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.
Q: May I interrupt you here. Would you please tell the Tribunal for what reason and in what cases these judges and prosecutors who were not normally in the building were called in?
A. They were called because Roghenberger in a number of cases on the basis of knowledge of the reports of the referent could not quite decide , but stated that he would like to get the personal impression, and opinion of this judge, or of the prosecutor themselves. That is to say, the judges and the public prosecutor who took part in the proceedings.
Q. Will you please describe these negotiations in the presence of judges, about the general character of these negotiations we have already heard. Could you be brief in that connection and just tell us whether all the people concerned made statements, and what point of views were important?
A. The conference started briefly after ten in the morning, if I remember rightly. I myself only attended these conferences until the afternoon, because I was concerned with only twelve or thirteen cases. As I was told by colleagues, the conference lasted till late in the evening, and into the next day. The conference on the first day when I attended was held in Rothenberger's office, or on the terrace, where he asked also the gentlemen who had come from out of town to attend. The referent reported the sentence to him. Rothenberger interpolated questions, the Department Chief gave his opinion, and Rothenberger after further questions had been put to him, made the decision.
Q. Were these cases discussed objectively, and was an opportunity given to everybody concerned to make a statement?
A. Yes, that, of course, that certainly.
Q. You said that the conference lasted the first day from a bout ten o'clock in the morning until late in the evening. Do you happen to know anything about the length of the conference of the next day?
A. I believe the second day it also lasted until evening, because I met one of the gentlemen when I left the office in the evening who came over directly, or indirectly from Rothenberger's.
Q. Then I should like to ask you, do you happen to know whether clemency was granted by Dr. Rothenberger and to what extent?
A. That I could only say in connection with cases which I reported There were a few cases where clemency was gran ed.
Q. Only the usual scale?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your impression of the way Rothenberger dealt with these cases from the human point of view? Did you have that impression that he handled it in a routine sort of a manner, or did you have the impression that he was moved himself by these cases, and took a human interest in these matters?
A. I always had the impression that that case really moved him, because he had nothing to do normally with penal cases. He was a man of civil law.
Q. In conclusion I should like to put to you a case which was extremely tragic, and painful, concerning four erroneous executions that took place along with the other executions. Is it known to you that without any order these erroneous executions took place?
A. I heard on one of the subsequent days that due to an error on the part of an official of the prison, several people were executed, although the decision was not yet available, but after that had become known, Thierack decided the cases , that is, the clemency cases.
Q. Did Dr. Rothenberger have anything to do with the orders for executions?
A. No, he had nothing to do with the orders for executions.
Q. Can you remember that also in these cases Thierack himself was concerned with the orders for execution, that is, he gave the orders and he made sure he was informed continuously?
A. Yes, that he did, yes.
Q. And also in this case?
A. Yes, I believe in this case, also.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, I have no further questions.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF. Dr. Thiele-Fredersdorf for the defendant Joel. If the Tribunal please, I should like to put a few questions to the witness Altmeyer. I do not know whether the Tribunal wants me to begin with these questions today, because it is soon time for a recess, or whether I should postpone it until tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll use up our ten minutes.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
Q. Dr. Altmeyer, in the course of your examination you have told us that in the penal department there were about fifteen to twenty referents. How many officials in the higher civil service were altogether concerned with penal matters in the Ministry of Justice?
A. About fifty. Fifty. Sixty.
Q. Thank you. What was the organizational structure in your department, that is, the department for individual penal questions.
A. There was the assistant, the referent, the sub-department chief, the department chief, the Under-Secretary, and the Minister.
Q. The defendant Dr. Joel belonged to the same department that you did , the same division?
A. Yes.
Q. What was Dr. Joel's grade?
A. Joel was a referent.
Q. He was also a referent?
A. Yes, he was a referent.
Q. He was a referent, such as you were, and his superiors were the -- sub-department chiefs and department chiefs?
A. Yes, department chiefs and sub-department chiefs.
Q. That applied in principle to all referents, and their tasks. Do you remember that Dr. Joel was assigned to several tasks in which he was not subordinate to the sub-department chief?
A. You mean he was subordinate immediately to the department chief?
That could have been at the time of the central prosecution.
Q. Yes, that is what I mean. As for the central prosecution, he was immediately under the department chief?
A. Yes, under the department chief immediately.
Q. And the same applies to some other field. Do you remember what field that was? I am thinking of the liaison activity to RSHA, to the Police Department?
A. I don't know whether he had a superior in that capacity as a liaison man to the police. That I could not tell you.
Q. Dr. Joel came to the Ministry of Justice in 1933. Did he at that time, as later in the central prosecution, did he have to struggle against opposition on the part of the Party?
A. Concerning the central prosecution?
Q. Excuse me, I mean before the central prosecution was established. Do you remember that before that time or at that time that he was frequently forced to struggle against the opposition of the Party in cases of prosecution of Party members , and SA men who had to be prosecuted?
A. I remember that Joel occasionally mentioned a political row or fight which had undertaken to straighten out. That was 1933. Shortly after he had come into the Ministry, and before the central prosecution was established, but I don't remember any longer in detail.
Q. Can you tell us what in effect was the field of the central prosecution which was established soon after?
A. Sofar as I remember, the central prosecution was established in 1933, in order to reveal corruption in detail, corruption before 1933; to prosecute those responsible, but very soon one found out that that corruption extended beyond 1933, and then the central prosecution was intended to clear that up. That was one of its tasks; and then it had to deal with the preparation of some political laws. The name of these laws I think is, "Law for the Protection of Nation and State."
That was within the scope of the work of the central prosecution. Then it was used in the case of opposition on the part of prominent Party people against prosecution and to take suitable steps to break that opposition. That was the so-called patronage (Patenschaft).
Q. Would you briefly explain that patronage? What was it?
A. That expression was coined in cases where important or influential individuals in the Party tried to prevent a prosecution of people who had committed crimes, or in the case of clemency pleas, tried to prevent that the convicted person had to serve his sentence, or to get it reduced.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q What prominent individuals in the Party, for example, were those who intervened in these cases?
A So far as clemency matters were concerned, the Chancellery of the Fuehrer became very active, with its so-called Office for Clemency Matters.
Q And can you still remember what Party officials-
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Will you postpone the balance of your examination until morning?
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: Yes, sir. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: We have here an application by Dr. Grube in behalf of the defendant Lautz for permission for the defendant Lautz to be absent from the courtroom on Thursday, the 17th of July, 1947. The Tribunal has no objection, and gives permission under these circumstances to the defendant Lautz to be absent at his own request on that day. We do think that it should be pointed out to counsel that these absences are to be avoided wherever possible, and that as the case of other defendants may come up many days from now, it should probably be unnecessary for the defendants to absent themselves in view of the long period of time which may intervene before they are themselves upon the witness stand.
We will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(At 1630 hours, 15 July 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 16 July 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, at al., Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 16 July 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Brand presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused. The proper notation will be made.
Would you continue with your examination? You may proceed.
HANS ALTMEYER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued DR. THIELE- FREDERSDORF (for the defendant Dr. Joel):I ask the Tribunal to be permitted to continue my direct examination of this witness.
Q. Ministarialrat Dr. Altmeyer, yesterday at the end of the day you discussed the practical task of the central prosecution and of its Referent, Dr. Joel, and you mentioned that it was really its mission to deliver such Party officials to prosecution and punishment for whom high prominent Party officials tried to intervene. Do you still remember an individual case of that kind? In order to refresh your recollection, I should like to mention the name Adami.
A. Adami was a public prosecutor in Berlin who was active in the Party and I believe who had made himself punishable in the course of aryanization measures. He was considerably supported by the Party, and in his case it was difficult for the prosecution to do anything. That case was handled by Dr. Joel and that successfully, because he achieved that the man was prosecuted and punished.
I believe that he got an extended prison term.
Q. I see. Can you tell us something about the habits of Dr. Joel when He dealt with such cases, that is, as far as the were not cases that were dealt with in Berlin? Is it so that he continued the routine that had existed before in the Ministry just to send written instructions to the local prosecutions?
A. Joel traveled a lot. That is as far as I know he also attended sessions in matters where he dealt with a case.
Q. Why was that necessary and purposeful in special cases?
A. In order to avoid that the local prosecution would not fail to exert the necessary pressure in prosecuting these cases, because it was reasonable to assume that pressure was exercised on the local prosecution by the Party offices which tried to avoid that their protege be prosecuted.
Q. What was Under-Secretary Freisler's attitude in cases where prominent individuals in the Party and party agencies intervened to protect a Party member?
A. Oh, it was commonly known of Freisler that he lacked the necessary backbone in such cases, and that he did not oppose such things and conceded.
Q. And what were the consequences of that attitude on the part of Freisler on the one hand, and the interests of Dr. Joel on the other?
A. There were frequent arguments between the two.
Q. And what was the actual consequences of that activity by Dr. Joel as far as relations to the Party were concerned?
A. That he was not too popular with the Party. That was a necessary consequence, and when he traveled through the various districts that were assigned to him --- one can understand that.
Q. And not too popular is a very mild expression, isn't it?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now did you gain the impression that Dr. Joel by this disapproval of his activity on the part of the Party, was influenced somewhat to deter his work?
A. No, I couldn't say that. I believe that I have to answer that question with, "No."
Q. What could you say about a man who had displayed this activity against the interests of the Party? What would you say that this man would have to expect?
A. Well, hostility on the part of the Party.
Q. And where could that animosity lead to? It's quite logical.
A. Well, that could lead to his elimination from office.
Q. And that elimination from office is stating it mildly, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. hen Thierack became Reich Minister of Justice, what was the general opinion in the Ministry as to the consequences for Joel?
A. One generally agreed that it would have consequences for Joel.
Q. And what consequences?
A. Well, in the negative sense.
Q. Did one assume at that time, that is at the time when rumors started , that Thierack would become Minister? Did one assume that Joel would still remain for a considerable time in the Ministry?
A. Of such rumors, I heard only when Thierack assumed office.
Q. But at that time it was clear to everyone in the Ministry, was it not, that Joel could no longer remain in the Ministry?
A. Well, it would be asking to much for me to answer that question. I couldn't make any statement about everyone in the Ministry as to what they thought.
Q. And you personally?
A. Well, I personally thought that he would no longer remain in the Ministry.