Before the recess you stated that the senates of the People's Court were of the same opinion as the Ministry of Justice. May I now ask you which senates of the People's Court this statement refers?
A: They were the senates which had to deal with the cases against Poles according to the work schedule. According to the work schedule of that time, that is, 1941, to which the Prosecution documents refer, they were, if my memory does not deceive me, first of all the second senate -- that was discussed here -- and then the third senate.
Q: Thank you. I now come back to the question of the Polish Legion. What do you have to say in general in regard to the problem of the Polish Legion?
A: At a later time than in the ease of the Czech Legionnaires, about which I spoke already, the Reich Military Court, via the OKW and the Minister of Justice also transferred the cases concerning the Polish Legion to the Reich Public Prosecution at the People's Court. In point of numbers, they were less than the Czech cases. However, I shall come back to the numbers later on. The counterintelligence service of the OKW in their expert opinion had pointed out that the Polish Legion which fought on the side of the enemy had considerable strength and continuously received new recruitments; and, as far as possible, this should be stopped. From the army reports, moreover -- front reports -- there was evidence according to which Polish units, the strength of which at the end had grown to about one hundred thousand men, fought on the side of the enemy.
Q: Witness, I again hand you the working files of the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor at the People's Court in the criminal ease against Mazur, Did the Reich Public Prosecution at the People's Court, on their own, institute investigations as to whether in Switzerland recruiting offices for the Polish Legion existed?
A: The facts were as follows: During the course of the campaign in France, parts of the Polish Legion had been withdrawn across the Swiss border into Swiss territory; there they were interned; and Switzerland behaved absolutely correctly as a neutral country, but this was not the issue here. But rather, the German counter-intelligence service had found out the following: That in Switzerland, perhaps in connection with the interned Legion --- or, not in connection with it -- an illegal recruiting and transport service had been instituted which made it its task to have Polish citizens provided a way to get to Africa through Switzerland and Southern France. This fact which we first made certain, as can be seen by the Mazur file by an inquiry to the competent Border Police Director, Stuttgart, was part of the basis for the filing of an indictment, since they supported the suspicion which formed the basis of it. From the Mazur file and the order contained on page 6 in this file it is also evident that the Reich Public Prosecution, before it prosecuted further, waited for the receipt of the answer to this inquiry. Unfortunately, the answer is not contained in this file. According to the work schedule it could not be because it was included in the general file which had been made up for this case as a whole.
Q: Witness, do you still remember what information you received in regard to the question whether recruiting
A: I said that already. From the answer of the head office of the Border Police, Stuttgart, it was apparent without doubt that according to the information which they had from Switzerland that there was an illegal recruiting and transport service which helped Poles to get to Switzerland and to Africa; but to that extent Switzerland apparently did everything that it was possible to do, and as far as it could; and, from the files, it is occasionally apparent that the Swiss border officials returned the Poles who had crossed the border from Germany, but in all cases they probably did not succeed.
Q: Had the Ministry of Justice also informed you to what extent recruiting offices for the Polish Legion existed in Switzerland?
A: IF I remember correctly, the same information had also reached us from the Foreign Office via the Ministry of Justice.
Q: Thank you. The prosecution seems to assume that the indictments were not the results of attempts to join the Polish Legion, but were a means to prosecute Poles because of their flight from Germany and their places of work. Please comment on this.
A: For us that certainly was not the motive for the filing of an indictment, because we were convinced that the suspicion was justified. Moreover, against such allegations the fact probably speaks which can be gathered from Exhibit 259 of the Prosecution. From that it can be gathered that particularly at the time in question here, hundreds, perhaps thousands of Poles left their places of work in the Reich, and if only a very small number of these were tried before a court because they wanted to join the Legion, this makes it apparent that they were not tried only because they left their place of work.
The other participating offices, that is the police, the counter-intelligence of the OKW were probably also of the opinion that here we were faced not only with flight from the place of work, but flight for a special purpose.
The general situation was just as I described it. During the war the German Reich, as any warring power, had closed its borders and this had been done for reasons of the security of the state and was, therefore, necessary because everybody who crossed the border and reached neutral country or an enemy country took along with him important experiences and knowledge which he had gained in the warring country. Poles knew that too.
Q Witness, you have already stated before that a Pole, only for the reason that he had left his place of work on his own, could not be tried and sentenced by the People's Court. Now, according to your determinations in the individual cases in which Poles were indicted because of attempt to reach the Polish Legion, did other reasons for suspicion also play a role which supported the suspicion on the basis of which then, in accordance with the law, you were obliged to raise an indictment?
A I just wanted to talk about that.
Q Will you please state what reasons for suspicion have regularly played a role also?
A If somebody crosses the border with a certain purpose in mind and he is caught in the act, then in the most infrequent of cases will he be inclined to say, and be ready to say, what intentions he had in mind, for in so doing he would damage his own case. Criminal cases which were conducted under this point of view--and this is probably not the case only in Germany --therefore, arc based to a large extent on the justified conclusions one can draw from the facts available.
Now, it was here known generally what I have already stated, that this was led to the Polish Legion if one started out on it. Secondly, it was known that among the Polish workers in Southwestern Germany these conditions and the recognition were widespread. Furthermore, it was generally known to those workers too that favorable conditions for work could not be expected in Switzerland; and, finally, it was in accordance with the experiences which had been gathered in other trials that a large number of these people who crossed the border after their arrest did not even deny this intention.
These general considerations alone would have, in my opinion, justified such a strong suspicion that in accordance with German criminal power sufficient suspicion for the filling of an indictment existed, and that thus the indictment had to be filed in accordance with the law.
The two indictments which bear my signature are the Bratek and Stefanowitsch cases. The following element, however, is added. Bratek had referred to the fact that he only wanted to cross the border in order to avoid work.
DR. GRUBE: In the Bratek case here we are concerned with Exhibit 136.
A (Continuing): As I said, the claimed it was only for the reason to attempt to seek work that he did wanted to cross the border. By means of the additional investigations which the division chief instituted, however, it had been found out that he did not like to work; that he had already left other places of work so that his statement, that he wanted to seek new work in another country in which there were difficult conditions of work, did not seem very credible. So that for that reason his statement had to be accepted with reservations.
In the Stefanowitsch case the additional factor was that already once, when he attempted to cross the border to Denmark, he had been caught and this crossing of the border to Denmark, a country which was occupied by German troops, could, according to the situation at that time, have been caused by no other intention than the intention to reach England. In England too it was possible to join Polish units.
Q I would like to say here to Stefanowitsch case is contained in Exhibit 132.
A Those were the facts which, after investigating the case, as was my duty, caused me to file an indictment at that time. And today too I have no cause to correct that conviction.
Q Another question, witness. In the case of the Poles who were tried and sentenced because of their attempt to join the Polish Legion, were they forced labor or displaced persons?
A The contrary is proved by the Prosecution documents themselves.
Q Please, will you first say what file I have handed to you?
A This is the file of the People's Court in the criminal case against Stefanowitsch and Lenczevski.
Q The same case as Exhibit 132?
A Yes, it is the same case.
Q Please turn to Page 14.
A I have it.
Q What is this notation on Page 14?
A Page 14 and subsequent pages contains the transcript of the investigating judge of the People's Court in Innsbruck, of 3 October 1942. According to this transcript by the investigating judge Stefanowitsch, in his statements to persons, said, "I reported voluntarily for commitment of labor to Germany."
Q Did he sign that statement?
A Stefanowitsch signed it too.
Q Please, now turn to Page 18.
A I have it here.
Q What do you have there?
A This too is a transcript by the investigating judge of the People's Court in Innsbruck of 6 October 1942, and this concerns the interrogation of the defendant Lenczevski, L-e-n-c-z-e-v-s-k-i-.
Q Can you state briefly what is expressed in this interrogation?
A Lenczevski too told the judge, according to this transcript, "I reported voluntarily for commitment of labor to Germany." He too signed the transcript.
Q Can you still remember whether, in other documents submitted by the Prosecution, there are also indications which show that these parties came to Germany voluntarily?
A If I am not mistaken, this is evidenced also from the Bratek file.
Q Yes. I may say here that the Bratek case is contained in Exhibit 136. Do you wish to make any additional remarks about these legion cases?
A In those cases in which the senate, deviating from the indictment, sentenced the people on the basis of the law against Poles, I shall make a statement about these later on. However, already now I could point out the following: From the Stefanowitsch file, in which the transcript of the trial before the People's Court is also contained, there appears the following: that the defense counsel of the defendant Lenczevski, attorney Dr. Goeringer from Nuernberg, who appeared as expert before this Tribunal, in his final plea asked that the court sentence his client on the basis of the law against Poles.
Q Witness, what do you have to say about the figures which are mentioned in your affidavit, Exhibit 126, and in the letter by the Counter-Intelligence Office, Exhibit 127?
A When the interrogator questioned me I was asked only about the Polish cases. I think this was the second interrogation of a total of three. I was asked how many cases altogether came before the People's Court. First I stated that it was hardly possible to state that from memory, but that that figure was not considerable, and that I estimated it to be at the most 100 to 200 cases. Today I am convinced that there were much less.
When Prosecution Exhibit 127 was submitted -- that is NG-419that is a prosecution document which concerns the cases of the Czech Legion -- that is an entirely different group -- in submitting it the prosecution pointed out that from this last-mentioned exhibit a much larger number resulted and that, therefore, my statements in the interrogation under oath could not be correct.
I can only say in answer to this that during the course of further interrogations which did not take place I would have made some statements about the Czech cases too, I would, no doubt, have named these figures which I should have remembered still at the time. I don't believe that I involved myself in contradiction.
Q I now come to the NN proceedings. As is evident from the documents which the prosecution submitted for the sentencing in so-called NN cases, originally four special courts were competent.
Witness, when the People's Court involved in the jurisdiction in the NN cases?
A The competence of the People's Court was based on the decree of the Reich Minister of Justice of 14 October 1942. That is Exhibit 313, NG-226. Thus, it was at a time when the General Administration of Justice had for over half a year been involved in the NN cases already. And when the regulations were issued for the executions of special procedures for these cases, proceedings had been already handled for several months, to NN cases, because they had to be called top secret, were just as unknown to me at the time as to other public prosecutors.
Q Did the Peoples Court became competent in all trials against NN prisoners?
A No, the regulation was as follows: That the Peoples Court handled only the most serious cases for which the Peoples Court was as such, competent according to law--that is, espionage cases, high treason, and lending aid comfort to the enemy.
Q Did you have an influence upon the issuance of the RJM -Reich Justice Ministry decree, through which the competence of the Peoples Court and also the competence of the Reich public prosecution was based?
A I was not asked whether I agreed to it. When it was issued I was confronted with a fait accompli. That happened quite frequently in other matters, too.
Q What was your general opinion in regard to the NN proceedings?
A I was not very happy about this new task. The main reason was -- and to that extent I believe I have quite a good judgment as to where the real difficulties of this material lay, from statements by the prisoners which they addressed to me at the court, one could see again and again that what hurt the most, and from which they suffered most, was the fact not that they had been brought to Germany but that they were cut off from every correspondence with their relatives, and that while they were in detention the comfort which a prisoner needs very badly in such a situation was lacking for them.
Q Were you in agreement with these strict measures for keeping the prisoners incommunicado, which were provided in the regulations issued by the Ministry and in the orders which the Ministry gave to the prisons. Did you do anything against them?
A Keeping the prisoners incommunicado and cut off from the outside world, the witness Hecker testified to this, was carried out in accordance with strict orders which the Minister had issued to the prisons and it was assured in this way by the Thierack Ministry. I certainly would not have gotten any place with complaints. Therefore, I approached the witness Lehmann, and my friend Sack, in order to convince them to exert the necessary influence in their fields. I repeatedly showed them letters from prisoners. They also repeatedly told me that the Wehrmacht also continuously made efforts to achieve particularly this point, was moved by an appeal to Hitler, but they did not succeed, I myself could not have forced a change because if I had issued the instruction to the person to let a letter pass then either this instruction would not have been obeyed, or at the latest the letter would have been detained by the consorship offices.
Q Witness, would you have been competent to issue such instructions to the prisons?
A No, I could not have done that at all.
Q But later on, to be sure, in some individual cases reports about the fate of prisoners were permitted?
A In some few cases this happened. I believe that the defendant von Ammon knows more about this.
Q Did the Reich Public Prosecutor or the Peoples Court have anything to do with having the NN prisoners brought to Germany?
A No, when we were involved in these cases the majority of the prisoners had already been brought to Germany. Those who arrived later were brought to Germany without our participation in any respect.
Q The Peoples Court, and accordingly also the Reich Public Prosecution, within the framework of the so-called NN action, merely had the task of jurisdiction?
A Yes, that was our task.
Q Did you have anything to do with the carrying out of prison administration of the sentences in the case of NN prisoners?
AAfter a sentence was pronounced as to what was the prison term, it was our task to send the prisoner to the prison which was competent for his detention. That is where the task of the prosecution was completed. A death sentence in which the head of the state had refused to pronounce a pardon had to be executed in accordance with the regulations.
Q By the way, did all Senates of the Peoples Court have something to do with NN cases?
A The division of work among the Senates changed, not only in regard to that question, but generally, and frequently. Therefore, I can make this statement only with reservations. The second Senate was primarily concerned with NN cases, and the first Senate also had some NN cases.
It may be, however, that the third Senate occasionally also handled NN cases, but I don't know that for sure any more.
Q Can you still make statements as to how the NN cases were handled by the Reich Public Prosecution?
A When these new cases came to us I paid particular attention to them. I selected my best prosecutors, and my best experienced division chief. That was my deputy Reich Public Prosecutor Parrisius. Those who had been selected by me were people about whom I was certain that with the greatest care and conscientiousness they would examine the files so that no circumstances would be left out of consideration which could speak in favor of the defendant and was contained in the files. We selected only these cases in which espionage in favor of the enemy mostly by means of secret radio transmitters and through the establishments of wooden depots and partisanship, the security of the front in the West had been considerably jeopardized. Those are acts which, according to the war law of all nations, are considered to be very serious.
I repeatedly gave my approval or secured the approval of the Minister of Justice that in the occupied territories of Belgium and France, through mediation of the German Military Courts Martial which were working there, supplementary evidence was to be secured.
Q The Prosecution has submitted document Exhibit 323. Please comment.
A What does that concern?
Q Exhibit 323 concerns the serving of the indictment.
A I see. I have already explained, in the description of the order of business, that the serving of the indictment as such was a matter that was up to the Senate. Thus it would, as such, have been up to the Senate to see to it that the translation was attached to the indictment. During the first period the proper informing of the defendant by means of the indictment was assured by having, in the prisons of the West which were set aside for them, sufficiently trained interpreters at their disposal who translated the indictment for the defendant in the prison, and in so doing they could answer every question which the defendants put in connection with the indictment. That changed when, due to the air war, it proved to be necessary--at least the Ministry of Justice believed that it was necessary--to transfer the prisons to other places which would be in less danger of air attacks. There, occasionally, the necessary interpreters were lacking and in some individual cases it had occurred that the indictment was not translated for the prisoners, so that only during the trial they did find out what they were being charged with.
When I heard that, I immediately intervened and had the authorization issued to me that I, deviating from the prevailing procedure, would, in the future, submit a translation of the indictment which had already been completed in Berlin, and translated into the mother tongue of the prisoners--that is, as a rule, into French--for serving to the defendants, and that I could submit the indictment, together with the translation, to the People's Court.
The defendant von Ammon mediated on behalf of this, and in the future it was handled in that way.
Q In NN cases, did you have to submit the indictments to the Minister of Justice?
AAll indictments had to be submitted, as was true in every other case. It had to be reported, also, as to what application for penalty was anticipated for the trial of each case, that the result of the trial would be in accordance with the situation which formed the basis of the indictment.
Q I now come to Exhibits 325 and 333. These concern the number of trials. Please comment.
AAccording to Exhibit 333, until 30 April 1944, the Reich Public Prosecution, in 134 cases, filed indictments against 588 defendants. Since this figure did not increase considerably later on, it was thus concerned with not quite 9 percent of all NN cases.
Q The Prosecution further submitted Exhibit 314, 317 and 320. These exhibits refer to the appointment of defense counsel in NN cases. What do you have to say about this?
A The appointment of defense counsel was up to the Senates, but no defendant appeared before the Court without a defense counsel. Occasionally here too, when there was no conflict of interests, several defendants had one defense counsel.
Q A short intermediate question: In several documents concerning the NN group--for example, in Exhibits 315 and 316--the so-called Porto prisoners are discussed. Would you please state what that means?
A The designation "Porto" was the cover name for special espionage cases.
Q In documents submitted by the Prosecution, Exhibits 320 and 321, the treatment of so-called non-genuine NN prisoners is discussed.
Do you have any comments on this?
A The treatment of prisoners who were designated as non-genuine NN prisoners was in accordance with instructions issued by the Ministry.
Q I again come to the trials before the People's Court in NN cases. How were the trials of individual NN cases conducted before the People's Court?
A The treatment of cases before the Senate was absolutely correct. The trial, on principle, took place outside of Berlin in the places where the prisoners were detained. This was conditioned by this fact, that between the serving of the indictment and the appointment of defense counsel on the one hand, and the date of the opening of the trial, there was a sufficiently long period during which the defense for the trial could be prepared. The presiding judge in NN cases, in most instances, was the presiding judge of the second Senate; that was Vice President Krohne. Vice President Krohne had been an officer during the World War, and the foreign defendants, with dignity, who in part had also been soldiers, and were treated, all of them without exception, as this compatriots, showed a very good attitude before the Court, and the prosecutors, who attended the sessions for me also did the same.
In view of this correct treatment in this sector of jurisdiction, I can understand why the witness Roemer, who saw a greater number of sentences against NN prisoners, and who certainly read them very thoroughly and critically, summarized his opinion-- when he was examined here as a witness--to the effect that he had gained the impression that the defendants had really committed the acts which they were alledged to have committed in the sentence, the more so since farewell letters by defendants who were condemned to death showed that they did not profess their innocence, but expressed their pride in being privileged to suffer for their country.
Q Witness, may I remind you that the witness Roemer stated that the sentences were not contrary to international law? However, in some cases he considered the sentences too severe. Will you comment on this?
A The extent of the penalty in the cases taken over by the People's Court, if espionage had occurred, was laid down unequivocably by the law. In cases of espionage, only the death penalty could be pronounced. In the balance of cases the situation in the criminal cases was so serious that one could not avoid pronouncing the death penalty. However, prison sentences were pronounced too, in a very large number of cases, and there were also acquittals.
Q Did the Reich Prosecution effect more severe treatment in NN cases?
A We neither had the inclination not the reason to do so. My report of 15 May 1944, also in Exhibit 469, which is apparently interpreted in that way by the prosecution, does not prove that. This document shows that it is report which I had to make at the request of the Ministry, in which I stated my opinion in regard to a special question, namely, the question of the application of a decree of the German Commander-in-Chief in Northwestern France. This decree concerned a short excerpt of the cases which I handled.
Whether it was applied or whether the situation of paragraph 91-B was applied as we did when we filed an indictment was of no significance in the final analysis. In accordance with the seriousness of the case the most severe penalty had to be imposed. This is explained in this report, but at the same time it is pointed out that we started with that assumption. However, only if simultaneously there were sufficient reasons for thinking that the person who committed the offense actually had the same intention to damage the war power of the Reich in favor of the enemy.
Q. Did the trials before the People's Court in the NN cases always conclude with death penalties?
A. I have already pointed that out just now, that this was not the case. It couldn't be the case here. I only have to say something more about the acquittals. Due to the decree by Thierack from the beginning of 1943 -- I believe that is when it was -
Q. 14 October 1942?
A. No, the one from October 1943. That concerns itself with the acquittals.
Q. 1943?
A. Yes. Can you state the exhibit?
Q. That is Exhibit 313 and /or Exhibit 328. There are two exhibits which are concerned.
A. Through this decree which came to my attention also it was laid down that those who had been acquitted could not be released to go home but had to be handed over to the Gestapo for the duration of the war for detention. This instruction, too, was assured by having corresponding instructions issued to the prisons. I could not repeal these instructions. Moreover, one has to take into consideration that even if the prison had not obeyed the instruction, the prisoner without papers which he needed, after all could not have reached his country. This help he could not have obtained in view of the prevailing situation.
Q. Witness, did it happen that NN cases which were pending with the Reich Prosecution were not tried before the People's Court because the Reich Prosecution stopped the proceedings?
A. Suspensions also occurred occasionally. In view of the decree I just cited it could be suggested in the cases of suspensions to release the prisoner to the occupied territories. This suggestion was made repeatedly. Whether it was carried out we could not find out, not even via the OKW.
Q. The Prosecution submitted exhibit 309. This concerns the Leb case. Please state your opinion.
A. This document shows that I did not work on this case, and since it does not have any signature of mine, I apparently did not see it, either. In spite of that one can draw important conclusions from it. First, the two prisoners were not NN prisoners at all. Rather, they were designated as such only by mistake. In France they had already been arrested by the security police, the German Sicherheits Polizei, and one of them had, I believe, at least that is what their file says, been shot as a hostage, while the prisoner whose name was Leb, because she was a Jewess was sent to Ausschwitz. The consequences of the transfer of the prisoner Leb to Ausschwitz was not realized at that time by the representative of the Reich Public Prosecution.
Q. An intermediate question, witness. Who brought Leb to Ausschwitz?
A. I said that already. The Security Police in France immediately.
Q. Thank You.
A. Because the Referent requested Ausschwitz to send the prisoner Leb to Berlin for trial and only through this request did one achieve clarity to the fact that Leb was no NN prisoner at all.
Q. But the Prosecution alleges that, as in allegedly apparent from this document, the Reich Public Prosecution, especially emphatically desired that Leb be treated as an NN Prisoner. Will you please comment on this?
A. In the file in connection with the request to transfer Leb from Ausschwitz to Berlin a request to the police was made that during the transport the prisoner Leb should be kept incommunicado. This was not a special precaution because of the NN proceedings.
Q. The prosecution further submitted Exhibit 416. Can you make some statement about this? This is the action in the fall of 1944.
A. About the discontinuance of the action in the fall of 1944 I personally know very little, when this decree was issued in September 1944 due to the fact that I was working on the cases it connection with the 20th of July physically and mentally I was overburdened to the limit of my capacity, and therefore I asked my deputy Reich public Prosecutor Parrisius to take care of official business. However, I do know that one day during a recess he informed me that Hitler had issued a decree which repealed the continuance of jurisdiction of NN prisoners by the courts. There were still some things that were not quite clear, but that he would clear them up together with the Ministry, When a few weeks later I again could take care of my official business to a greater extent I also had this matter reported to me. I was told the following. As far as prisoners who were serving a sentence were concerned the matter had been turned over to the Ministry as being the office which was competent for prisons. Moreover he, that is Parisius, had to leave problems in connection with the decree in question to the Prosecutors at the Special Courts who had submitted the files to us. For the production of the prisoners from the different prisons had, due to the confusion in the traffic conditions, become so confused that he in Berlin no longer knew where the individual prisoner was being detained. However he had heard that this transfer action, due to the complete confusion and disruption, if at all could have been carried out only to the smallest extent.
Q. The Prosecution further submitted Exhibit 334. This concerns the delays in the treatment of NN cases. Please state your opinion in regard to this.