Mr. Thierack and you also remember quite clearly the days you were conveniently out of town while those cases were being recorded; which brings me to the point that you mentioned the other day, not having recognized from that document, any cases that were familiar to you with the possible exception of one or two.
I ask you now, in the document book which you have, to turn to page 74, in the German, on page 74 do you see the name Sponsel?
A. I would like to correct one thing. I did not say that I recall, but I did say with the help of the lists, I determined which death sentences I dealt with and which death sentences the Minister dealt with.
Q. Please answer more directly.
A. In regard to page 74 what are you trying to point out to me?
Q. I am not trying to point out anything, Mr. Klemm, I merely asked you if, on page 74, of that document, you saw the name Sponsel?
A. Yes, I see it here.
Q. Do you remember the case Sponsel?
A. No, I recall that the sentence was introduced here, and during this trial, but how it was reported at the time, that I cannot recall any more. This is a report list that was made to the Minister. You can see that from sheet 72.
Q. Mr. Klemm, you do remember, however, that the Sponsel case was introduced here as an exhibit, in evidence?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How, Mr.Klemm, in the same document which you have, please turn to page-
A. (Interposing) The Minister had this.
Q. be are only discussing a very narrow point, Mr. Klemm; if you find the following maned cases on certain pages of that document. How, please turn to page 40; on page 40 do you find the names Ciani and Sala?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do your remember that case?
A. No, only that it was introduced here in an affidavit.
Q. Yes, would it surprise you, upon your re-examination of that document to find a score or more of cases which have been introduced here as evidence?
A. That may be, I do not know. I only examined the list of reports which were reported to me, and in which I made decisions on those lists. I examined the names, but I did not look at 30 or 35 lists in which the Minister decided the cases.
Q. And, the basis upon which you estimated the number of cases, that you decided to arrive at your figure of 88 death sentences approved by you did you do that on the basis of names in the document, that you remember or just how did you arrive at that figure?
A. No, I arrived at that figure because from the schedules of reports I recognized which had the lists of reports, that were made to me.
Q. How do you recognize that?
A. The first, the witness Max Schaefer testified as to that. Then, for example, the list on sheet No. 77, I believe, yes, that is it; that is headed "Report to the Under-Secretary".
Q. Mr. Klemm--
A. (Interposing) The list on sheet No. 91 also is entitled "Report to the Under-Secretary."
Q. Yes, I think that is sufficient to illustrate your point.
A. (Interposing) On the other list, it also says "Report to the Minister."
Q. That is very clear, Mr. Klemm. You did say, however, on Thursday morning that these notations of yours on the death sentence lists were in the letter "T" is noted down as being decided, those notations were made by you in the same manner whether the cases were reported to you for decision oh to Thierack for decision.
Accepting your statement there, as being true, then, I take it nothing appears from your decisions and notations on those lists of a death sentence being approved along side each of the 2390 names to distinguish who made the decision, you or Thierack, if you made the notations in the some manner. They all look the same do they not?
A. Yes, of course because we received the sheets oh which the schedule of reports were listed, and in one case, I was sitting upstairs in the room of the Minister and wrote down his decision and in the other case, I was sitting in my office and had the list in front of me and in the same way I made the notations.
Q Now, Mr. Klemm, since we agree that on these death lists the notations of a decision of death lo. k about the same, whether the decision was made by you or by Thierack -- what do we have beside your statement that 85 of them all that were decided by you?
A Well, you can add that up on the basis of these lists. The other lists are expressly, first of all, headed "Reports to the Minister", or, in one or two cases, it cannot be clearly recognized; but then it can be seen from the fact that in this list of reports doubtful cases are mentioned too, and on which I did not decide.
Q Regardless of whether you or Thierack did decide, you did, however, make the same notations on the paper?
A Yes, why shouldn't I?
Q Now, you further have said, Mr. Klemm, that these lists that we are discussing only two copies were submitted by Departments III and IV to the executive level for decision: one went to you --
A No, three --
Q Just a moment, Mr. Klemm. One went to you, and one went to Thierack, and Departments III and IV kept one copy for their use.
A Yes.
Q So of the two copies of these death sentences that were sent out for executive approval you got one of them, and Thierack got the other one.
A Thierack usually received the original, and I the carbon copyor the other way around. It differed.
Q Yes, yes. Also you stated last Thursday, and you reaffirmed it today, that after you got these lists and Thierack got his copy of the same, that on those -- this is when cases were being reported to Thierack rather than to you -- that you sat with Thierack, during the consultations by the Referents or the Department heads of Divisions LLL and IV, you sai in. Now, at such joint hearings with Thierack oh the question of whether or not these death sentences should be approved, and Thierack, who at least nominally was the one being reported to, did he ever turn to you for advice or consultation on a case?
A I have already stated that in as far as smooth cases were concerned they were reported one after the other, and the Minister made his decision without discussion. There were, from time to time discussions, especially after going into doubtful cases.
Q And when these doubtful, vague and uncertain cases came up during these hearings, with you sitting in as you have described, did Thierack turn to you then and discuss matters?
A In those cases Thierack further asked one or the other or all of them -- the Referent, the Division Chief or the Under Sekretary, as to their opinion, what was their attitude toward the case. That practice varied.
Q By under Sekretary, do you mean yourself?
A Yes, I do.
Q Then your answer to my question is, I take it, yes -- he did turn to you for advice and consultation?
A Not in every case. He only wanted to have the attitude of the individual, how each of us was thinking about the case. It even happened that those Referenten who were waiting for the next reports and who were sitting more toward the back, and not directly at the desk, that is, opposite the desk, that he asked them, too. "What do you think about this case" - and then he made his decision without letting it be recognized with whom he agreed; but it also happened that he refused to accept one or the other opinion in a very rough and tactless manner.
Q So we have the situation, Mr. Klemm, that on days when you were not being reported to one cases, and, consequently, were not making the decision in your own name, that you sat in with Thierack when cases were being reported to him, and that, at least in some cases, you were asked for your official advice.
.. is that correct?
A Of course, there were such cases.
Q Now, Mr. Klemm, on the afternoon of the 10th of July, last Thursday, you were discussing with your counsel the Bonus case. You described the court prevailed that that case went through and, to your mind, the obvious injustice of it, and how you could not conceive of a death sentence being justified in that case, but that the Gauleiter interfered, Hitler interfered, the case was tried over again a second time, and finally after the second trial Thierack decided, after reading a letter from the Gauleiter Sturtz, that there was just no way out of imposing a death sentence in that case and he marked the case for execution, and when you saw the letter from the Gauleiter together with the notation for execution from Thierack which came to you, that you went to Thierack and told him that a death sentence was impossible in that case. Taking up from that point I will read to you briefly a couple of sentences of what you s aid last Thursday. I am reading now from page 4992 of the English transcript:
"When the letter came to me on the Bonus case with Thierack's note on it I went to Thierack and told him that was impossible because after he had once taken the view that eight years' penitentiary was a suitable punishment in that case he could not now consider the death sentence suitable. Thierack said to me that he had though t the matter over. He could not see that his view that the sentence should be commuted had been wrong. There was no point in reporting to Hitler on the case because Hitler would only sustain Gauleiter Sturtz's view. He, Thierack could no longer with a clear conscience suggest that the death sentence should be commuted."
And then you finish, Mr. Klemm, by saying that:
"It was impossible for me, therefore, to persuade Thierack to adhere to his former view."
Now, all that went on with regard to the Bonus case, Mr. Klemm, and there was a great deal of pulling and halting or not that defendant should be sentenced to death, wasn't there; you did, as you describe here, do your best to try to get that sentence commuted didn't you?
A Bonus had been sentenced to death. The only question was whether a clemency plea should be granted or not, and the only thing I could do in this case - whatever I could do in the case I did. I tried to persuade Thierack to report to the Fuehrer and to suggest that clemency be granted.
Q Mr. Klemm, why did you get so interested in trying to commute Bonus's death sentence?
A I considered it to be an obvious justice that if the Minister once said, "I want to commute this death sentence into a penitentiary sentence" -- that then he would adhere to this point of view. That was my opinion.
Q But Bonus was, in fact, executed - was he not?
A I cannot recall that any more.
Q What would be your official presumption, then, if Bonus's clemency plea finally went out of the Ministry of Justice officially marked "For Execution"? Would you presume that tho man was executed?
A That depends upon the time when this was issued. If this happened during the last month or weeks before the surrender then it is possible, if it was announced then, that he was not executed. I cannot remember that for sure any more, when it happened.
Q In any event, Mr. Klemm, Hitler, Gauleiter Sturtz on one side, you and Dr, Thierack on the other side, were at one time in extreme disagreement as to whether or not Bonus should be executed, were you not, and later Thierack changed his mind despite anything you could do. That is pretty correct, isn't it?
A Yes, it is. I could not do anything else.