Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Mr. Altmeyer, we discussed the 361 cases and the fact that in 191 cases sentence was commuted. I believe you said that only in unusual cases clemency was granted, or would you like to modify the statement you have made in your affidavit concerning this point?
A In my opinion one has to consider the total number of sentences, not only those that were considered doubtful, because the so-called clear cases, if one deducts these, a number of 161 is left. That is very little, isn't it?
Q We don't have to discuss that figure in detail. I come now to your own reports to the Minister, and as I have told you already, I didn't quote all page numbers because that would take too much time. Oh 32 days you reported, and on these 32 days you reported 786 death sentences. Is that possible? Could that be right?
A I suggested death sentences? I reported in the matter of clemency.
Q In what sense did you report?
A That depends. As far as clear cases were concerned, the rejection of clemency was proposed. In doubtful cases and in some clear cases a suggestion was made for clemency to be granted.
Q I asked you that according to the lists, 786 clear cases were reported by you, 786 clear cases. Can that be correct?
A I assume so, if they were on a list.
Q We have furthermore found out that of these 786 cases which you reported, 92 were designated as doubtful cases. Can that figure be correct?
A That may be.
Q Now I ask you, Mr. Altmeyer, as for the 92 doubtful cases, can you remember that you were in favor of execution, but that somebody else who was present was against execution?
A Whether I remember that? I didn't quite understand what you said.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Whether you can remember that you, in reporting the doubtful cases, were for the execution but somebody else among the gentlemen present was against it.
A That varied. In a doubtful case the referent may have been for execution, his assistant for clemency, the Ministerial Counsellor for execution, the Under-Secretary for clemency, and that sequence could be different. That was the reason why several individuals had to deal with it. That was what led to the difference in suggestions. Normally there was unanimity among the assistants or referents, uniformity of opinion, that is.
Q Now I ask you whether you remember personally that you suggested execution once and another one, your assistant or the Under-Secretary, was against the execution.
A Yes, of course. Those things happened. Yes, of course.
Q You mean cases where you said, yes, that there were differences of opinion?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we understood the question and the answer. Let's pass along to something else. He made that perfectly clear.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q I should like to put to you Page 79 of the lists, the report lists. Would you please look at it. Would you please tell the Tribunal whether your name appears on that page?
A Page 79, yes.
Q And how many cases did you report?
A Six cases.
Q Were those clear cases or doubtful cases?
A They were clear cases.
Q Thank you. Please look at Page 92 now.
THE PRESIDENT: Doesn't the record show whether the cases were clear or doubtful on the face of the document?
DR. SCHILF: No, Mr. President. It is not to be seen from the document itself that they were clear cases. That word is omitted.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: In many instances it was there.
THE WITNESS: No, I only speak of Page 79, and as I can sec, that is omitted from the entire report list, apparently by mistake, because neither in the case of my report nor in the case of the report of other gentlemen a distinction was made between clear and doubtful cases, at least on this list of reports.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q May that mean that on that day only clear cases were reported?
A Well, that is one possibility.
Q Will you please look at Page 92 now?
A 92, yes.
Q We have seen that before. How many cases did you submit there as clear cases?
A That I don't know any longer. I couldn't tell that now after more than a year, after two years, whether I submitted them as clear cases.
Q But it says clear, doesn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is unnecessary to ask him what appears in the document. The Tribunal has examined that document and will do so again.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Now may I ask you to look at Page 123, that is the English pages 141 to 142. How many clear cases did you submit in that case?
THE PRESIDENT: Does the record show? Does the document show that?
DR. SCHILF: No, in that case, in this document there is a special condition and about that special condition I should like to ask the witness. The document shows 11 clear cases, but, and would you please explain to the Tribunal, now Figure 10? It says, "Clemency for Bartels, 8 years in a penitentiary." That case, "Clemency for Bartels, 8 years in a penitentiary", did you submit that case as a clear case?
A No. Since two years have passed, on the basis of this document alone I cannot tell. There may be various circumstances connected with that.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is that you don't know, is it not? You say you don't know.
THE WITNESS: I say I can't answer that question because there are various possibilities.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand. Make your answer brief.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q It says here, "Bartels clemency, 8 years penitentiary", and on the top where we see the figures 1 to 11 it says, "(b) Clear." Does that mean that you have submitted all these cases as clear cases?
A No, I mentioned before that in the course of the report of these so-called clear cases, suggestions may have lead to it and did lead to it that clemency was granted; that at least it was tried to be achieved at clemency.
Q Does that mean that here clemency was granted in a clear case?
A That I don't know. It says here under 10, "Clemency, 8 years penitentiary."
Q Does that mean clemency was granted or that it wasn't?
AAccording to the contents of this document, yes, if that has that meaning.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q That is all I ask you. That is all I wanted to know.
A Yes, if that is the meaning of this notation. It may have another meaning. It may, if-I may be permitted to point that out, also mean that a case of that nature had already been reported on before; for instance, one has asked for the approval of the Gauleiter or that the Chancellery of the Fuehrer-
Q Mr. Altmeyer, my question was very simple. I only want to know whether in this case of Bartels, clemency was granted or whether it wasn't?
A I can only say that it says here in the document after the name Bartels, "Eight years penitentiary; clemency granted."
Q And what does that mean?
A It means that here clemency was considered.
Q Now may I ask you to look at Page 127, but you have to go back to 126 first, and on 126 you will find your name--on the bottom of Page 126.
A Yes.
Q Then there are figures which pass on to the next page, figures 1 to 121. Would yon please look at Figure 13.
A It says postpone.
Q I ask you concerning the case Demarest, did you submit that as a clear case?
A I don't know. There again there may be various circumstances connected with it. That it is listed here as a clear case doesn't mean a thing in this connection, counsel.
Q Would you please go back to Page 111 now. There the name Demarest appears again. Here under "(a) Doubtful, Figure 4," will you please tell the Tribunal what that number means?
A Yes. It says here: No. 4, the name, and 10 years penitentiary.
Q Here it says 12 years.
A Yes, 12 years penitentiary. And on the report list of the 5th of April, and the other one was-
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Page 127.
A The 29th of February, and from that we can see that at that time An February the case was to be reviewed again, and that later, on the 5th of April, the decision was made that 13 years penitentiary was being considered.
Q I think you are mistaken.
A Yes. Twelve years penitentiary should be the sentence.
Q All right. May I ask you now to look at your affidavit again. On Page 3, about the last third of the page; after you stated what your opinion was of the practice of clemency of Thierack, you stated, "Klemm's practice was the same as that of Thierack's." Now I ask you how many times did you report to Under-Secretary Klemm at that time?
A We reported to Under-Secretary Klemm once each month.
Q In matters of death sentences?
A In matters of death sentences. To a certain extent he was only competent for reports on clear cases and the doubtful cases were decided by the Minister. But I am convinced that that was once a month.
Q That is to say, Klemm alone?
A Yes, without the Minister.
Q Mr. Altmeyer, then of course I have to ask you, if you believe that you have to maintain that assertion to go through the lists once more with me. Mr. President, I am awfully sorry, but the statement which the witness has just made is clearly to be refuted on the basis of these lists.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the refutation appear on the face of the lists?
DR. SCHILF: I don't know whether it can be seen from the lists alone. Possibly the witness will say that the lists are not complete.
THE WITNESS: I can only repeat, counsel, that according to my recollection we certainly reported once a month to Klemm on death sentences. There may have been a month when that did not happen, but then of course the next month there would have been two reports. At least the effect would be that one report would come to one month.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Would you please look at Page 79, and then two pages before that, Page 77. The heading.
A 79 and 77?
Q Yes, 77 first.
A I have here only 77, "Reports to the Under-Secretary. Wednesday, the 21st June."
Q Yes. Then I should like to ask you to look at Page 92.
A 92?
Q Yes. There you will find your name. Was that a report to the Under-Secretary or the Minister?
A I don't know. That can't be seen from the document.
Q Would you look at the previous page, Page 91? please. The heading.
A Page 91, yes. The number of department reports?
Q No, only the heading.
A Yes, the heading: "The report to the Under-Secretary on Wednesday the 31st May." From that we can see that on the 31st May the reports were made to Under-Secretary Klemm. From the document itself, that cannot be seen, only from the date. Well, 92 does not shew anything concerning the fact that that was reported to Klemm, but in connection with 91 it is probable.
Q All other lists are reports to the Minister then? Are you surprised?
A Pardon?
Q All other lists are reports to the Minister?
A Yes, but that does not change anything about the fact that frequently we were instructed that the reports which were to be made to the Minister would be made to the Under-Secretary. When that list was made, the person who wrote the list did not know whether the report was to be made to the Minister or the Under-Secretary. Normally it was to be made to the Minister; therefore, normally the heading on the docu Court No. III, Case No. 3.ment would be "to the Minister."
Q Would you then, please, look at sheet No. 6. That is a report of the 17th of January 1944.
A Page 6, "Report to the Under-Secretary on Wednesday, the 17th January."
Q All right. May I ask you then, you mean to say where it says here on the lists, "Report to the Minister," there is the possibility that that report was made to the Under-Secretary?
A Yes, yes, that possibility exists quite well.
Q The possibility? Now I have to ask you to refer back to your affidavit. You listed four individual cases here and you said, "Definite cases where Klemm made a decision: of those, I remember the following:" And then you list individual cases. I understood you to say before that doubtful cases were decided only by the Minister.
A No, no.
Q How was that?
A I have stated that it frequently occurred that the Under-Secretary took care only of clear gases and the Minister of doubtful cases. But it also happened that the Under-Secretary took care of both, the clear ones as well as the doubtful ones. That is what I said.
Q In these four cases which you mention in your affidavit, according to your recollection were these clear cases or doubtful cases?
A: They were both clear and doubtful cases. I should like to say the first ones were doubtful and the two others were at least designated as clear cases. I cannot say for sure, however, what was designated clear or doubtful.
Q: Well then, when you mentioned these four cases in your affidavit, did you write down that purely from memory; or, when you wrote that affidavit were any files submitted to you by the gentlemen from the Prosecution?
A: No, I remembered these cases very well, and, if I may mention, What it was that refreshed my memory in four cases because-
Q: That is not necessary. I only asked you whether the files were submitted to you and you said no.
A: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be permitted to explain if he desires.
Q: You are to explain in What way your memory was refreshed concerning these four cases.
A: The first case was particularly significant. I recall it well because about two years previously we had a parallel case before Under-Secretary Schlegelberger. At that time it was also an attack on a hospital train which lead to looting, that is looting of the hospital train; and Under--Secretary Schlegelberger approached Meissner to try to get a clemancy decision. Meissner answered -- I think it was orally or by telephone -- that it was impossible, it was quite impossible at a time like that to grant clemancy because Hitler shortly before that in an especially drastic case had ordered the transfer of individuals, who in his opinion were sentenced too leniently, to the police in cases which were of less importance than these cases of looting of hospital trains; that is a very clear recollection I had.
And that case was submitted to Under-Secretary Klemm also by referring to the previous decision by Under-Secretary Schlegelberger.
Q: You said you could no longer remember whether these four cases were clear or doubtful. Do you remember now that that might have been a clear case?
A: A clear case, no. We discussed it and finally the decision which he made was that the execution had to take place. He mentioned particularly -- that previous convictions made clemency impossible.
Q: Were you in favor of clemency?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember that clearly?
A: Yes, I remember that clearly.
Q: The second case is a so-called looting case.
A: The second case, that is the matter of the case of Charlottenburg. I cannot say with certainty it was that case of the pump or whether it was another case which we knew very well, which was an example for looting cases; a cast-iron stove was one case and the other one was the question of a pump. The one case was submitted to Thierack; he made the decision that the execution would take place. The other case was submitted to Klemm and he decided that the convict had to be executed. The previous case, whether it was the case of the cast iron stove or the pump, was also submitted to him and he had an opportunity to compare the two.
Q: Mr. Altmeyer, concerning the looting case, do you remember the Judges Letters?
A: The Judges' Letters? Yes.
Q: In one Judge's Letter, No. 17, of the 1st April, 1944, only cases of looting are discussed.
For the benefit of the Tribunal, I want to say it is Exhibit 86, NG-321. Do you remember that Judge's Letter which dealt only with cases of looting?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you also remember the opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice in these cases?
A: Well, that was the decision of the Reich Minister; that decision was for execution.
Q: I am speaking now of the Judges' Letter; you said you remembered them.
A: Yes.
Q: Also the one dealing with cases of looting?
A: Yes.
Q: And now I ask you if you also remember the opinion voiced in that Judge's Letter?
A: The opinion expressed in that particular case?
A number of cases were listed in these Judge's Letters.
Q: Yes. Do you remember what opinion was established by the Minister of Justice in these Judge's Letters. I want to help you by putting the document to you. That is the Judge's Letter on page 104 in the German book; that is the opinion, the position of the Reich Minister of Justice. My question was as to whether the clemency case with regard to the pump was in accordance with the Judge's Letters -and the opinion of the Minister of Justice expressed there?
A: It was not only the question of the value of the object which was important, but the personality, the character of the person who had to be sentenced and all the circumstances of the act. Consequently, the value is not the decisive factor.
Q: Mr. Altmeyer. I come to the next point. You have stated that in these four cases, of which you say two may have been clear cases, if I understood you correctly -
A: Yes. Cases marked as clear, but cases in which I suggested clemency.
Q: That, of course, I don't understand.
A: Well, there were quite a number of clear cases where a difference of opinion was possible; and, during the discussions one may have come to make a statement which may not quite have been in accord once with the final decision; and, in the meantime one had changed one's opinion of the case.
Q: But Mr. Altmeyer, you told the Tribunal before the recess that the referent dictated the lists, and also put on that list what he wanted to submit as clear cases. You were that referent.
A: Yes.
Q: You have submitted these cases as clear cases, or let's say these cases were entered on the list as clear cases.
A: Yes.
Q: But now you say although you yourself put these cases as clear cases on the list, that then during the report some of these cases may not have been described as clear by you.
A: Counsel, I have explained that on the occasion of these reports, opinions might be changed, that is it might be possible to gain a different opinion.
Q: Who -- you, yourself or others?
A: Both myself and others.
Q: Herr Altmeyer, I come to the next point. You say in your affidavit on page five, near the top, "in cases where sentences concerned Poles, Thierack assumed a very severe position, which Klemm shared."
I want to put to you a document and to ask you to comment on it specifically to say whether you can still maintain that opinion of yours which you have put down here. May it please the Tribunal, this is Exhibit 356, NG-126, in Document Book V-B, on page 147 in the German book. It is a letter by the Reich Minister of Justice to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, that is Lammers; the date is the 26th May, 1942; it is signed by the then Under-Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger in charge of affairs. The subject is: "Transfer of the right to clemency concerning Poles and Jews"; and the contents are the following: "I am sending you enclosed a copy of my decree for your information of the 28th May, 1942, by which I, in agreement with the Minister and Chief of the Presidial Chancellery, have transferred the right to clemancy concerning sentences of the regular courts in the incorporated eastern territories on Poles and Jews to the Reichsstatthalter and chief presidents of these territories for the duration of the war."
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I object for the reason that the document read, on its face, includes only the right to pass on clemency pleas of Poles in the eastern territories. Thereby, on its face, while it may be within the range of cross-examination, it does not preclude if the witness says he knows that Thierack had the right to pass on sentences of Poles who were sentenced within the German Reich. I object to using the document because it is not material.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal observes that the decree which was quoted relates to the eastern territories, but the witness may make his own comment upon it.
A: Well, that arrangement concerned acts committed in the incorporated eastern territories, and not those committed within the territory of the Reich. They continued, to come to us. The order transferring those cases of Jews and Poles to the police was made later.
Q: What I have read to you was in 1942.
A: Later on, on the basis of the decree concerning Poles sentences were still pronounced in the Reich.
Q: Do you happen to remember - please search your memory - whether in the year 1944 clemancy matters in cases of Poles were still reported?
A: I believe I remember that very clearly - you mentioned that question before - that clemancy in these cases was still granted, that is in the year 1944.
I believe I can remember very clearly that still the year 1944, decisions were made in the Ministry of Justice in clemency matters concerning Poles.
Q: Do you remember that such a case was submitted, reported to Klemm?
A: I remember that these cases were reported to Thierack at times when Klemm was present.
Q: I asked you whether you remember if anything was reported to Klemm?
A: I do not know.
Q: Did you ever report a case like that to him?
A: I cannot remember that.
Q: Were those non-political cases?
A: Non-political cases. Political cases were not very common within that competency.
Q: If they were non-political cases, you as referent dealt with them?
A: Yes, they were non-political cases.
Q: But, you said that you did not remember that you reported such cases?
A: I do not remember it, but I do remember that cases were reported to Thierack, cases which had been sentenced on the basis of the decree concerning Poles.
Q: All right, but you do not know anything about Klemm?
A: I cannot remember reporting to him any such cases, but he was present when the reports were made to Thierack.
Q: I ask you once more, did you report, were you the one who reported these cases?
A: I believe that I attended the reports when I was waiting for the next -- while I was waiting to present my own report, I was in the room of the Minister and that is how I heard the; that is, when cases of Poles were reported.
Q: That means that you,like Klemm were present?
A: Just as Klemm, yes, but not taking part in it -just as a listener; Klemm was taking part in it.
Q: Who wise was competent to report the-unpolitical cases of Poles?
A: Ehrhardt.
Q: Who else?
A: Non-political cases?
Q: Yes.
A: Only Ehrhardt.
Q: If I understood you correctly, you said that generally these were non-political cases, penal cases concerning which were reported?
A: Yes, violent crimes.
Q: Then, I ask you who could have been the person to make such reports?
A: It may have been general eases, not a death sentence, but a general report.
Q: And, who was the person to do that in the Ministry?
A: That, I do not know. That may have been anyone person in the Department. I know for sure that that problem was discussed and that Thierack made the decisions in the matters reported by the department in 1944.
Q: But, you said it could have been a general ease, that is, a case report not concerned with death sentences?
A: Yes, certainly, that is what I said.
Q: Now, I am coming to the last point. In your affidavit -- on the last page, you made the statement that Klemm and Thierack were close friends, that was one statement the second statement is, it was commonly known that Klemm had made Thierack Minister, since he had the confidence of Bormann.
On what actual circumstances do you base these two statements of yours?
A: The first explanation is the following: Klemm and Thierack -- they were close friends, is that one?
Q: Yes.
A: That was known to me from many sources, and nobody could seriously dispute that in my opinion.
Q: I am not asking you whether or not it can be disputed; I am asking you whether you can give us the definite facts?
A: I know it also from a friend of Klemm's who had told me that years ago, when nobody expected that Thierack would become Minister.
Q: Did you make any observations, yourself, personal observations?
A: No, I know that Klemm was the adjutant of Thierack's that he lived in his house --that as far as I know he called his "thou". One of his friends told me that. I know that he visited him frequently before he lived in Berlin.
Q: Thank you, that is sufficient. And, concerning Bormann, you said here it was generally known, it was public knowledge, if anything was generally known -- there must be facts on which you based a statement of that kind, what were these facts?
A: I was frequently told that since Klemm was in the Party Chancellery he was a confidential friend of Bormann's that statement was made to me not only from the department chiefs -- from the department chief who told me that Klemm since the time in the Party Chancellery, was completely devoted to the Party, but also the department chief of another department told me that and a number of colleagues.
Q: Will you please give me their names?
A: Ministerial Director Krohne, and also Mr. Schaefer, who discussed that matter in detail with me. I met him in Oberstdorf. Schaefer was a neighbour of Thierack's, who told me in great detail about that.
Q: Did you make any observations on your own to that effect?
A: I personally had no opportunity to do so, but everybody knew that in the office Counsel -- everybody knew there was a close friendship between Klemm and Thierack.
Q: I am speaking of Bormann now.
A: As far as I am concerned, Klemm was the confidential friend of Bormann -- that could be seen also from the fact that Klemm, after Thierack assumed office, frequently had conferences with Thierack and discussed matters of the administration of justice.
Q: Did you attend those conferences?
A: No, I know that Thierack stated frequently tomorrow or in a few days Klemm will come here and we will discuss the matter. I have seen it myself before he was in the office. I have seen him in the Ministry of Justice; I have seen him when he was with the Minister.
Q: But, from the fact that you saw him in the office you cannot conclude that he was a confidential friend of Bormann's?
A: If I am told by the Ministerial Director that Klemm, since he was in the Party Chancellery, was subject to the will of the party completely and that Klemm in the same manner as his predecessor sharper criticized the Ministry of Justice, then I have to assume that he is the closest collaborator of Bormann.
Q: All right, then, it was an assumption?
A: An assumption which was shared by a large number of people. A general assumption.
Q: Mr. Altmeyer, in conclusion, I have to put a rather delicate question to you and I ask the Tribunal to excuse me for doing it. Is it known to you that from 1935 to 1939, frequently you were characterized as a "blabbermouth" by your colleagues?
A: As what?
Q: That means, a person who carries around all matters in the Ministry just like a newspaper would.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have no object your Honor because what the members of the Ministry may have called the witness has nothing to do with his testimony or his original affidavit, and does not constitute proper cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand then, Dr. Klemm, that you do not desire to proceed further making him your own witness at this time?
DR. SCHILF: No, no, I do not have that intention.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, Dr. Schilf, I addressed you by the wrong name. Do I understand that some other Counsel desires to make this witness their own? You may do so.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor please, could I finish two questions on redirect so we can get this ended, the redirect examination of this witness before he is made. -he goes on direct examination. I only ask it because I think it makes the record a little clearer.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal prefers you to do all of your examination when the other Defense Counsel have completed their examination.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (for Rothenberger):
I ask to be permitted to examine the witness, Dr. Altmeyer.
Q: Mr. Altmeyer, I want to question you on a subject which has been connected with Dr. Rothenberger in this trial. It is the matter of executions at Ploetzensee. Are you aware of the facts in this case?
A: Yes.
Q: Could you describe to the Tribunal what the cause was for these executions in September 1943?
A: Well, on a September morning in 1943, Mr. Mettgenberg came into the office quite excited and stated that he was just coming from Minister Thierack who was very indignant and outraged because he had found out that at Ploetzensee, a large number of convicts who had been sentenced to death were still held; and, that on the occasion of an air raid which had occurred a short time before, some of these convicts had escaped. Thierack had charged him to forward an order to Dr. Rothenberger, that an immediate decision should be made concerning the clemency plea for these people who were still in Ploetzensee and to carry out executions as quickly as possible on those where clemency had been refused. Mr. Mettgenberg, then called all the competant referents together and Rothenberger received tbs reports as far as they could be made on the basis of the files available in the office. A large number of judges were still heard and a number of public prosecutors who did not belong to the Ministry, itself, but who had had connections with the cases against these indivi duals as public prosecutors or judges.