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.
Q. Even after the central prosecution was dissolved, did Dr. Joel continue the activity which he had practiced in the central prosecution? Did he still have a similar mission after the central prosecution was dissolved? May I show you a sheet from the work distribution chart, a part of Document NG-988. (Witness is offered the sheet.) On the bottom you see as the Referat of Joel -- at least as part of the Referat of Joel -- "Special Tasks."
A. I do not see from this document what the date is.
Q. That is the Geschaeftsverteilungsplan -- the work distribution plan -- of 1943.
A. "1943, Special Tasks." That is when the central prosecution had been dissolved. That may have happened in "37 or '38. Then Guertner directed that Joel should remain for special tasks. But this plan here is dated 1942, you say.
Q. It probably shows that on all distribution plans of the previous years, but those are not available. You, therefore, also assume that these special tasks were identical with the kind of work that he did for the central prosecution?
A. Well, when the central prosecution was dissolved, Minister Guertner directed that Joel should carry on with special tasks which remained from the field of the central prosecution and that he should carry out these tasks.
Q. Yes, your recollection is absolutely correct and we shall submit the directive by Guertner as a document.
Q. Could you remember Joel's actions and attitude in connection with the Jewish program in 1938?
A. According to my recollection he had to carry out the prosecution, that is he had to deal with the referat which ordered the prosecution of transgressions against the Jews in November 1938.
Q. And you remember in fact that ho carried out that task?
A. That I cannot judge; I have no proof; I have no personal knowledge of it.
Q. As far as you know you heard about it.
A. I know that there was one case in the district of Celle that he handled; it was a case of serious illtreatment of Jews in November, 1938.
Q. Did Joel after the beginning of the war become active against party members and demanded their prosecution, and achieved their prosecution against the intentions of high, prominent party officials?
A. After the beginning of the war and in connection with crimes against the war economy?
Q. Yes.
A. That was Joel's field at that time.
Q. Here also you indicated yesterday the word, "patronage"; does that also cover that field?
A. Well, yes; one could apply it to this field in cases where prominent party officials committed offenses or crimes against the war economy, and, even more prominent individuals intervened on their behalf and tried to prevent that they be punished.
Q. What was the reason that high party officials intervened in that direction?
A. They may have had personal reasons.
Q. But what else?
A. Well, the main reason probably was that they had something to do with it themselves.
Q. Could you remember any individual case from that group of cases?
A. Yes, I believe I remember a case that occurred in Hamburg, or Luebeck; it was a question of embezzlement of NSV goods, National Socialist Welfare goods. It lead to proceedings in the end and the connections in this case ran all the way to Berlin, to the supreme chief of the NSV, Hilgenfeld.
Q. Do you still remember what Hilgenfeld's rank was in the SS; or, do you remember that he had a high rank in the SS.
A. Not only in the SS but in the party organization.
Q. First of all in the party organization; and that man Hilgenfeld, do you remember that he had very good connections in the Gauleitung of Berlin; do you remember -
A. The Gauleitung of Berlin? - Probably the Gauamtsleiter of the NSV.
Q. No. I thought of somebody else -- the highest one.
A. The Gauleiter himself -- is that what you wanted?
Q. Yes, but if you don't happen to know. One could say that the struggle against such powerful pillars of the regime at that time was quite a dangerous task personally.
A. Certainly?
Q. And those were the dangers that Dr. Joel had to cope with, just like anybody else?
COURT III CASE III
A. Yes, just like anybody else whose task it was to carry out prosecutions against such individuals.
Q. May I ask you for a few comments concerning the task of Dr. Joel in his referat concerning military penal law; the referat where he had to deal with individual penal cases concerning violations of laws which had been promulgated at the beginning of the war, taking into consideration the specific conditions of war time -- such specific conditions as blackouts, air-raids, the handling of scarcity goods, especially food. What was the task of the referent, the task of the referent in individual cases of that complex of questions?
A. Well, these matters fell under the special referat of Mr. Joel. That referat which first dealt this was handled by Haake, and after Haake had drafted it, it was administered by Joel.
Q. Why was that special referat established for these individual cases; what was the purpose; what was the meaning; why were these cases separated from the special referat? Before you answer, may I interrupt: The translation general referat could lead to a misunderstanding because in the ministry the general referat had quite special tasks, that is to say the task to issue general instructions. District referats were referats which dealt with matters that were locally limited.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I must object; it is not a question, it is a statement of fact by counsel. I object to the form in which it is made.
THE PRESIDENT: We will disregard statement of counsel; it is not evidence.
Q. We had come to the question why these individual penal cases were taken out of the district referat.
A. In order to achieve a more uniform handling of these matters; that may have been the reason, a more uniform handling of this new field, since it was a new field.
Q. When the more uniform application of the laws had become routine, then, part of that complex of questions was returned to the district referats wasn't it?
A. If I remember correctly, it was in 1942 when again the district referats handled cases of that kind.
Q. Did Dr. Joel in individual penal cases, or otherwise, in the Ministry have anything to do with penal cases concerning high treason, treason, under mining of military strength; aiding and abetting the enemy; offenses against the law concerning malicious attacks, offenses against the prohibition of listening to foreign broadcasts. Did he have anything to do with that?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Excuse me, your Honor, I object; it is so leading; if he will ask the witness what Dr. Joel handled and what he did not handle, I will not object.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled.
Q. Do you remember the question?
A. Yes, but may I ask you to repeat.
Q. Can you
THE PRESIDENT: He does not indicate the answer, then it is not leading. The question was did he have anything to do with certain matters; it can be answered by yes or no.
Q. Can you tell us whether Dr. Joel in handling individual penal cases in the military penal referat had anything to do with high treason, treason, undermining of military strength, espionage, violations against: malicious attacks, violations of the prohibition of listening to foreign broadcasts -- whether he had anything to do with those.
A. In that referat, no. There were other special referats for those cases.
Q. You mean to say for these individual penal cases there were special referats with which Joel had nothing to do?
A. Yes. He had nothing to do with them because he had a different field. But, I don't remember when the general prosecution was dissolved -- in 1937 or 1938. Joel was district referent for a short time, just temporarily. Whether at this time he did not have anything to do with cases concerning the law against malicious attacks -- that possibility exists.
Q. That would be possible, but you don't know anything for certain about that; do you?
A. No.
Q. Dr. Joel had another field; that was liaison between the Ministry of Justice and the police. Do you remember who gave him that mission?
A. As far as I know it was Minister Guertner.
Q. And why did Minister Guertner entrust a young yellow, a young man in that low position for that job?
A. That I could not tell; I don't know. I don't know why he picked Joel for that mission.
Q. Then, I should like to put my question somewhat different. What was the type of man needed for such a job; what qualities, what temper was he supposed to possess?
A. He had to be an energetic fellow at least.
Q. Was Dr. Joel that energetic type so that he was the right man for such a job?
A. Joel was certainly energetic and aggressive in the cases he handled; that was my impression.
Q. What, to your knowledge and recollection was the main task of Dr. Joel in that job as liaison man. What were the interests of the Administration of Justice that he had to maintain?
A. He was put in action by the minister when there were any transgressions on the part of the police that had to be discussed.
Q. Do you have any definite impressions whether and how Joel performed that task?
A. Well, I can't very well judge that personally. I had the impression that in some individual cases which I knew, he was very aggressive and successful.
Q. Did Joel approach the police when he had a special instruction by Guertner or later the under secretary Schlegelberger?
A. Well, there were also lawyers, counsel, who approached him, who were representatives of the parties concerned, the individual accused, and in cases of such requests he acted.
Q. Did he also in cases interfere -- become active?
A. I am not in a position to make a general statement in answering that.
Q. Can you remember an example?
A. Yes, I know the case of the lawyer Lenz, who handled cases of protective custody, and who once stated it was useless to go to the department chief because there he wouldn't achieve anything as defense counsel in such cases, but that the only possibility was to turn to Joel who repeatedly had respected him and assisted him in this respect.
Q. Who was lawyer Lenz?
A. Attorney Lenz had been a member of the Prussian Ministry of Justice; then the Reich Ministry for Justice; and then retired.
Q. What had been his party?
A. The Central Party.
Q. As a lawyer, did he have any contacts with the church authorities in Berlin?
A. Lenz was a lawyer for the Bishopship in Berlin.
Q. And that is the reason why he had to do with cases of protective custody?
A. Yes, that is a consequence of that.
Q. And he told you that the only thing to do was to turn to Joel of one wanted to achieve anything in that direction?
A. Yes, if one wanted to achieve anything in that direction.
Q Can you tell us what the position, the attitude and statements on the part of Joel were concerning interference by the party, the police or any elements outside of the administration of Justice with the matters of the administration of justice, that is, statements, made to you or to -
A That question cannot be answered in general terms either. I can only say what he told me personally.
Q Yes, that is what I mean.
A Of course, that was in opposition to the interference. Had a great deal of confidence in you when he made these statements or did you gain the impression that he didn't mind making these statements at all?
A I didn't have any close relations to Joel.
Q Doesn't that mean that you want to say that he didn't mind talking openly about these things?
A Yes, that is my opinion.
DR. THIELE_FREDERSDORF: I should like to put to the witness a certified copy of a document which will be in the document book for the defendant Dr. Joel which has not been finished. It is a document which had been submitted before the I.M.T., No. PS-3751, a letter from the Reich Minister of Justice, a personal letter to the Reich Minister and Prussian Minister of the Interior, which bears the file note ZFG-10.
(Document handed to witness.)
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
Q Mr. Altmeyer, will you please look at the heading in particular to see whether you can identify by the letterhead from where that letter had to come, according to the file note?
A Well, the No. 10 would indicate that it is a secret matter which was handled in Agency GC, and ZF that, I think, is the file note of the central prosecution.
Q And if you look through the letter now could you conclude also from the contents that that letter must have belonged within the come petency of the central prosecution?
A It deals with ill-treatment of Communist prisoners by police officials.
That is what it deals with.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought the witness was simply asked to see whether he knew what section it came from. I believe he had answered that.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness has answered. Ask him another question.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
Q Could you, after the impression you just gained of this document, answer the question?
A Well, according to the file note it is another document from the central prosecution.
Q And could you say that the contents contradicts that assumption?
A No, it does not contradict that assumption. In fact, they cover it entirely.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defense counsel desire to examine this witness in chief? There appears to be none. You may proceed, Mr. Prosecutor.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, at the beginning I would like to have marked for identification NG-797 as Prosecution's Exhibit 534.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be marked for identification Prosecution's Exhibit 534.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would like to use this exhibit, if your Honors please, and under the practice we are conducting here, if possible, both as redirect of this witness as against his cross-examination yesterday and his cross-examination in connection with the witness whose testimony was given for the defendant Joel.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Mr. Altmeyer, who was Suchomel?
A Suchomel was the sub-department chief of the department which dealt with Austrian penal cases.