A. I don't know if you have the same book.
Q. That is the same commentary which you have, isn't it? 11?
A. 12th Edition.
Q. Then we have to start from the beginning; may I ask you to examine, witness, whether you have the decree of the 21st February, 1940, 21 February 1940, Reich Legal Gazette Blatt, Part I, page 405, paragraph 26, Section II. Applications regarding reopening of trial are decided by the criminal chamber court; the reopening in favor of the defendant takes place also when circumstances prevail which make it desirable to reexamine the case in regular proceedings. In case the application for reopening of the trial is justified, then the main trial has to take place before the competent ordinary court. This can be found in the regulations of the 21st of February, 1930.
A. I think I can clarify this point. This provision by the decree of 29 January, 1943 -
Q. We are not that far yet; we just want to point out that the decree of February, 1940, has the same provisions as the decree of '32 and 1933. Can you grant us this?
A. On the basis of the text which I have here, I cannot.
Q. We will come to the other decree later. May I ask the following: In your statements yesterday concerning special courts privileges, in saying that the special courts limited the right of the defendant, you have stated that was true for the time between 1933 and 1938, 1939 or 1940. This certain period of time, according to your experience and your knowledge of condition a certain period between 1933 and 1940 it could not be concluded that the rig of the defendants were limited. May I ask you to confirm whether I have heard that correctly?
A. During that time in comparison with paragraph 17 of the decree of Papen government they were not limited, but -
Q. May I also state, that this is a contradiction with your opinion as before, after we had an opportunity to see the original text of the decree, we can see that your opinion was not correct as far as the time 1940 or until 1943 is concerned. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the decree of the 29th of May, 1943 was the first which contained a limitation of this right the defendant.
May I ask you if you want to draw this conclusion, to look a this decree of the 29th of May, 1943; you apparently have the text there of 29 May, 1943 -
A. 29 January.
Q. No, there is another one; the third one; there were several decrees. For the simplification of jurisdiction, 29 May, 1943, Reich Legal Gazette Bl page 342, Article 6; can you find that, witness?
A. No, it is not here.
A. Then I shall read it; Article 6, Changes, paragraph 359, and the following version which I shall read has to be applied from there on. "A case which has been terminated by an ordinary verdict can be reopened if new facts or new evidence is submitted, which in connection with evidence previously submitted are designed to: to give cause for acquittal of a defendant, or a much milder penalty, or the discontinuance of the procedure." I do not wish to read point two or three, but I only want to put to you, witness, that by this regulation this decree of the 29th May, 1943, the provisions which we have just discuss and which as you have stated, has been removed, in 1943, that is paragraph 17 of the decree of 1932; paragraph 16 of the decree of 1933; paragraph 26 of the decree of 1940; that it was unnecessary because the reopening of the trial was permitted by this provision.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: We are having some difficulty with the language. My German reading colleague beside me informs me that Dr. Schilf has not read all of this paragraph. I am only acting on the advice of my colleague that it was so left out and ask that the Doctor read the rest of it.
DR. SCHILF: Then it would be advisable if I read of the decree of 29 May 1943, Reichsgesetzblatt, part I, page 324, article 4, article 6, paragraph 359. I shall read it again. In this case it might make the translation difficult because the verb is at the end of the sentence of about two lines.
"A case which has been completed by verdict can be reopened if new facts or evidence is submitted, which together with evidence previously submitted, may make it possible or give cause for the acquittal. In mind of the punishment or in place of the punishment, pleas of the verdict, at the end of the procedure, if they may cause the conviction of a person acquitted a more severe penalty or the discontinuance of the procedure, and, thirdly, in the sentence, difficult decision concerning a measure for security and correction, the reopening of the trial against the interest of the defendant is only admissible if the renewed prosecution is necessary in the interest of the Nation for the protection of the Nation."
Paragraph 359 of the Criminal Code presents now a considerable change compared with the former stipulation because there was a very far reaching possibility, as we have heard and also on the interest of the defendant. And, accordingly it was no more necessary to have special regulations such as in the decree of 1932, paragraph 16; of the decree of 1933, paragraph 26; and of the decree of 1940; it was no more necessary to keep these regulations valid. I ask you, Witness, to tell us your opinion about this question as to whether the differences in conditions really as essential as you stated yesterday to the Tribunal?
A. After the new text of that paragraph, as you have quoted it, a reopening of the trial was possible but not the transfer of a case from a special court to an ordinary court, and so far as a great difference as compared to the provisions of 1932, of the decree of 1932, and also of the decree of 1933, the provisions that such a criminal case now could come before an ordinary court, could not be seen from that paragraph.
Q. In fact, Witness, it would be too far, if we should discuss now all the legal changes. In fact, and from a practical point of view, this would be the task of the defendant as soon as the case is submitted, that a change did not occur, by various legal means, which can be considered extraordinary legal means, and about which we will speak later; but I should not like to go into detail as far as the development is concerned because it would lead us too far from the special courts. You are of the opinion, the year 1943, the provisions which you stated yesterday, were in fact, valid and that only in 1943 a change occurred; is that our opinion?
A. Not the provisions itself, but a provision in accordance with it.
Q. Now, we come to a question which again has to do with the special courts. As I have repeated before, you have stated yesterday that the ordinary court, that is, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Chambers had become an exception as far as its importance was concerned because the special courts dealt with more cases than the ordinary courts. Did you see any statistics which would show the participation of the special courts in general jurisdiction?
A. No, I have no statistics.
Q. Do you not remember having read any of those statistics anywhere?
A. No.
Q. Or do you have any other possibilities to estimate the volume and to compare the volume of work of the special courts with that of the ordinary courts?
A. For that period of time, that would only show figures.
Q. I want to find a basis of comparison or rather a basis for your opinion. You have stated that special courts increased to such an extent that they really took the place of the ordinary jurisdiction: however, if we come to figures, then we find that even during the period before 1941-42, there were about 300,000 cases a year, criminal cases a year of which only ten per cent were handled by the special courts. Do you think that purely statistical statement would influence your opinion or change your opinion?
A. No, because all criminal procedures which the National Socialist leadership considered important for them, not petty thievery, minor misdeeds or other unimportant things, everything that was important for then was brought before the special courts; and, I have to emphasize again that with mere figures we could not work.
Q. Not at all?
A. Yes, not at all.
Q. For the question of judging as to how many cases were generally handled, we cannot overlook figures, can we? I am of the opinion if you speak of the importance, you were thinking more about the affect in newspapers or cases which were closer to you, and therefore you have a sort of subjective judgment about the importance of the number of cases handled by the special courts?
A. No, that is not the case. Importance can be found from the provisions and regulations and jurisdictions which can be seen what the special courts were used for, and in judging figures, we have to take into account as is well known when dealing with statistics, tremendous amount of details makes figures appear much larger. Maybe there are 50 or a 100 cases of petty thievery which can be handled by local judges. Their importance is very small compared to one case which may have come before the special courts. In other words, it is an objective measure, not a subjective measure at all; In cases which touched one as an individual are always very few compared to the total volume.
Q. Now, I come to another set of questions; that is, the question of the independence of the judges and the courts. You have told the Tribunal that the independence of the judges was limited. And, you emphasized that, for instance, the education, the training of young jurists had undermined their independence. Now, I ask you if this is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have quoted a part from article 102 of the Reich Constitution, also paragraph 1 of the Penal Code, wherein the same word, the independence of the judges is stated, and the fact that they are all subject to the Constitution itself. Is it not true, Witness, that the provisions, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Courts, had been changed after 1933?
A. No formal changes, no. I have already stated that the National Socialist State, at the outside was very careful not to do that, not to change the aspects of the independence of the judges.
Q. Do you know, Witness, are you informed about the fact that the jurisdiction in paragraph 1 of the Judicator Act was still a question that was discussed after 1933. Have you found any decision of that kind?
A. No.
Q You stated that the Nazi Regime only maintained the aspect of the independence of the judges. I should like to show you a decision of the Supreme Reich Court, that is, the official collection of decisions of the Reich Supreme Court, Reich Court, Criminal Cases, Vo. 73, page 399 -- a decision of the 15 December 1939. I will read a few sentences and I will try to speak them as slowly as possible. "Judges may not exceed the limit established by regulations, the limit of punishment, except in cases which are established by law. If there is no such provision a judge rendering the penalty has to remain within the limits established by the law. If the minimum punishment is considered too severe then the maximum penalty might be considered too mild. Above all the right for mercy is not with the ju*** and so far the legal conditions have not changed from the time before 1933. Also the judge of the concept of law and State does not relieve the judge, particularly the penal judge of his obligations to the law." The decisive point is that it is stated that since 1933 there has occurred a change in the concept of law and State, Legislature of the State; that, however, penal judge particularly is bound to the law and that he is expected to observe the law in particularly strong measures. I continue the quotation "On the point of view that the changed concept, the penal laws show flaws our opinion that can only be changed on the basis of the law that has already been done in several cases. So far that has not been done. It is the question of the Legislator to maintain at least, for the time being, the laws in exist" End of quotation. May I ask you, witness, in the case of a decision which has been rendered in 1939 and was published in 1940, the judge, that is, the criminal judge -- that decision could only have strengthened the judge -that he was independent?
A The decision of the Reich Court, yes.
Q And what do you want to distinguish from that, if you say the d** of the Reich Court?
A From others as I should like to explain in detail now. Attempts have been made to limit the freedom of decisions of the judge. Essential elements were before 1942. The Judges' Letters which were published by the Reich Minister of Justice also followed by Lawyers' Letters sometime later and other institutions which gave rise to more concern.
There was the of the Reich Minister of Justice of 13 October 1942 concerning the direction jurisprudence during war-time which is signed by Dr. Rothenberger. In order to understand these measures one has to examine the fact that Hitler - that April 1943 made a speech concerning jurisprudence which the judges considered an insult. At least, many of the judges considered it an insult. On 18 October the then Reich Minister Thierack in the Deutsche Justize, the Military Period Journal of Justice, of 16 October 1942 on page 661, 662, published a part about the re-construction of German jurisprudence. I quote from this speech: "The judge, therefore is not the guardian but the immediate helper of the State's leadership. It is he, who in his field, is responsible to the leadership of the State for the movement of the People's community protecting national values and in moving -- eliminating, the enemies of the National community from it. That he related to the political leader the of national -
Q Witness, since you quote from something from this speech may I quote some on my part?
A When I am through with it. "This point of view must be decided for the judge and a judge who considers this decision will find it much easier now which up to now seems rather difficult. This way of serving his task will bring the judge into immediate connection with the leadership of the State. This close connection must have its effect all of the way down to lowest judge. Each judge has to view the problems which are put to the leadership of the State and has to be familiar with them as far as it is for the judge to know these problems in order to carry out his tasks in service of the People's community in an appropriate manner. Therefrom the purpose and the necessity of a directed jurisdiction. It is one of most difficult questions in the field of jurisprudence. Directed jurisdiction does not mean to bind the judge to the direction of the leadership of the State. The nucleus of the so-called independence of the judge, the word the above mentioned reason should be eliminated from the vocabulary if w** in independent decisions, independent of any directions should remain otherwise there will be no judges.
However, the leadership of the State may and should explain to the judge the general direction which has to maintained if jurisdiction should be able to carry out those particular tasks. Among others the Judges' Letters which I am personally issuing will serve this purpose which are confidential and will be sent to every German judge and Public Prosecutor." End of quotation.
From this speech it can be seen that also as it was a symbol of National Socialism also in other fields it affected the independence of judge and the direction remaining valid, that just the same, it was necessary to give him general instructions -- general directions to lead him, to guide him. The word "guide" and this is mentioned in the decree of 13 August 1942 is actually mentioned there "lenken", - "guide". I had been informed without establishing or the introduction of these Judge Letters, this decree is important, in considering the question as to the independence of the judge apart from directions -- decision of the Reich Court, where then it was really maintained and for beside that **** that decree is important -- is essential. In this decree it is stated that a continuous exchange of directives or rather transmittal of directives from the leadership of the State to the judges has to be maintained in order to give a uniform direction to jurisprudence according to the historic development meaning of the nation for which in the past provisions had not been made -- that all provisions had been made that this should be achieved now. I quote from this decree of the Reich Minister of Justice. Roman Numeral III, paragraph 3: "Most means, however, in view of circumstances, present circumstances to deal with individually important cases" -- these four decisions are before the Tribunal -"Only the judges have to do that who on their part have the necessary connections with the leading personalities in the prosecution office. In consequence of this decree the judges at the District Courts discussed together with the President of the Criminal Chambers, without admitting the associate judges and in the presence of the Chief Prosecutor discussed criminal matters which had not yet been decided and still had to come trial, I personally was told and it was sold to me by a judge that the Presiding Judge of his Criminal Chamber before the trial ever started brought it to the attention of the District Judges how in a discussion of that kind one considered the case and discussed what punishment would be adequate for the case.
This other judge protested and stated that he would prefer to **** his decision only on the basis of the trial itself. Thereupon he was info*** it was pointed out to him that a judgment which would be considerably different from the decision reached in this preliminary discussion could be disagreeable for the judge in question and would have disagreeable consequence. That judge said that he considered these preliminary directions a quite tremendous attempt to influence his independence as a judge.
THE COURT: The time has come for our noon meal. We will therefore recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 19 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHILF: With the permission of the Tribunal, I will now continue the cross-examination.
CONRAD FERDINAND WILHELM BEHL -- Resumed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION -- Continued.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Witness, at the end of this morning's session you compared a decision of the supreme Reich court. You quoted a statement by Dr. Thierack, the Reich Minister of Justice, from the year 1942. You drew a conclusion, and you said that the policy of the Third Reich and the position had undermined the competency of the courts. However, you yourself quoted that Thierack expressly stated that the judge must not be bound by directives.
The problem, therefore, amounts to the point as to what conceptions one has of the independence of the judge. I wish to ask you whether there can be several views admissible about that opinion, that is to say, that the problem of the independence of the judge can be viewed from various points of view. I should like you to say something about that.
A. No doubt it can be viewed from two angles, but never from an angle which allows his independence to become only apparent by directing him and influencing him.
Regarding the quotation from Thierack's speech, I should like to emphasize again that it was the dialectic tactics of the National Socialists under the Third Reich always, apparently, to say one thing, whereas, in reality, they meant the opposite. In the third Reich the concept of "involuntary voluntariness" was formed, and it arose as a joke, but it had a deep meaning which was characteristic of National Socialist rule. Originally, it was voluntary for children to join the Hitler Youth at a certain age, but those who did not join had great difficulties.
In reality, the so-called voluntary action of a human being in the Third Reich was only apparently voluntary. It became apparent during the de-Nazification trials that, on a large scale, human beings found themselves forced to take action owing to the general circumstances, and these actions looked as though they were voluntary.
I do not wish to say that all who today say they only joined the Party under pressure are speaking the truth; but it is known -- and I know it from my own experience with my own friends -- that people who were diametrically opposed to National Socialism joined the Party for pure reasons of necessity, because they were afraid of losing their existence. It is something that looked voluntary, but actually it was not voluntary.
Thus in this case the judge, after this speech of Thierack's, was apparently still independent, but he acted under directives and thus he depended upon the directives. The bad conscience of the National Socialist leaders of State is evident that, for example, the judge's letters which were sent to the judges and the prosecutors were strictly confidential; in fact, secret. They were handed out against personal signatures, and they had to be kept sealed. This is, therefore, a matter which definitely fought shy of open light, a matter which was intended to influence the judges, but which was not intended to get known among the public so that the independence of the judges could be stated as still in existence by Thierack.
I should like to say this concerning the question of direction of jurisdiction, that is, concerning the discussion of penal cases before the cases were heard. I should like to quote from a decree of the Oberlandesgerichtspraesident of the time in Bamberg, the President of the District Court of Appeal in Bamberg, of 20 October 1942. He sends, to the Landgerichtpraesidents of his area, the direct decree containing directives, which I have already mentioned, and he says, in writing, and I quote:
"The Landgerichtpraesidents, the Presidents of the District Court of Appeal, by my decree of 16 April 1942, have already been told -every time -- by agreement with the chief public prosecutor in their area, to keep in contact with him. I would ask you to continue that type of contact.
"On the occasion of the recent meeting of the Landgerichtpraesidents, the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, in Bamberg, I suggested that these discussions be held regularly, that is to say, that they should be held once a week, and I suggested that the expert on press matters should be present. In case there is a need, the President of the Special Court will also have to attend these meetings. For the rest, I refer to my ordinance of 16 April and to the manuscripts by Reich Minister Thierack and Under Secretary Dr. Rothenberger."
"Thoughts on the Reorganization of the German Administration of Justice", in "Deutsche Justiz" (German Justice), 1942, page 661.
I should like to say that the control and direction of the administration of justice is not limited to the field of penal law, but that it also extends to the other fields with which the judge deals, in particular to the sphere of civil law and voluntary jurisdiction. That this direction is compatible with the conception of the independence of the judge, that it needs further elucidation from some side, one cannot say.
Q. I should like to ask you this, witness. This word "direction", "lenkung", do you take it to mean the same as cancelling the independence of the judge?
A. Yes. As an example, I mentioned discussions prior to the trial which, by this decree, brought about directions.
Q. May I put this to you? It has always been a problem in the administration of justice that judgments or sentences on the facts, so far as the sentence was concerned -- that is, that views on that were very divergent. A judge of a local court in East Prussia might have decided a similar case quite differently from a judge of a local court in South Germany.
Because of that problem, the administration of justice in even purely democratic states has made attempts to overcome these differences. May I ask you to give us your views as to whether that problem existed?
A The problem existed and it was solved, or an attempt was made to solve it, by instructing the prosecutor to try to obtain a certain sentence for a certain criminal act, but never to take inference by direct action on a judge, which would have involved -- who had to fear disadvantages and who had been threatened more or less clearly with such disadvantages if he opposed the will of the leadership of the state. That is connected with the question of doing away with the law under which no judge could be deposed.
A By the side of this problem of various spheres and of different sentences, particularly concerning the punishment award, every administration of justice has to deal with a second problem, the difference between the propositions of the prosecution and the sentences. I am asking you whether this so-called direction perhaps also had the intention to do away with this discrepancy which was apparent so frequently, this discrepancy which was known to the public, whether it wasn't the aim to reduce that discrepancy.
A I don't know whether that point of view played a part. At any rate, that has nothing to do with the fact that the assessors, the assistant judges in the penal chamber, on account of this previous conversation by the President with reference to the disadvantages that might arise, had been put under pressure, a fact which was confirmed to me by a judge. He was a judge who had been exposed to such pressure as a consequence of this so-called direction.
Q Witness, may I point out to you that this individual case which you mentioned perhaps cannot allow generalization?
A This is not an individual case, but the judge told me that was generally considered to be interference of a gross nature.
Q May I say "Individual case" in that sense that you were only told this by one judge? Have I understood you correctly, Mr. President, or did several presidents tell you about that?
AAt the moment I was only speaking about one judge. I have only heard about this direction now since I have become the president of the District Court at Frieburg, where I found this decree on direction. Evidently at the time nobody mentioned it because the judges were ashamed, and also because they were afraid to tell about this interference at that time.
Q But you admit that as far as the direction is concerned, the fact is that the true problems which I mentioned were intended to be solved by it.
A That such reasons may perhaps also play a part is possible. Avariety of reasons of a different nature may have played a part, but the main thing was -- which is evident from the way this decree is worded -the essential thing is the fact that the judges were influenced before the decision. The Judges Letters do not in every detail prescribe that only in a certain way you the judge may pass your sentence in each case, but by their wording and by the way in which they are written, they make it obvious to the judge that decisions in the form under discussion here and with the severity mentioned here are desired by the state leadership. If one adds that at that time by virtue of the Fuehrer's decree on special authorities for the Reichminister of Justice of 20 August 1942, the Minister of Justice again was put under an obligation and was instructed, according to the instructions, according to Hitler's directives in agreement with the Reich Minister, Chief of the Reich Chancellery, the head of the Party Chancellery, to organize a national socialist administration of justice to take all measures necessary for that -- if one adds all this, it is evident that the judge who, by virtue of this authorization, could be dismissed at any time found himself under particular pressure if he differed from the views expressed in the Judges Letters, if he heard of the measures proposed in the Judges Letters and of the measures of direction. The decree which I have just quoted ends with the authorization to the Reichminister of Justice that he may depart here from the existing law. That is a general authorization in the interests of the national socialist state leadership, to diverge from the existing law. It was considered the task of the administration of justice in this decree, a strong administration of justice.
Q May I ask you, Mr. President, you have a copy of the Judges Letters in front of you?
A Yes.
Q Have you had an opportunity to study the entire collection of the Judges Letters?
A Yes. Naturally, not all, but -- yes.
Q Completely?
A Possibly one volume or the other may have been missing.
Q Did you notice that the Minister of Justice criticized sentences which were too severe and that he printed sentences which appeared too severe to the Administration of Justice?
A That is correct. Under National Socialism one observed the psychological effect of justice on the population, and particularly on the Party members, and for tactical reasons, no doubt, also frequently severe sentences were described as not compatible with the aims of National Socialism or as not favorable for National Socialism. In essential points, however, for example, on the question of race, an absolutely rigid National Socialist dogmatism is upheld in assessing jurisdiction.
Q Witness, do you really believe that sentences which were too severe were not printed for psychological reasons alone, or don't you think that a legal assessment, too, played a part?
A Possibly, but I don't know. Neither you nor I can find out about the real motives, but we can only speculate about the possibility of these reasons concerning criticism of severe sentences, concerning criticism of sentences which, in the view of the Ministry of Justice, considered too much the interests of Jews. It is evident from the criticism why these sentences were criticized. I only quote this, a literal translation has clarified the legal position of the Jews and has put restrictions which they as enemies of the German people must have imposed on them. A purely political question here is mixed up with the criticism of a sentence. We are concerned with the decision concerning the validity of a testament of a Jewish widow which she made in 1942. Here clearly we see the motive of the criticism.
Q. But may I contradict you on this point? The quotation clearly refers to legislation. The expert in the Reichs Ministry of Justice made his conclusion that a Jew is an enemy of the German People. You will admit that it is according to the German legal system that a Judge must keep to the law. The reproach could be made as far as the legislation is concerned, but not as far as the expert who criticized this verdict is concerned because he told the German jurists clearly what the legislation describes for the judge.
A. The expression "enemies of the German people" is not a quotation from a law, but that is an addition of the critic. That expressed his view to the judges. He thereby emphasizes the law.
Q It is a conclusion concerning the legislation which describes the Jews as enemies, but not the judgment of the individual judge. If the sentence of the Judge were ciritcized, the judge is merely referred to the fact that he has violated the law?
A. That is just a side criticism. This is a case of interpreting a law. To continue with this controversy, before we start hair splitting, I must point out again that the critic says here, "Legislation has placed the legal position of Jews in its limits." The critic adds the Jews need to be placed under these restrictions because they are enemies of the German people. This means that here he expresses his own views and says that must happen. He gives the directive to the judge in his interpretation of the law. In this individual case, according to this wording, the sentence of the judge in this case was not so very much against the Jew.
Q. Summarizing, I should like to ask another question concerning the problem of the independence of the Judge.
You, yourself, quoted the famous, or I should say, notorious speech by Hitler of 26 April, 1932. You are familiar with it and you quoted it yourself. Do you believe that according to that quotation of the decision of the Reich Court in 1923, that the independence of the judge, as you see it, could still be upheld until 1942? And only after that notorious speech, the page turned?
A. The independent had previously been threatened already by the compulsion which was exercised in particular on to young jurists by forcing them to join party organizations and being active in them. There was among other things, already in 1936 a circular decree concerning officials leaving the NSDAP, 3 March, 1936, Deutsche Justiz, German Justice, Page 350. I qoute: "The deputy of the Fuehrer, concerning civil servants, will make a report to the supreme authority of the civil servant. In every case a detailed investigation must be held to find what reasons caused the civil servant to leave the party. If he did it because the program or the political attitude of the party were against his own ideals, he will not be kept on as a civil servant."
Even if these conditions do not apply, the case of an official leaving the party with the close contact between the party and the state, indicates that the civil servant lacks close contact with the National Socialist state and the spirit of sacrifice, the spirit of diversion is lacking in him.
At least he then has to count on the fact that when it comes to promotion, he will be excluded. In fact, he will stay behind other people. Various decrees made it clear to the civil servant that they were not only members of the party, but that they had to be active in the service of the party or one of their organizations.
Many young jurists in this way found themselves compelled to be active in some way; thereby they became familiar with the idea of National Socialism. They acquired the feeling that the independence of the judge's position would not leave them free of disadvantages, if in their activity as judges, they opposed the Nationalist aims and tendencies. The pressure to which the judge was subjected increased more and more. There was a large number of judges who had sufficient character to withstand this measure and to suffer disadvantages as far as promotion was concerned and as far as having their own wishes considered was concerned.
In 1942, after the notorious speeches against the Germans, then the situation became considerably more acute. Then there arose an immediate threat of the judge's independence. That is no doubt quite certain after what we have said so far. Even then, in fact until the very end, there were judges who withstood that pressure, but they did so with ever-increasing threats and continuous worry about their existence.
Q. Witness, you have just quoted from a general law of 1936. May I ask you whether after many many other statements and laws, until the point of culmination of Hitler's speech in 1942, the justice in its administration let loose all their criticism? May I ask you whether you know that Goering made speeches against the administration of Justice; that Goebbels did so, and that Hitler repeatedly did so, going beyond the 1942 speech? Finally, you can draw the conclusion today that the administration of justice was less-liked by the leaders of the state.