wither his own or that made for him, he was bound to his work, was he not?
A: Yes, he was not free in his decisions.
JUDGE BRAND: That is all I wanted. Thank you.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, please, when I left the prodium, my colleague handed me some material, when I said I finished. I would like to ask two questions, if I may.
Q: Do you remember receiving from a fireman in Nurnberg, named Weil, two pamphlers, one on the 22nd of December 1939 and the second on the 25th of January 1940, which ridiculed your radio remarks, and do you know that this man Weil was sentenced to death thereafter, and that you were the only person to whom he sent the pamphlets?
A: I remember that I received such pamphlets. They were less of a political, that of a personally diffamating character and had a strongly parnographic content. I heard later that the man had been sentenced to death, but not for the pamphlet he sent me but, if I remember correctly, for reasons of an espionage matter which had occurred in Luxembourg.
Q: Did you turn this pamphlet and this information over to the Gestapo?
A: Yes. That is the only pamphlet which I ever turned over to the Gestapo. It was so full of personal hatred that I turned it over and asked for an investigation, and, if possible, identification of the person who sent it to me.
Q: That was personal hatred, addressed to you?
A: I don't believe that it was just personal hatred against me, but that it was a rather general action. He did not know me personally. He had said, for instance, that at a Party rally in Nurnberg I had committed indecent things - and I have never attended a Nurnberg Party rally.
JUDGE BRAND: The time has arrived for our noon recess. We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1330 hours)
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 15 July 1947).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you.
HANS FRITZSCHE (Resumed) CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Mr. Fritzsche, you said just before noon that the letter which you received from Weil, the pamphlet, constituted sabotage and was pornographic. I want to hand you the indictment in this case and ask you to read the charges of the indictment which describe the pamphlet so that the Court may determine what there is in this pamphlet that is pornographic.
Will you please begin with Roman numeral two?
A It is stated here in the Indictment--which I am seeing here today for the first time--under Roman numeral two, that the accused, on 22 December 1939 and on 23 January-
Q Just a moment; go a little slower, please, we must interpret.
A --and on 25 January 1940, sent to Ministerial Counsellor Fritzsche in the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, in Berlin, pamphlets with malicious atrocity statements, which he allegedly compiled with the support of persons of the same mentality, who have not been discovered. By these two malicious pamphlets he wished to express his antipathy for the National Socialist Reich and his dissatisfaction with existing conditions. His accomplices were a man whose name was supposed to be Manhardt, and another man whose name was supposed to be Wilfing. The accused says that he met those two accomplices by accident, as also being persons of Marxist opinions. As opponents of National Socialism, they had agreed to take steps against the State.
For the production of the larger pamphlet, of December 1939, and which consisted of a short accompanying letter and a pamphlet with Court No. III, Case No. 3.pictures from illustrated papers pasted in it, the accused also used pictures cut out of the journal "Deutsche Polizei" (The German Police). Furthermore, pictures were cut out of "Der Stuermer". The various pictures which he had cut out were put together and were supplied with malicious captions.
In that way the accused produced an account according to which German soldiers committed atrocities during the Polish campaign. Those atrocities which had been committed by the Poles and which had been published in the German press with pictures, appear in the malicious pamphlet by pretending, on the part of the accused, that these actions had been committed by the "bloodthirsty soldiery of the Fuehrer". Pictures of the Fuehrer addressing the Old Guard are supposed to have contained the text, "Adolf Hitler, the bloodthirsty man, the mouthpiece of the murderers", and "the Fuehrer and his bandits."
The picture of an orang-utan with helmet, which the enemy had used in propaganda against Germany during the war, appears in this malicious pamphlet with the caption, "Hitler's great grandfather." Adolf Hitler's antecedents are described as feeble-minded, lunatics, drunkards, criminals, and as weaklings. Under the caption "Chaotic Conditions in Germany", it is asserted in a despicable manner that Germans suffer hunger and are crying out for bread. The substituted text contains the question: "Does Goering, with his shape of a pig, also eat only the meat of mussels?"
At another place, pictures appear which show the Fuehrer in the company of leading personalities of the State, the Party, and the Armed Forces, and a text has been chosen such as, for example: "Providence has preserved the beasts for us", and "The two chief scoundrels will only live for a little while longer." "Look at the grimaces of the two pigs."
Q Excuse me, I think perhaps it would be expeditious if I permit you to read that indictment yourself and then read to the court anything that you consider to be pornographic, as you have stated before noon, you found in this pamphlet.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A While I was reading slowly, I have already glanced at the other pages, and I find that a pamphlet is mentioned here which I do not know, and those pamphlets which I actually received are not mentioned. No word is said here about pornographic matters.
Q You don't know, I assume, that in the clemency plea the defendant alleged, through his counsel, that you were the only person to whom he sent a pamphlet? I mean, if you don't know, you don't.
A No; not only do I not know, but I also think that it is quite out of the question that that assertion should be correct because it is contrary to several things to which I am able to testify about.
Q Were these matters related to your turning this pamphlet over to the Gestapo? You know that this man was executed.
That is in Exhibit No. 238, Your Honors.
A No, no, a connection between the pamphlets which this man sent to me and the death sentence which was passed on him later was expressly denied to me.
Q Do you know how the Gestapo learned of this, other than by your report?
A I received a notification about it.
Q You had a trial and were convicted before the Spruchkammer; is that right, Mr. Fritzsche?
A Yes.
Q What was the sentence?
A The sentence of the first instance, which does not yet have legal validity, was nine years in a Labor Camp.
Q In the trial before the Spruchkammer, did you report or testify that you had turned this pamphlet that you received from Weil over to the Gestapo?
A I do not know whether this case was mentioned at all there.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Re-direct examination by Dr. Schilf.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Herr Fritzsche, I would like to follow up the last point which Mr. La Follette put to you. Those pamphlets which you received, were they also sent to other persons, as far as you know?
A. Yes, they were. During the first few months of the war I regularly every two weeks received one pamphlet from Nuremberg. The sender, who remained anonymous, accused me of all sorts of things, things which were altogether absurd and which therefore from the outset were clearly recognizable as impossible, because they referred to the fact that I had been present at a Reich party rally, and I had never attended a Reich party rally. Those pamphlets became longer until one day I received a pamphlet which, according to my estimate, consisted of 10 pages in which there appeared pornographic drawings of figures with my photograph for a head. They were photographs which had been cut out of magazines. I was indignant about those pamphlets. I received, otherwise, large numbers of pamphlets. I estimate that during the first year of the war I received 30,000; 1,000 of which, at least, were against me. Thus, I was used to find expressions of strong opposition among my mail, but I was not used to seeing that type of personal attack. When I had received the extensive last mentioned pamphlet, I remember I called on Dr. Goebbels after I had first asked him to receive me, and then I showed him these things. I told him with indignation that I would allow myself to be attacked in a political manner; that was what I was there for; but I would not allow myself to be abused in a personal way. Dr. Goebbels looked at me for a long time and said, "You beginner." He then advised me to hand over the letters to the criminal police and to ask them to try to identify the sender. I did so and I added a request to the Criminal Police to the effect that if this man were to be identified I would like to be confronted with him and be able to argue with him in person. Only a few days later I was told by an official whose name I no longer remember that, accidentally, at the moment when he found those letters addressed to me on his desk, he had spotted the same handwriting on other anonymous letters addressed to other persons. For a considerable time I heard nothing more. If I remember rightly, I made several inquiries and spoke to the official concerned who told me that probably the sender was a mental case because the thing was so absurd.
A long time later I heard that the man -- I could not remember his name, for the first time today I saw the name Wild or Wilde in this document -- that the man had been arrested in connected with an espionage affair in Luxembourg and that he had been brought before a court. I made inquiries at once as to whether I could see the man and speak to him. I wanted him to enlighten me about those matters which he had sent to me at the time. I was refused my request. I never heard anything more about his further fate, and today I have seen the indictment for the first time. In this indictment against him two pamphlets sent to me are mentioned. Those pamphlets which are purely political content.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. Apparently the attempt of the Prosecution went to nothing more than cross examination to credit and the Tribunal feels that there has been sufficient explanation in the absence of any contradiction of the witness to the testimony.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. I now would like to ask you about an entirely different point. You have heard that the President asked you whether the socalled Eastern workers, in particular the Poles, during the war here in Germany, were allowed to leave their place of work or not. Herr Fritsche, do you remember that already at the beginning of the war, and that in reference to German citizens a law was promulgated according to which every worker who intended to leave his place of work required a special permit from the authorities?
A. I did know that, and I also knew that similar laws existed in almost countries of the world during the war.
Q. I now come to my last question, Herr Fritsche. Mr. LaFollette asked you whether you received from any of the defendants here objections to propaganda doctrines. Mr. LaFollette left out of the defendants. That was Dr. Mettgenberg. Can you tell us something about that? Did Dr. Mettgenberg object?
A. Dr. Mettgenberg did not do so, either.
Q. Were you competent at all to answer objections to a propaganda doctrine on the part of the Minister?
A. I was not competent to answer objections to a propaganda doctrine of the Minister. However, very frequently objections were made to me against propaganda doctrines which I myself publicized, for I was in the eyes of the public only responsible for those things which I personally said over the radio.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I ask that the indictment and clemency plea in this case be marked for identification Prosecution's Exhibit 533 and that we be given an opportunity to prepare them as a document.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit may be marked for identification Exhibit 533.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I now offer the exhibit into evidence, subject to to right to prepare it in documentary form.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received as part of the crossexamination. 533. Call your next witness. Dr. Schilf, has the witness Altmeyer been called here before? Has he testified before?
DR. SCHILF: No, Your Honor. Your Honor, may I say this, I am only going to cross examine the witness on the subject of Exhibit 441, that is NG 1307, Document Book 1, Supplement.
THE PRESIDENT: You propose cross examination only, as we understand it. However, if the witness is produced in Court as you propose to do, following the procedure which we have before had, I assume that any defense counsel who desires to make him their witness would be privileged to do so at this time.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, may I say something else? I am going to put to the witness Altmeyer, above all, Exhibit 252. That is the extensive list consisting of 142 pages, which contain the death sentences which were submitted for decision about the clemency plea to the Minister or to Klemm, the Undersecretary.
I will have to discuss at length with the witness several points from the Exhibit 252.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: In connection with the statement which I believe you made before, Dr. Schilf, with reference to the examination of this witness page by page for some 120 pages, the Tribunal trusts that you will consolidate and group your questions and will not go to the extent of actually consuming as much time as will be required by your previous suggestion.
The Witness may be sworn.
HANS JOSEF ALTMEYER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: Will you hold up your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (for the defendant Rothenberger): Your Honor, may I put one question, please? I intend, when examining witnesses for the defendant Rothenberger, to examine Dr. Altmeyer in direct examination. I would like to know whether I am under obligation to examine Dr. Altmeyer today or whether I may call him when I have reached the personal examination of Dr. Rothenberger. I, myself, would prefer the latter solution because I could then examine Dr. Altmeyer in connection with my examination of Dr. Rothenberger. After all, he is available here quite easily, and able to come here at any time.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecute which we have already adopted will be adhered to in this instance. We expect such defense counsel as desire to make this witness their own to do so during his present period of presence in the Tribunal, so that it will not be necessary, we hope, to recall him.
DR. THIELE*FREDERSDORF: May it please the Tribunal, may I draw the attention of the Tribunal to a fact which I believe due to a misunderstanding: press correspondents have been refused permission to Court No. III, Case No. 3.attend the trial because there are not enough seats for the visit of a commission.
I think that is due to a misunderstanding. I assume the Tribunal will probably be interested in the fact that the public hears of this trial and that the press should have an opportunity to attend this trial. Not only the German press is affected by this but also the American press.
THE PRESIDENT: The question of the seating in the courtroom is a matter for the determination, subject to general review by the Tribunal, of the Marshal. The Tribunal, however, is glad to inform the Marshal that if it is possible, in view of some delegation which proposes to visit the courtroom, to also have the representatives of the press here. Those representatives are at all times welcomed by the Tribunal. We trust that it may be made possible for the representatives of the press to be here.
Proceed with the examination.
I have been advised that it has been arranged that the press may be here. Perhaps we had a tempest in the teapot.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, please tell the Court your full name, the date and place of your birth.
A Hans Josef Altmeyer. I was born on the 24th of August 1899 at Dillingen.
Q Witness, you have prepared an affidavit. That affidavit bears the date 23 April 1947. That is correct, is it not?
A Yes.
Q I now want to put questions to you referring to the details of that affidavit. First of all, a personal question which concerns your person. In the affidavit, you state that in the year of 1936 you had been appointed Landgerichtsdirector, and in 1939 you had been promoted to Ministerialrat.
A Yes.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Can you tell us whether that was a normal promotion or whether you received preferential treatment?
A That was a normal promotion. I did not receive preference.
Q Furthermore, in the affidavit you state that you were a so-called Referent on the matter of death sentences, and that you dealt with socalled unpolitical penal cases. You also state that in your department there were about 15 collaborators. I am asking you now, of those approximately 15 collaborators, were you the one who only dealt with death sentences or did you and the other Referents also deal with other matters in the Ministry?
A No, the 15 collaborators constituted more or less the entire staff of the department. They all had to deal with death sentences.
Q I ask you whether they dealt exclusively with death sentences?
A No, no.
Q You further state, concerning the nature of the reports made to the Minister or the Under-Secretary, that various people in the Ministry, collaborators, Referents, sometimes heads of sub-departments or heads of departments, made such reports. They made such reports to the Minister in the presence of the Under-Secretary; and secondly, when the Minister was absent they made such reports to the Under-Secretary alone. I am now asking you whether there was a third possibility.
A The written reports you mean?
Q No, we are now only speaking about oral reports. I suppose you still remember what you said in your affidavit?
A Yes.
Q In that affidavit, you made extensive remarks about the manner in which reports were made to the Minister.
A Yes.
Q That probably refers to oral reports.
A Yes, oral reports.
Q You say here that there were two ways of submitting such reports; one was for you to make a report to the Minister in the presence of the Court No. III, Case No. 3.Under-Secretary.
Would you please turn to Page 2. You will find the page number is given at the bottom of the page. In the middle, the sentence starts with, "Thereupon..."
A Yes, "Thereupon..."
Q Will you please read the sentence?
A "Thereupon the collaborator, the Referent, and sometimes the head of the sub-division; sometime the head of the division reported on the individual case to the Minister."
Q It says here, "In the presence of the Under-Secretary".
A "In the presence of the Under-Secretary or during the absence of the Minister, these matters were reported to the Under-Secretary, who then made a decision."
Q Was there a third possibility? I mean when the Under-Secretary, too, was absent?
A When the Minister and the Under-Secretary were both absent?
Q No, I mean what happened when the Under-Secretary was not there?
A Well, when the Under-Secretary was not there, then he was omitted.
Q What happened then? Was the report made to the Minister alone?
A Yes, then the report was made to the Minister alone.
Q That is all I wanted to know in regard to that question.
Herr Altmeyer, would you make a comparison? At the bottom of the same page you stated that after Thierack had assumed office the Gauleiters were given a voice in dealing with clemency matters. From that date, so you say, no clemency plea was made before the competent Gauleiter had given his opinion on the matter. If you will turn to the next page, you will come to the following statement of yours: "That innovation was introduced at the time when Klemm was still dealing with legal matters in the Party Chancellery, and it must be assumed that suggestion was made by the Party Chancellery, for otherwise nobody would have thought of allying yet another authority, and a Party authority at that, to deal with these matters as well."
Herr Altmeyer, with reference to the statement which I have just Court No. III, Case No. 3.read to you, I now am going to read another statement to you.
That is a document which has been introduced by the Prosecution in this trial. Afterwards, I would like to ask you to tell us whether after having heard that, you still wish to maintain the statement which you made in your affidavit.
May it please the Court, I am concerned with Document 359, NG-327, Document Book V-D. In the German text, it is on Page 155.
Herr Altmeyer, I am going to read to you now, a letter from the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, that was Lammers, of 23 October, 1942, to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack. The letter is entitled Participation of Gauleiters in clemency pleas. This is the text: "The Fuehrer has ordered that in the future in all cases where a clemency plea has been suggested, the competent Gauleiter is to be asked for his opinion as a matter of principle. For particulars, see my attached letter, etc. That enclosure is again a letter from Lammers as Chief of the Reich Chancellery, also dated 23 October, 1942; it is addressed to Herr Meisssner, the Minister of State and Chief of the Presidial Chancellery of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. This is the text: "Re Participation of Gauleiters in clemency matters. "Dear Mr. Meissner: With reference to the discussion of an individual case (Count Stuerck), the Fuehrer has ordered that in future, as a matter of principle in all cases where clemency has been suggested, the opinion of the competent Gauleiter is to be heard. The Gauleiter has to hand in his opinion in person, and has to assure personal responsibility. I am skipping a few lines a few lines and continue to quote: "I am informing of this instruction of the Fuehrer, and I am asking you to discuss details with the Reich Minister of Justice who has received a copy of this letter. A further copy has been sent by me," that is Dr. Meissner, "to the head of the Party Chancellery whom I have asked to inform the Gauleiters accordingly. Signature". Do you still wish to maintain this statement you made in your affidavit to the effect that it was the Party Chancellery who ordered the Gauleiters opinion to be obtained?
AAccording to the document which you have just read out, it appears, of course, that was not so. However it does not contradict the possibility that the idea originated at the Party Chancellery, suggested by the Stuerck case.
Q We don't want to deal with possibilities. I am asking you to tell me clearly whether after I have read out this document, you still wish to say it must be assumed that it was the Party Chancellery which suggested that the Gauleiters' participation?
Can you still maintain that assumption?
AAccording to what you have read out, no. I know nothing about that correspondence.
Q May I ask you to turn to your affidavit again. The next paragraph deals with so-called cases of robbery. I would like to give you the opportunity to glance through that paragraph. I am only referring to that one paragraph.
A Yes.
Q You say that with reference to those cases of robbery, a decision on the clemency plea was obtained by telephone too. You say that with both the Minister and with his under-secretary, that is Klemm, that had been so. Can you tell the Tribunal how this method of execution was called by in the Ministry, in your section?
A Lightening execution.
Q Can you remember whether the defendant Klemm ever accepted a telephone report about such a lightening execution?
A Those telephone conversations were accepted by the referent on duty, or by the adjutant, or by the minister, or by the under-secretary, or by the referent himself.
Q Would you talk into the microphone, Herr Altmeyer.
A Telephone calls from the general prosecutor's office were accepted either by the referent on duty, the referent himself, the adjutant of the under secretary, or the minsiter, or the under secretary in person.
Q Herr Altmeyer, I asked you whether you know whether Klemm himself ever received and himself accepted such report by a general public prosecutor.
A I would assume so for the referent on duty in many cases took those calls and then passed them on to the under secretary or the minister.
Q I am only asking you about your personal experiences. Please don't talk of assumptions; you have just said I would assume so. Please be clear and precise, and tell me whether you personally know that Klemm ever received such a personal telephone inquiry.
A I don't know. I cannot cite an individual case, counsel.
Q Thank you. I would now like to put to you another document, and I would ask you to look at it beside with your affidavit. As you have not seen the document before, I will explain you briefly what this document is concerned with. It contains so-called report lists; they are report lists from the year 1944 until the year 1945. Your name frequently appears in those lists. I don't want you to turn to every page where your name appears, but I would like you to name a few examples to the Tribunal. Please turn to page 9; you will find the pagination at the bottom of the page.
Q Is your name on page 9 as the referent who made the report? You need only glance through it to see whether your name is there.
A Yes.
Q Now, please turn to page 17. May I add that this is on page 19 in the English. Do you find your name there?
A On page 19?
Q I beg your pardon; on page 17 in the German text; 19 is the English.
A Yes.
Q Would you please tell the Court what the designation is?
A Referat Ministerialrat Altmeyer.
Q Will you please turn to page 20 in the German text.
A What number.
Q Page 20.
A Page 20.
Q Do you find your name there?
A Yes
Q Please turn to, page 22,26,29,32,35,40 -- you need only glance through them.
A Well, yes, of course, these are the report lists.
Q Those are the report lists for the year 1944.
A Yes.
Q If you were to go through them, but we are not going to do that now, you would find that your name appears on about thirty days; do you think that is correct?
A Yes, every time I made a report.
Q Do you think that the number thirty, thirty days would be about right?
A Yes, it might be right.
Q We have discussed the lightening executions, and I would now ask you to turn again to the report lists, and to open them on page 92. May it please the Court, the page in the German text is 92, in the English text it is 104 and 105.
A Page 92 in the German text?
Q Page 92 in the German text. Would you please read out to the Tribunal the very first two lines.
A The first two lines?
Q No, I mean the heading, the two lines of the heading.
A Report List for the 31st May, 1944 on Death Sentences.
Q And the next...
A General death sentences.
Q Please continue....
A Ministerial Councillor Altmeyer, clear cases.
Q Clear cases?
A Yes.
Q What does the word "clear" mean here?
A It means that the subordinate authorities, that is to say the courts, the senior prosecutor, the presiding judge, the general prosecutor, and the persons who dealt with the case of the ministry had recognized the sentence as justified.
Q You mean the death sentences?
A It means that they considered the death sentence compatible with the law.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal how many persons had to describe those cases of death sentences, that is, describe the sentences as compatible with the law? You just mentioned the names of some offices.
AAll of them, that is to say twenty-two.
Q No, you misunderstood my question. You said just now that the presiding judge, the Court itself, the Chief Public Prosecutor, and then you said those who dealt with the case in the house; what do you mean when you say, those who dealt with it in the house?
A I meant the collaborators, the referent and the ministerial director in the Ministry of Justice.
Q The four agencies outside the Ministry, and the three agencies inside the Ministry, all seven of them unanimously declared that this was a clear case?
A Yes.