A. Yesterday in that connection I referred to the testimony by the witness Schlegelberger, who in the witness stand stated that the limitations which resulted for the proceedings on account of evidence from abroad could only work in favor of the defendant. Even though investigations were first of all carried out in the occupied territories before the NN-prisoners were transferred to Germany, yet it was a matter of course that that evidence was not always without gaps.
Difficulties which arose from the fact that the evidence had gaps are evident from Exhibit 334. That exhibit is a report by the General Public Prosecutor at Kattowice to the Reich Ministry of Justice which deals with such difficulties. In this connection, I would also like to point out especially the existence of Exhibit 335, which shows that occasionally we were confronted with rather dubious police transcripts and that when we had been informed that such police records occasionally had been obtained by inadmissible means, Dr. von Ammon, during his official trip to Upper Silesia, had an apportunity to discuss this matter with the chief judge for Belgium and Northern France, Dr. Schikaski. It was gratifying that in the course of that conversation, it was found that Dr. Shikaski like Dr. von Ammon and myself considered it necessary to remedy that sate of affairs. Once again a point had arisen which showed that we of the Reich Ministry of Justice were in complete agreement with the men from the High Command of the Armed Forces to the effect that the NN proceedings in all their phases had to be carried out in an orderly and unexceptional manner. That view was shown also in other work and cooperation with the legal department of the Armed Forces once again.
Q. Dr. Mettgenberg, in this connection you have mentioned the legal department of the Armed Forces, as far as you can remember who were the men at the High Command of the Armed Forces with whom you dealt?
A. I personally was in particularly close contact with Dr. Lehmann, who has appeared here as a witness. That was due simply to the fact that for a long time we had worked together at the Reich Ministry of Justice before he was transferred to the High Command of the Armed forces. When he took over the Legal Department of the High Command, our friendly cooperation continued with Ministry Councillor Huelle too, the man who was official referent for NN-matters at the High Command. That is to say that he was the Command filled the task that with us was filled by Dr. von Ammon. With Huelle too, Von Ammon and I had friendly relationship.
Q. May I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the chart, half of which appears here. That is the chart which the prosecution introduced and there on that sheet there was the name of Dr. Lehmann, -- name is no longer there. He was shown as the liaison officer with Department IV, and Mettgenberg and von Ammon as far as NN-Cases were concerned. Dr. Lehmann, whose name appeared here, has since been here as a witness. May I say that the men whom the witness Mettgenberg has just mentioned were not prosecuted and that all those men are at liberty.
Dr. Mettgenberg, the next point which we have to discuss is the question of the defense; in that respect too a number of documents have been submitted.
A In this connection may I refer to Exhibits 314 and 317. Those two documents reveal that two measures have be be discussed here. The first measure is the limitation in the choice of defense counsel, that is to say the limitation of a privilege of the defendant to choose a defense counsel for himself. That limitation is laid down in the circular decree of 21 December, 1942. That that limitation had to be made is obvious on account of secrecy which was made mandatory for NN matters. The free selection of defense counsel could be allowed for obvious reasons only in exceptional cases. The circular decree which settles this matter was drafted by Departments III and IV. For Department III the witness Suchomel and for Department IV I, deputizing for the chief of the department, signed it. The second measure concerns the cases of necessary defense. There, too, a limitation occured which approximately in March, 1942 was decreed and which evidently was decreed by Minister Thierack himself. The ruling was that in all serious cases a defense counsel had to be appointed. In all cases where the defendant was sentenced by the People's Court, in all cases where there was a threat that the death sentence might be passed, a defense counsel had to be appointed. In other cases, that is to say in lighter cases, it was left to the discretion of the presiding judge to make a decision as to whether a defense counsel was necessary or not. The reason for this limitation was not the secrecy, but the lack of a sufficient number of defense counsel, which was due to war time conditions. That the lack of a defense counsel in German proceedings is quite a different thing that it would be in American proceedings, had become quite obvious here, and I do not believe it is necessary for me to comment on that.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, did you know of a case where an NN prisoner did not have a defense counsel in a trial before the People's Court?
A I did not hear of any such case, and I must regard that as being quite out of the question because it would be against the regulations.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, my next question refers to the law of procedure, and it is discussed in Exhibit 313. We are here concerned with the way in which the court was committed to comply with the application by the public prosecutor. Would you comment on this and would you tell the court about possible changes in this.
A I believe that I shall be able to be very brief, because the witness Dr. Schlegelberger has spoken about these matters at length. I am referring to the explanation of Figure No. 6 of the executory order of 6 February, 1942. That circular decree, as Dr. Sclegelberger stated, was distorted by Freisler. He, Dr. Sclegelberger, in his testimony clarified matters. He stated clearly that and why this ruling had been made. I should only be able to repact that, and I do not think that is necessary.
Q Did Minister Thierack, after he assumed office, make any changes in that matter; or, in other respects concerning NN matters?
A Dr. Thierack, after he assumed office, very soon had a special report made to him about NN matters. The reports were made to him by the Departments III and IV. He dissaproved of the previous rulings on two points. The first point referred to the fact that the People's Court was not competent for NN matters. According to the previous ruling NN cases were dealt with exclusively by certain special courts. Even the most serious cases came before those special courts, and not before the People's Court which would really have been competent for these matters. Dr. Thierack himself was of the opinion that that arrangement had been made to exclude him -- Dr. Thierack who was then president of the People's Court. Therefore, he attached all the greater importance to the fact that now that he had assumed office as minister, that diregard for the People's Court -- that was how he locked at the matter -- should come to an end, and that the People's Court should be competent in NN cases too, for such matters for which the competence of the People's Court in itself was indicated.
The second point of which Minister Thierack did not approve was the ruling that the Administration of Justice had the custody over the NN prisoners. He disapproved of the very point which has just been discussed -that the public prosecutor in certain circumstances by an application that the proceedings were to be suspended might be able to see to it that we were able to keep the NN prisoners in our custody. Minister Thierack wished proceedings to be concluded in the normal way, and that the NN prisoners, in case of their acquittal or in case they had finished serving their punishment, were to be returned to the police which had originally transferred them to us. On account of instructions for the Minister, Department III, which was placed in charge of these matters, on 14 October, 1942 worked out a corresponding basic circular decree. The Minister requested the chief of the department, on account of this change to contact the RSHA and the High Command of the Armed Forces and the RSHA to negotiate with them. Dr. Krohne carried cut that mission and found out that both authorities agreed to the change . Consequently, a conference was called at the Reich Ministry of Justice, at which Dr. Krohne announced the changes which had been ordered by Thierack and at which a discussion of the changes was held. The changes which were made were announced in a circular decree of 28 October, 1942.
Q May it please the Court, the circular decree to which the witness has referred is dated 28 October, 1942, and is Exhibit 313Dr. Mettgenberg, we have now concluded our discussion of the questions concerning the code of procedure. You have spoken of the deviations which were the result of secrecy and you have explained them exhaustively. Now, I must ask you this. The police are mentioned frequently in the documents.
Did you have difficulties with the police over these NN cases?
A Yes. In NN cases too, we had difficulties with the police. It would have been astonishing if in that special sphere we had not had the difficulties which we encountered in our contacts with the police otherwise. In NN matters the police, toward us, took up the view that when the prisoners had been transferred to Germany, according to the will of Hitler, the question that punishment as such should be imposed had been settled. That means to say that the transfer to Germany actually only was intended to take the NN prisoners into police custody, and to leave them in police custody; that legal proceedings were carried out against NN prisoners was contradictory to that basic attitude of the police.
Our attitude as I have emphasized repeatedly, was exactly the opposite. We considered it as an advantage for the NN prisoners if we kept them in custody as long as possible, we, the administration of justice, but if one casts a glance at Exhibit 310 one sees clearly how the police wanted these matters treated. There is says in a decree to the police authorities, and I shall now have to quote:
"In case the NN prisoners be brought before a special court, they should be taken into a concentration camp." As to what the police were thinking when they said "in case they cannot be brought before a special court," that I do not know even now, but at any rate I think one can conclude from that that the police department did not transfer all NN prisoners to the administration of justice. That conclusion would corroborate what we supposed at the time and it would also corroborate the information we imparted to the High Command of the Armed Forces. Those assumptions of which I am talking can be seen in Exhibit 381. At that time Dr. von Ammon, after he had discussed the matter with me, tried to get the High Command of the Armed Forces to lock into things , and to find out whether actually the police was keeping the NN prisoners in their custody and if so that the high Command of the Armed Forces was to remedy that state of affairs. What is characteristic in this contact is also Exhibit 324, which contains a longhty report by the police, which shows what the police were hoping of a new regulation for NN matters in the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask question before you leave that point? Dr. Mettgenberg, I didn't understand as you stated it, what document you were quoting from when you read these words: "If the NN prisoners cannot be taken to a special court, they shall be taken to a concentration camp." What document was that from please?
WITNESS: Your Honor, that is Exhibit 310.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, this document, Exhibit 310, that refers to an internal occurence among the police officials, did you know of that when you were in office?
A No, I only got to know of it here.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, the report which the witness Mettgenberg has just referred to, Exhibit 324, contains on page 3 of the German copy, a farily long statement by a Sturmbannfuehrer Deppner. This man Deppner in this report voiced the point of view of the police expressed at a discussion in 1943 when what was discussed was a transfer of NN matters to the courts in the Netherlands too. I am only mentioning that by way of explanation for the Tribunal.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, do you wish to make any additional comments concerning difficulties between the administration of justice and the police concerning NN matters?
A I believe in conclusion it would be good if I referred to Exhibit 447. That exhibit too shows the difficulties that existed between us and the police although this concerned a matter of lesser importance in a technical matters, in fact. It concerns the transfer of NN cases from Cologne to Berslau, a transfer which we believed necessary. At any rate it shows that the police believed it necessary to interfere in such things and to suppress our measures.
Q We have just discussed the ruling concerning the NN problem in the Netherlands. The documents reveals that in the late autumn of 1943 a ruling was made such as had previously been made in the other Western territories of Europe, which were under German occupation. Can you comment on that please?
A It struck us that no NN cases came to us from the Netherlands and an inquiry to the High Command of the Armed Forced showed that the High Command too had made the same observations. Therefore, it had reports made by it's military representatives in the Netherlands and discovered that in effect in the Netherlands the NN prisoners were handed to the police. Legal proceedings did not take place. The High Command of the Armed Forces immediately intervened and by a decree to the Commander of the Netherlands ordered that the treatment of NN matters in the Netherlands was to be the same as in the other occupied territories in the West. I considered it advisable to go there myself and form an opinion of my own of events there. Although I used to go on many officials trips I only wont on one official trip in connection with NN matters and that was this trip to the Netherlands which I made together with Dr. von Ammon. At the Hague we negotiated with the competent authorities and we heard about the facts which I have just described. In effect the military forces in the Netherlands had not made use of their privilege to transfer tho NN matters under Article 3, section 2 of the Military Code of Penal Procedure they had not made use of that. During those discussions at the Hague we as always took up our basic position that in all circumstances legal proceedings had to be carried out. As far as the Court of the Armed Forces themselves did not want to deal with the matters they were to transfer such proceedings to the civil courts, but on no account were the prisoners to be handed to the police without proper judgment having been passed.On this point too concerning the Netherlands we were acting in complete agreement with the men at the Central Office of the High Command.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, concerning this agreement of which you have just spoken, this agreement with the Chief of the Legal Department of the Armed forces, I suppose it was obvious that you should have been informed about military questions, and I assume it was also discussed as to whether the administration of justice of the Armed Forces, which was actually competent, was satisfied with the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, in so far as these cases had been transferred by the armed forces to the ordinary courts.
Would you please tell the Tribunal about the information you obtained on that subject at the time?
A I was always desirious concerning the good relations which existed on these matters between the Ministry of Justice and the High Command of the Armed Forces being established also between the Courts which dealt with the NN matters and the military authorities in the occupied territories. It is obvious that the Prosecution and the Courts in Germany could only know conditions in the occupied territories from a distance.
Therefore I was very anxious for these men themselves to go to the occupied territories to have discussions there with the military authorities and to get their own information on the spot. Therefore repeatedly such trips for the purpose of information, if I may Call them that, were carried out, and I did my best to see to it that Dr. von Annon went along on those trips. In affect, these trips resulted in establishing valuable contact, which, in turn, resulted in the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and of the civil judiciary working in the same way along the same lines. The Administration of Justice of the Armed Forces was always keeping the jurisdiction of the civil courts under close observation, and I was pleased that they were doing that. We were altogether desirous of having a certain amount of control, of control which could only be exercised by the authorities of the armed forces. We were particularly anxious to know whether the sentences which were passed by our courts in NN matters were neither too severe nor too lenient, and I was always gratified when I found that the military authorities told us that on this point, too, they were altogether satisfied with us. The authorities of the Armed Forces emphasized again and again that they were not interested in having particularly severe sentences passed. The secrecy as such was a sufficient deterrent. It was not necessary to pass sentences which were a particular deterrent in themselves. To know that and to act accordingly was of great value to our authorities, too. I believe what I have said just now is essentially contained in Exhibits 322 and 335. The documents speak for themselves. I do not think I need give any further explanations.
Q The Prosecution believes that proceedings against these NN prisoners did not prevent the transfer of innocent prisoners to the police. Would you tell us what view you took of those matters at the time?
A I believe that what the Prosecution has to say on that point is correct. The only thing I cannot see is as to what entent that constitutes a reproach to us. We, as is evident from Exhibit 328, saw to it that the Public Prosecutor who conducted investigations in an NN case and who had decided to have proceedings stopped because the evidence was not sufficient to convict the defendant, was to make himself clear as to whether the NN prisoner was to be returned to the occupied territory or not.
We saw, although our opportunities were limited, that in many cases these statements on the part of the prosecutor led to it that the police did allow innocent persons to return to tho occupied territories. On that point, too, by the way, there was complete agreement with the high command of the Armed Forces. May I refer to Exhibit 335, which explains that.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, the Prosecution has introduced another exhibit. It is Exhibit 334, which contains a report by the General Public Prosecutor at Kattowice dated 27 July 1944 to the Ministry. That report contains a suggestion that NN prisoners might be employed in the armament industries. May I ask you to comment on that document and to tell the Tribunal as to what the Ministry ordered to be done after it had received that suggestion.
A That question was put to the Ministry by the General Public Prosecutor at Kattowice. He asked whether NN prisoners who had been employed in the armament industry, and everything was arament industry with us, could remain in custody under the Administration of Justice even if they had been acquitted or even if they had served their term. At the Ministry it was Department V which had to decide on that question, the department, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the department which had to administrate the execution of punishment at the prisons. Department V, which as I said, dealt with this question, approached us and asked our opinion. Department IV replied to the question received from Department V that there was no doubt that it would be in the interest both of the prisoners and of industry if the prisoners were to remain in custody of the Administration of Justice and were not to be transferred to the police. Department 5 did not decide the matter, and current events outmoded the question as such.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, we are now coming to a new question, and this question refers to the clemency pleas, and it refers particularly to the question of death sentences. To start with, I want to ask you whether in NN matters there were discrepancies comparing these NN proceedings with proceedings against German defendants, that is to say, were NN prisoners who had been sentenced to death treated in a different way than Germans who had not been sentenced to death?
A The answer to this question is a clear no. There were no differences in the treatment of clemency pleas, whether they concerned NN prisoners or a German subject. Regarding the pre-examination of the question as to whether a death sentence was to be carried out on an NN prisoner, the same points of view were decisive which were decisive in the cases of German defendants and defendants of other nationalities.
Q Do you know of any case where the clemency plea was treated differently when an NN prisoner was concerned?
A I have stated that I, as subdepartment, chief, generally speaking was not competent to play a part when a decision had to be made as to whether a death sentence was to be carried out. The same was true of NN prisoners, but I believe it would have come to my knowledge if in the case of NN prisoners any special points of view had been applied, therefore I believe I am entitled to answer that question with "no."
Q The Prosecution in this connection introduced Exh. 312. That exhibit contains a remark by Dr. von Ammon made on the 26th of September, 1942. The undersecretary is to make a decision. That office at the time was held by Dr. Rothenberger -- about the competency in clemency matters. The literal expression is the competency in clemency matters. Would you comment on that please?
A The question was whether the competence for clemency matters lay with the High Command of the Armed Forces or with the Reich Minister of Justice. According to the general legal view the High Command of Armed Forces retained its competence for clemency matters even in those cases where civil courts had deputized for military courts and had passed their sentences, deputized for the military authorities.
A transfer of penal proceedings from the military courts to the civilian courts existed also outside of NN matters. And concerning those other cases in effect the high command exercised a careful control to see to it that the competence for clemency matters remained with it. even when the civil court had passed the sentence. Therefore in NN cases, too, the High Command of the Armed Forces might easily have had the competence for deciding on the clemency plea. Minister Thierack, however, believed that that competence on clemency matters was his own prerogative and he had negotiations conducted on that subject with the High Command of the Armed Forces.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
The result was that the High Command and the Chief of the legal department, Dr. Lehmann, as well as the Chief of the Counter Intelligence Department, Admiral Canaris, complied with Dr. Thierack's wish. The High Command waived its well-founded competence for clemency matters and ceded it to us. That the High Command had to be asked beforehand whether we were to be allowed to exercise clemency, that was obvious not only on account of the legal situation but also on account of the obvious military interests which, in certain circumstances, might have spoken in favor of a different arrangement.
Q One more exhibit in this context. It is Exhibit 326. That contains an inquiry from the General Public Prosecutor at Breslau at the Ministry. A few doubtful cases are mentioned and among others there is a question as to whether the reports on clemency matters in NN Cases were to be abbreviated just as they were now abbreviated in German cases. Would you briefly comment on that, please?
A This is a doubtful point which the German Public Prosecutor at Breslau broached. Dr. von Ammon discussed the matter personally with the General Public Prosecutor and cleared up this point to the effect that in NN matters, as far as their routine treatment was concerned too, no difference was to be made as compared with the reports on clemency cases concerning other defendants. Here, as elsewhere, in NN matters no deviating rulings were to apply.
Q In conclusion I must mention this: The Prosecution introduced Exhibit 80 and Exhibit 329 and Exhibit 469. Would you tell the Tribunal briefly what those three exhibits are about?
A it seems to me that these three exhibits can be dealt with in one word. All three are concerned with the discussion of legal questions. The documents speak for themselves and hardly need any explanation.
Q We have now dealt with all documents which the Prosecution has submitted against you. In concluding the problem of NN cases I would ask you a few personal questions. To begin with, did the NN cases mean a great deal of work for you in your sphere of work at the Ministry?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A I never obtained any statistics on the matter. Therefore, I have to depend on rather crude estimates according to my recollection. At a rough estimate I think that the NN cases occupied five percent of my working potential. Naturally that is not true of the referents. Dr. von Ammon, I think, will himself be able to estimate the amount of time which he spent on NN cases. As far as I can judge I think NN cases must have occupied half his time.
Cases were treated in this way: The referent himself dealt with the ordinary cases that came in, with the cases of ordinary importance. That explains why the referent and the sub-department chief had to spend varying amounts of time on dealing with this question. The referent, concerning every case which had an importance that exceeded the normal, had to report on it to the sub-department chief. If the case was of basic importance, the sub-department chief did not decide on it but a report was made to the department chief and usually a further report was made on a higher level. In effect, the documents gave a complete picture on this subject. Concerning all these basic questions which we have discussed here, the draft was hardly ever signed in its complete version by either Dr. von Ammon or myself. It was always the Minister in person who made the decision.
Q I believe that is sufficient, Dr. Mettgenberg. Now I am coming to the personal questions I want to put to you. After the capitulation of Germany were you taken under automatic arrest and where?
A When Germany capitulated I was in Upper Bavaria because I had been ordered to go there from Berlin. I was immediately taken under automatic arrest and on the third of May, 1945, my arrest took place.
Q How long were you under such automatic arrest?
A I remained under automatic arrest until the fifth of February 1946. Then I was discharged because I had not been a party member and because examination of my personal datashowed that I did not constitute a danger to public safety.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, during the time from May, 1945, until February, 1946, were you allowed to write to your relatives?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A No, I was not. For a full seven months I was under a fog Vernebelt. My relatives did not know where I was. They did not know whether I was alive, and vice versa, I did not know whether and who of my relatives was alive and where they were.
Q Thank you. That is enough. Dr. Mettgenberg, now one more final question. Did you have anything to do with the so-called euthanasia program?
A Naturally the rumors that come to my ears, the rumors concerning euthanasia, I remember that I went to see my department chief, Dr. Crohne, and asked him what these rumors were all about. Dr. Crohne said to me, "The euthanasia matter is completely secret. I would not like to give you any information about it. If, for official reasons, you require information, then that is a different matter."
I must admit that I was rather disappointed at that information for the euthanasia problem, as a problem, would have interested me greatly. I am convinced that the problem as a problem would be discussed a great deal in the future. The witness, Dr. Suchomel, who came to the witness stand here, mentioned my name as one of the persons who attended a conference on euthanasia questions. He did that in an affidavit which has been submitted here. When the witness was asked here in the courtroom whether he might have made a mistake concerning my presence he replied that was possible. I should like to add to that expressly that I did not attend that conference, which Dr. Suchomel mentioned.
DP. SCHILF: Way it please the Court, I have concluded my examination of this witness in his own case.
THF PRESIDENT: We will take our morning recess at this time.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DP. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, it has been pointed out to me that I put a question in a way that might be misunderstood, this concerned Exhibit 312, "Clemency Questions in the Case of NNPrisoners." I put the question as to whether a decision of the undersecretary at that time, Dr. Rothenberger, was to be asked for, according to a note by Dr. von Ammon. Exhibit 312, page 2, however, shows this was a subsequent report of the 26 of September 1942 about a decision made by the Minister, that is Thierack, two days before on 24 September 1942. In order to correct the record, I would like to state this.
May it please the Tribunal, I have a few more questions to put to the witness, Dr. Mettgenberg, in my capacity as defense counsel for the defendant Klemm. With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall put a few questions to you, Dr. Mettgenberg.
You were present when the defendant Klemm discussed his activities at the Reich Ministry of Justice during the years from 1937 to 1939, at that time Dr. Klemm was in charge of the so-called general political department. First, I want to ask you was Herr Klemm a subordinate to you as sub-division chief or in his capacity as in charge of the general political department in the years from 1937 to 1939?
A The defendant Klemm later as under-secretary became my superior. In the years you mentioned he worked for sometime as Referent for the general political department, that was a sub-division of my department, to that effect I was in a certain sense at that time his superior.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q What was the subject with which the general political department worked with, and what was Klemm's activity at the time when you were his superior?
A During that time Klemm was referent for the general political department, the task of that referat was above all the regulations of those problems which arose out of the so-called malicious acts law. In the malicious acts law, it was provided that a Prosecution because of malicious acts could be made out only if the Raich Minister of Justice and the chief of the Party Chancellery unanimously were of the opinion that it was necessary to prosecute under the law. In innumerable cases Prosecution was refrained from, but in order to maintain the contact between the chief of the Party Chancellery, that is Munich, and the Reich Minister of Justice, that is Berlin, in order to bring it about and to clarify the question whether both offices were in agreement, and to make the determination of this as simple as possible, first of all a great deal of administrative work had to be done. Already at that time when Klemm was charged with that task, we were faced with difficulties in regard to mail. As a result, the decision as to whether such a Prosecution should be undertaken or not consumed a considerable amount of time -- more than was necessary. At that time a large number of discussions took place and extensive correspondence was conducted. Samples were worked out and everything was done for the purpose of solving these questions as simply as possible. This was the main activity of the general referat, the general department, which we are discussing here.
Q Another question -- and this concerns the time when the defendant Klemm was undersecretary in the Ministry. You repeatedly were present, and you confirm this by your own testimony, in discussions between the officials of the Ministry and Thierack. And I now ask you how did Thierack act toward Klemm on principle, also in the presence of other officials.
A I could form a picture in my mind of the relationship between Thierack and Klemm only on the basis of occasional reports or discussions which were made to the Minister at which under secretary Klemm as well as Court No. III, Case No. 3.I were present.
On these occasions I could find out that Minister Thierack was just as tactless toward under secretary Klemm as I had experienced him to be toward me, and as other persons have described it here already in this courtroom. I may add that in my innermost self I was enraged about it that one day the Minister on the occasion of such a report, in the presence of a large group of officials who were waiting to make their reports, called under secretary Klemm a "poor rabbit". I may emphasize that moreover the general tone of conversations in the Ministry of Justice was extraordinarily polite and moderate, so that remarks of that nature were entirely outside the usual manner.
Q You quoted a remark that Thierack made to Klemm literally. Did you ever hear that Thierack called Klemm, or vice versa, Klemm addressed Thierack with the familiar "DU"?
A I never heard that.
Q Dr. Mettgenberg, you probably remember that when Klemm was in the witness box he spoke about a case of lynching fliers; that was the case in which allied fliers were lynched by the German population -or were supposed to have been lynched by the German population. The case is supposed to have occurred in Duesseldorf, that is to say in the area of the District Court of Appeals of Duesseldorf. Do you know about this affair; are you familiar with that affair?
A Yes, I know that case. I did no longer have an opportunity to examine the files on this case. Thus, I have to rely on my memory; however, I do remember the case for two reasons. First, it occurred near my home town, and for that reason it aroused my special interest already at that time. The second reason is that in this case each German was ashamed of the cowardly action of the other German, and to such an extent that I have not forgotten to this very day. The facts were as follows: At the Dutch border, near Kleve, a customs official brought two Canadian parachutists prisoners, that is as prisoners of war, to the market place of a small border town. The name of this town was Kranenburg. In this market place there was a lot of traffic. Numerous workers were working there in building some kind of border fortifications. They were Court No. III, Case No. 3.working under the supervision of an SA leader.