The court would like to acquit, and there were some indications in the files which, if they were checked and found to be correct, could speak in favor of the defendants. Thereupon I considered it to be correct to order my prosecutor that if the court would afford him an opportunity to make a further statement, stating as a reason that a new examination of the files would be to the point, to ask for an adjournment. While I was still talking to him Freisler appeared in the courtroom, who apparently also had the intention to listen to the verdict. When the court appeared in the courtroom the presiding judge afforded the prosecutor an opportunity, if he considered it necessary, to supplement his statements. The Prosecutor did so, as he had been instructed by me and approved to do. Thereupon the court adjourned for consultation, and after it reappeared in the courtroom it announced a sentence and a rule, an acquittal of one of the defendants, that was the defendant Ramin, and in regard to the six, they decided to adjourn. The next two weeks were used by us to check up upon those facts which we believed would be of importance for a new trial. But the result was neither positive nor negative. The facts remained as before. About the beginning of October two or three weeks might have passed after the first opening of the trial. The files were submitted to me, that is my files, working files, not the files that the court had and from that I saw that a new opening date had been set and that Freisler was to be presiding judge. I myself appeared in the session at this time, because under the general regulation I had to do so. The result of that trial was quite a different one than the result of the first one anyway according to my opinion.
The two defendants Schack and Schoene, both of whom were elderly persons, who were used up, were not up to the examination which Freisler conducted. They involved themselves in contradictions which distorted the picture to such an extent against them, at least that is how I saw things, that nothing was left to me but now to ask for a death sentence against them as the only possible penalty, according to the law. Another defendant, a Lt. Colonel, an Oberstleutnant from the General Staff who, according to the first trial had made the impression of being conscious of his guilt, however, defended himself so skillfully that we could ask for an acquittal, and he was acquitted. Now that came about that in place of the defendant Nebelung now Freisler was presiding judge I found out only afterwards from Nebelung. It happened as follows: Freisler used Nebelung's absence, who was out of town, I don't know why, probably on a business trip, in order to set the opening date of the new trial.
Q: With that I have concluded the cases concerning the 20th of July, and now I come to the so-called defeatist trials, or trials of those charged with undermining of fighting strength. Witness, please state briefly what the law meant by the so-called undermining of strength.
A: In paragraph 5 of the War Time Special Penal Regulations it is indicated that this law is aimed especially at War time conditions and is supposed to assume that no attempts can be undertaken with success to influence the troops at the front and the people at home by means of defeatist propaganda in their will to stand it through, as it was expressed.
Q: Witness, do you have a general explanation for these defeatist trials which took place to a considerable extent at that time in the Reich?
A: The propaganda for total war for resistance at any cost, which was carried on at that time to a very high extent especially influenced the treatment of those cases very strongly. It was in connection with this propaganda that one decree after the other was issued and one order after the other by Thierack which, in themselves, also had an influence on the jurists.
Q: Through my documents in Document Book 1, I have already shown that the competence of the People's Court to sentence defeatist cases was introduced only beginning in February, 1943. Witness, for how long did the special penal regulations for wartime exist on which these trials against undermining of fighting strength were based?
A: This special wartime penal order is from 1936, which was put into effect only on 26 August 1939.
Q: Originally the Reich Military Court was competent for those cases of undermining of fighting force or the other military courts, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct, not only for members of the Wehrmacht but also for civilians.
Q: In 1940 the competency in regard to civilians was transferred to the general courts?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: Who became competent at that time for the cases of the so-called public undermining of fighting strength?
A: Public undermining of military strength was prosecuted by the senior public prosecutors at the special courts and/or was to be tried by the Special Courts.
Q When in 1943, the cases of so-called public undermining of military strength were transferred to the People's Court, had the law in effect been applied for four years?
A Yes.
Q Is it correct, witness, that the decision as to whether a public undermining of military strength was proved depended upon the following two points: first, what does the legislator mean by an attempt to undermine; and secondly, when was this attempt to undermine committed in public? Is it correct that those were the two nuclei in this question?
A Yes.
Q Is it furthermore correct that when in 1943 the People's Court became competent, these two basic questions of undermining of fighting strength were based on a general jurisdiction originating first from the Reich Military Court, then the Reich Supreme Court, and then of the Special Court - that these decisions existed already?
A The Reich Military Court had in several very basic decisions decided these questions without any doubt.
Q In regard to these points from which it is especially evident that the definition: "public attempt of undermining" had already been laid down definitely in 1943, I shall prove by some further documents. Witness, how did the individual cases of undermining come to your office?
A That differed. In part, the senior public prosecutor at the Special Court who considered the case as leaving room for no doubt submitted the files to me. If, on the other hand - and that occurred in the majority of cases - he harbored doubts whether this was not merely a malicious act, then, as was his duty, he reported it to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice decided whether a case was to be regarded as undermining of fighting morale and should be transferred to the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor.
This is evident from the affidavit by the witness Franke, which the Prosecution submitted.
Q May I refer to the fact that this is Exhibit 515 submitted by the Prosecution. Furthermore I am referring to Exhibit 97 of the Prosecution. Witness, did it continue the way you described it just now, later on too?
A Later on two more basical changes occurred. A very severe decree of 13 August 1943 was introduced. Minister Thierack required a more expeditious and more emphatic trying of certain especially serious cases of undermining of fighting strength. For this purpose, it had been ordered that the RSHA submitted those cases which were not very numerous, either through the hands of the Minister of Justice or directly to me. I submitted them to a special division because the division which treated other cases of undermining of military strength was no longer in a position, merely due to the large number of cases, to take over this new work also. These cases in the main are those in which the so-called Schnell termine - quick trials took place, which had frequently been discussed here already. Due to the importance of the cases, Freisler also did not let anybody deprive him of trying these cases basically in his senate. Moreover, due to a later decree by the Minister of Justice, it was laid down that in the preliminary investigation of the cases which were to be submitted to the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor, that the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal should be included in order to avoid too many of these files submitted to the Reich Public Prosecution.
The final decree which concerns these cases, and which I am citing because perhaps it is important in the von Braun case, is the following instruction by the Minister. If an indictment is filed before the Special Court in a malicious acts case -- during the trial the Special Court, however, decides that possibly this might be an undermining of military strength, in which ca.se the Special Court was not competent to sentence - the Special Court should not, through an uncontested decision, refer this to the People's Court but the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor should ask for an adjournment so that the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor could examine the case in every individual case.
If he considered it not suitable, he was to return it to the Special Court. In this way it was intended to prevent that through such decisions against which it could not do anything, the People's Court was burdened with cases which did not concern it.
Q Witness, how were pending cases treated? How were the cases which came to it treated by the Reich Prosecution, and especially how was the conduct of the members?
A When the order came into effect - the order of 29 August 1943 at which time the People's Court became competent, at that time I was on an official trip outside of Berlin. When I returned, I found out that the defendant Barnickel, who at that time was my deputy, had handed over the handling of the cases which came to his division. At that time, he was of the opinion - at least that is what he told me - that his division was less burdened and therefore was in the best position to be able to handle the new incidents of cases. I let matters stand as they were.
First we introduced the following treatment of the cases and we also maintained this for several weeks and months. At certain intervals of two or three days, every case that was handled by the expert or the Referent in the presence of the division chief was reported to me, and then we made a decision as to whether we wanted to file an indictment before the People's Court and for what reasons this was necessary. Varying reasons governed this. In part, the cases were so serious that there was no doubt about this. In part, we considered it necessary in order to bring about certain basic decisions on principle - to bring about the sentencing by the senate of the People's Court. During that time, the number of prison sentences that were pronounced was without doubt larger than the number of death sentences. The enormous incidents of new cases, however, brought it about, and this is also apparent from the situation report which the Prosecution submitted in the beginning of 1944 -
Q I may interpolate here that the defendant is speaking of Exhibit 220 of the Prosecution.
A -- that at the end of the year 1943. quite a considerable number of cases were in arrears. Therefore I decided that in regard to the cases of undermining of fighting strength, to gather then in a special division which would have the task - especially in regard to the backlog cases - to clean it up as quickly as possible. Among these, there were a number of cases of arrest whose expeditious handling was necessary, especially because in a large number of these cases the transfer to a subordinate court was necessary. Therefore I could not act in any other way. No division chief was anxious to be given this new division. Therefore I decided that the defendant Rothaug should take it over. First of all, he was the youngest division chief, and up to then he had been in charge of a division which was so small and insignificant that it was easiest to replace him by a Senior Public Prosecutor.
(A.) From the situation report which I mentioned, it is also evident what the number of cases which came to us was at the time. They amounted to about seven to eight hundred a month. This figure shows me that when I was interrogated preliminary to this trial, I made a wrong estimate. At that time I thought it was twice as high as it actually was.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our morning recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GRUBE: The Prosecution hasn't arrived yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. Witness, you have just said that the number of cases in the undermining of fighting morale increased to about seven to eight hundred cases a month. I would like to put another question to you on that subject. Did that mean that before the People's Court seven hundred to eight hundred cases of undermining of fighting morale were tried every month?
A. No. That figure refers to the number of cases which were submitted to the Reich Prosecution for examination. As I will mention later, only a small percentage of those cases -- I estimate about ten per cent -- were kept back. All other cases were returned to subordinate courts. In my situation report, if I may repeat that, I only gave the number which I did mention there because only at the trial here I saw that situation report again. I ascertained that the figures which I had given in Exhibit 126 from memory were evidently incorrect.
Q. By that you mean to say that the figures in Exhibit 126, the figures which you gave from memory, are too high?
A. That is what I did mean to say.
Q. How did you in general treat these questions of undermining fighting morale?
A. To a large extent the treatment of such cases depended on the clear instructions from the Minister of Justice. It also depended on the basic importance of these cases. To mention one example, I would like to revert once again to the situation report of 9 February 1944, that is Exhibit 220. In that report it says that the undermining of fighting morale, when committed by clergymen, would have to be tried before the People's Court. That was due to a decree by the Reich Minister of Justice. Generally speaking, however, in treating these cases I attached the greatest importance to having every single file examined carefully by the head of the department so that those points would not be left unobserved which would justify treating that case in a more lenient manner. For, in particular, the transfer of these cases as being cases of lesser importance to the District Courts of Appeal or to the Special Courts, to that I attached the greatest importance, as far as it was at all possible. That is proved not only by the testimony of the Witness Gruenwaldt before this Tribunal; it is also evident from Exhibits 178, 474 and 100. For the numbers of cases where criticism was exercised by the Ministry on sentences passed by lower courts and in particular the Weimar Conference, would remain incomprehensible unless many cases, which were more serious, had been transferred to the lower courts by the Reich Prosecution.
In the last analysis perhaps the percentage of the cases which we kept back, as I mentioned before, and of the cases where an indictment was filed, at the People's Court. I estimate those cases at ten percent.
Q. By the way, was Thierack content with written criticism of these cases and their verdicts?
A. No, he was not satisfied with that. Occasionally he also interfered with the District Court of Appeals and the judges who sat there. As far as I remember, that was the senates at Munich and Vienna.
Q. What did he want to achieve by changing the judges on the senates?
A. I believe that he wanted such judges to sit on the senates that in future no further criticism would be necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean senates of the People's Court?
THE WITNESS: No, of the District Courts of Appeal. The District Courts of Appeal at Vienna and Munich.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. The Prosecution has cited as examples for jurisdiction of the People's Court in cases of the undermining of Military morale the following documents: Exhibits 140, 141, 144, 158, 159, 160, 181 and Exhibit 402. Of those documents only the Riedel Case, Exhibit 144, contains an indictment which bears your signature. What can you say about the Riedel Case, that is, Exhibit 144?
A. As is evident from the Exhibit, I have to depend on that because I cannot remember that case from other sources. Riedel, during the years from 1921 to 1939, lived under a false name. Previously he had been very active for left-wing organizations. In 1940 the Special Court had sentenced him for political statements. When he had again strongly criticized the leadership of the state and according to the files had also made propaganda for removing the head of the state by force, there was no other way but indicting him before the People's Court.
Q. By that you mean to say that the legality principle obliged you to file an indictment in this case?
A. That indictment had to be filed and I did not consider that case suitable for transfer.
Q. What do you have to say about Exhibit 160?
A. May I ask you to tell me what that deals with?
Q. That is concerned with the Von Brinken case.
A. According to the document, such as has been submitted, von Brinken, who had been accused, at a resort on the Baltic, had made serious utterances against the leadership of the state. In particular, she spoke in favor of the persons involved in the attempt of the 20 of July.
According to instructions from the Ministry in those days such cases had to be brought before the People's Court.
Q. The Prosecution in this case, in the von Brinken case, appears to make the charge that by the interference of an SS leader, the defendant, von Brinken, was given preferential treatment.
A. If the prosecution were to assume that it is wrong, as far as the Reich prosecution is concerned. The document shows that in spite of the interference on the part of the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Hildenbrandt, which by the way was not only made in writing but also personally to me, that in spite of that interference I filed an indictment before the People's Court, because discriminations of that type were alien to me.
Q. What do you have to say to Exhibit 181?
THE PRESIDENT: What was your recommendation in that case for punishment?
THE WITNESS: The files show that at the trial a sentence of eight months imprisonment was asked for and that because the witnesses gave different testimony than they had done previously.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. What are your comments on the Bonnes case in Exhibit 181?
A. The files contained only files from the Ministry of Justice. From my memory of the case I can only say very little but I still know this for certain. After the first sentence had been submitted, which, by the form of the opinion, appeared altogether impossible, I called on President Freisler. I drew his attention to the fact that in my view such a sentence could not be upheld. The question was merely as to how it was to be treated. The only way, the correct way in this case, it seemed to me, was to suggest to the Minister of Justice that extraordinary objection should be made. Freisler did not want to listen to that suggestion at first because the sentence had been passed by his vice-president; but afterwards apparently he did send a letter to the Ministry.
As to why extraordinary objection was not made but a reopening of the trial was instituted, why that was so, I can't remember now. At any rate, an application for reopening was made -- apparently it was made by defense counsel, and no doubt the Reich prosecution supported it, for the Court approved it, a reopening was permitted, and a new trial was set. At the retrial Freisler was presiding judge. The Senate again passed death sentence. I believe that one has to see from the files that the prosecutor who appeared in the case had asked for that sentence. I believe that I can remember that I authorized him to do so. When the second trial was concluded the defense counsel applied to the Ministry of Justice for an extraordinary objection to be made. A copy of that application by the defense counsel had been handed to me. It is also possible that I was given the original, and that the Minister received the copy. I don't remember for certain. I got in touch with the Ministerialrat Frank, the Referent at the Ministry, and through him I heard that the Ministry of Justice was resolved to pardon Bonnes. Therefore, there was no need to go on with the extraordinary objection, and I was to submit an application for pardon to the Ministry. I did so. I counted on it for certain that Bonnes would be pardoned. Why that was not done has been discussed here.
DR. GRUBE: I should like to state briefly that in Exhibit 181 the Bonnes clemency statement is contained and that subsequently, by the interference of the Gauleiter, the granting of clemency was prevented. That, too, is evidenced from Exhibit 181.
Q. Witness, have you any comments on Exhibit 158. That Exhibit is concerned with the Kozian case.
A. Kozian, apart from the fact that he had made himself guilty of serious attacks on the state and government, apart from that he had tried to keep his son out of the military service. That was held very much against him, and as a result he had to be indicted before the Peoples Court. The files further show that after the trial, after sentence had been pronounced, the Reich prosecution asked for an expert opinion on his mental state, and that is apparently why he had to be investigated officially.
It is further evident from the files that those doubts were not affirmed.
Q. What are your comments on Exhibit 159. That is the Beck case.
A. I do not remember particulars of that case. The indictment bears the signature of my deputy. I believe that when that indictment was filed it was considered an aggravating circumstance that Beck was a man who, by his occupation, was brought into contact with a great many people, and such people if they made remarks of that kind were to be dealt with more severely.
Q. The prosecution has further submitted Exhibit 140 concerning the Zinser case. What are your comments about that?
A. According to the judgment Zinser made defeatist and inciting remarks to a large number of people and thereby caused unrest in a large industrial firm. That constituted the aggravating circumstance.
Q. The prosecution, as Exhibit 141, has submitted a Fuehrer information which deals with the Paschen case. Do you remember anything about that?
A. I do not recollect that case. But evidently - that is apparent from the Fuehrer information - what was particularly serious was that Paschen had made remarks which were detrimental to the state and the government towards two Danes.
Q. According to the jurisdiction of those days that was very serious?
A. No doubt that was the case - the underline of that particular case.
Q. A further Fuehrer information, that is Exhibit 402, refers to the Kiep case, von Thadden, Solf. Frau Solf who was involved in the case has been heard as a witness here, as you know. Would you make some comments in that case, please?
A. From the examination of the witness Frau Solf, as I recollect it, it became evident that in September -- at any rate in the autumn of 1943 -- at a meeting in Partenkirchen - at any rate it was in upper Bavaria -- in a small circle party she made utterances herself partly had agreed with remarks made by other persons which amounted to saying that Germany had lost the war; that after the secession of Italy, and the failure of the U-Boats, it became quite evident, and that the time had come for new men to arrive on the scene and to put an end to the war.
The name Goerdeler was mentioned in this conversation. It was striking, already at the time, that she had given three letters to be forwarded to the witness Reckzeh, who later betrayed her and who was at that party in Partenkirchen, and who lived at Berlin, and intended to go to Switzerland. The secret transportation of letters abroad was in those days subject to severe punishment in the Reich. Permission to send letters of a harmless nature could be obtained very easily. It therefore had to appear suspicious that she chose the dangerous way; and that, through a person she didn't know. It did seem suspicious that she chose that way for sending letters to Switzerland. As the letters were no longer in Switzerland, and as Reckzeh did not know their contents, one could not draw any conclusion from that alone. At the trial which took place at the beginning of July -- and that is what she said here -her own trial was adjourned. According to her testimony it must be assumed, since the presiding judge Freisler had told her, that new material against her had become available; and that was so. For in another collateral trial it had been established that beyond those conversations of September 1943 the defendant Solf had also attended a large number of other conversations which had dealt with the same topic. In particular, she had participated in a discussion where mention was made of the ports in Northwestern Germany had to be opened for the British Fleet. But no new indictment was filed against her on account of that, nor was that possible under the existing legal provisions. The newly established facts of their own accord fell within the scope of the indictment which had already been filed, and could be used by the Court at a new trial, and the Court could base its findings on those facts.
As the witness Solf testified here, a new trial was only to be held -I believe I remember rightly -- in January 1945. The reason was this: The Fuehrer information shows that I submitted a report after the first trial. In that report I pointed out that the Solf case had been found to be more serious, and that under certain circumstances, that is to say, if the new trial were to confirm that, the death penalty might have to be considered. Insofar the Fuehrer information evidently contains a printing error. I certainly, in that report, did not say, "among other things", according to the context that would have been meaningless. What might have been the other circumstances according to which the death sentence might have been considered, either the death sentence could be considered, or it could not be considered.
The Fuehrer information shows further that it was pointed out that the defendant was the wife of Ambassador Solf, and that was due to the fact that the defense counsel had stated that with emphasis. It was obviously mentioned in the Fuehrer information because it was known -- concerning trials which might expose high officials, possibly, even high officials of a preceding era -- that Hitler did not wish such trials to be held. There was, therefore, a possibility that the trial might be prohibited at least for a certain time. That explains the long waiting period until the end of the year 1944. As the witness testified here, a new trial was not held.
Q. I am now coming to the cases where Poles were indicted or sentenced.
Witness, it appears that the prosecution wants to charge you, in cases of penal actions committed by Poles in the incorporated Eastern Territories with having considered such cases as high treason and therefore with having filed an indictment before the People's Court. What are your comments on that?
A. I have already explained tho reasons why I considered myself under an obligation to respect the German laws which had been introduced in the East. In this question too, in my opinion, I could not take any other view than the one taken by the German Government. However, it was a fact that in the newly occupied Eastern Territories, that is to say, immediately in the rear of the fighting German troops, there were highly active Polish resistance movements. No doubt those resistance groups constituted considerable danger for the German occupying authorities. It was not only their aim, concerning tho German troops and the German Administration, to chase them out of the territory under occupation, but, furthermore, to annex German Reich territory reaching as far as the Oder, because they hoped that if the Reich were to collapse, they would be able to do so.
Q. You have just said that those Polish organizations also wanted to separate old German territories from the German Reich and worked towards that aim. Does that also concern the territories as far as the Oder-Neisse line which the Poles claim today, and from which they have expelled millions of Germans?
A. That that slogan "Poland as far as the Odor" was produced is evident from the leaflets which were added to the exhibits.
Q. May I refer to the exhibits submitted by the Prosecution, that is to say, Exhibits 134, 125, 137 and 138. Did a great many indictments against Poles reach the Reich Prosecution because of high treason?
A. No that was not the case, for the following reason. Soon after the People's Court had passed its first sentence, the following situation came about. The Gauleiters in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, under the leadership of the Gauleiter of Poznan, complained that the jurisdiction of the People's Court in these cases was too lenient. By such sentences, so they said, order could not be maintained in the East. As neither the Reich Ministry of Justice of those days -that is to say, the Ministry of Justice in the days when Schlegelberger was in charge of it -- nor the President of the People's Court of those days, nor myself, were of the opinion that one could uphold jurisdiction of a different nature, the Gauleiter of Poznan approached Hitler and achieved it that in future the High Treason Senats in the Incorporated Territories would deal with such cases. In exceptional cases only the Chief Reich Prosecutor was to be entitled to deal with such matters and to bring them before the People's Court, but that was subject to the approval of the Ministry, and in the future that approval was granted only in very rare cases.
Q. You said just now that in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, generally speaking, such cases were brought before High Treason Senats. Those were the High Treason Senats of the District Courts of Appeal, were they not?
A. They were the High Treason Senats of the District Courts of Appeal in Danzig, Poznan, and Kattowitz.
Q. I am now coming to Exhibits 125, 134 and 137. What are your comments on Exhibit 125? That deals with the Kawka case.
A. The sentence shows that this was an offense which was committed by spreading a leaflet, a leaflet with an inciting content of the nature which I described earlier. It was particularly dangerous because it contained an appeal to hide arms and keep them ready for the coming hour. I believe that that in itself was a reason to institute proceedings.
On the other hand, the sentence shows that only prison sentences were pronounced, and in two cases there were acquittals, I believe. I think that I can remember these cases for certain, and I can recollect that the clemency plea--if it were available and if the prosecution were to have it in its hands -- would show that a large number of the people who were sentenced there to prison terms later on had these prison terms reduced considerably.
Q. Witness, what are your comments on the Szczerbinski case in Exhibit 134?
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt? While you are on that case, Exhibit 125, my notes do not show clearly--where were the acts committed which were the basis of the charge?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the crimes mentioned in the three exhibits now under discussion were committed in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, that is to say, in the territories which were occupied after 1939 by German troops and which had been Polish territory since 1918.
THE PRESIDENT: And the defendants were Polish nationals, were they not?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, they were Polish by birth.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. Did those defendants possess Polish citizenship at the time when they were sentenced? Did such citizenship exist in those days?
A. That is a difficult question, it is a question of international law, and I do not think that I am expert to decide such a question. In our view, since its defeat, the Polish State no longer existed. At any rate, I, with my modest knowledge of international law, took that view.
Q. Witness, what are your comments on the Szczerbinski case? That is Exhibit 134.
A. The facts of the case are the same as those of the previous case. Here too a leaflet had been spread which was making propaganda for the preparation of a State of Greater Poland. The defendant Szczerbinski was, however, only sentenced to a prison term. The documents which the Prosecution has submitted here in connection with the Szczerbinski case, and which reveal that she was moved to Auschwitz, I believe in 1943 - I had never seen those documents. They were dealt with by the official who dealt with the execution of punishment. He was either a public prosecutor or a Rechtspfleger, Administrator of the Law.
Q. If you had been shown those documents, your initials would have had to appear on those documents, would they not?
A. Yes, the date and my initials would have appeared, or there would have been a note that the case had been reported to me on a certain date. However, I didn't find such notes.
Q. What are your comments on Exh. 137? It concerns Wolniewiez and others.
A. The indictment on which this sentence is based I believe I can remember for certain. I signed it myself, for this was one of the first bigger cases of this type. The facts on which the sentence is based, and I believe similar facts, were mentioned in the indictment. Those facts make it evident that the Polish resistance group in question was extremely dangerous, that if that group had not been stopped in its activities it would have been very dangerous to the German occupying forces. From the purely legal point of view the judgment shows that the senate in its legal evaluation die, in part, not concur with the opinion expressed in the indictment. It refused to acknowledge the facts of paragraph 91-B of the Penal Code, which paragraph deals with aiding and abetting the enemy.
Q. Witness, in the same Exhibit 137 on Page 26 and 27, that is page 77 and 78 in the German Document book there is a note and a draft of a letter to the president of the second senate of the People's Court. It says re an application for reopening of trial of Piotrowski who had been involved in that case. What is your comment on this?
A. This gives me an opportunity to say something about the law against Poles which has been frequently discussed here. As for the reasons and the development which led to the issuing of this law, I only heard of them because this law itself in the reasons which were given for its issuance explained it and also Freisler in Deutsche Justiz had published several articles on the subject. As a so-called legal ordinance it had legal force. And the courts and the prosecutions had to take it into consideration. As far as its contents are concerned, I considered it very harsh. To start with, I was wondering whether it would be of practical importance to the People's Court at all.