May I refer to my statement on my official trips to Paris and Oppeln, Exhibits 332 and 335. On my official trips whenever it was necessary -- I also dealt with the experts of the prosecuting offices, and I have discussed the matters of minor offenses with them.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 4 August, 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q.- Witness, before the recess you had discussed the tendency which lead to an increased severity in the penalties. You first mentioned that during your official trips you had made use of the opportunity to talk with the Prosecutors, the General Prosecutors and the Senior Prosecutors to the effect that they should apply adequate penalties. Will you please continue your statement?
A.- I have explained what individual steps I took in order to oppose the tendency to bring about a more severe sentence. However, I would also like to point out that the sentences pronounced by the special courts, especially by the Courts at Essen and Oppeln on the whole were so moderate that my efforts here had to be aimed at my superiors. I again have to mention the names of Thierack and Vollmer. To undertake any steps because of those lenient sentences is the reason why I made efforts to have the lenient sentences which had been pronounces, brought to the attention of my superiors, as little as possible, and if Vollmer has already been informed about the sentences and wanted to object to them, I tried to find reasons for which the sentence was so lenient.
Q.- Please state some details about the practice followed by the Courts.
A.- In the final result, and that is still my conviction today, the jurisdiction of the general courts in NN cases was absolutely adequate. This applies to the matter seen as a whole. It applies as well to the jurisdiction of the People's Court and especially to the jurisdiction of the special courts. In the case of special courts you will see that few death sentences were pronounced whereas the people's courts in a large percentage of cases pronounced a death penalty.
However, the percentage of death sentences is not as high as I assumed in my affidavit of 17 December 1946. That is Exhibit 337. In this affidavit I stated, purely off hand, I would like to say, that the majority, that is, more than fifty per cent of those indicted before the People's Court were sentenced to death. I made that statement at the time to the best of my knowledge. However, I did not have any documents of any kind at my disposal and I had to rely on my memory alone. Today after I could take into consideration the statistical material which the Prosecution has submitted, I would assume that about fifty per cent of the NN cases sentenced by the People's Court were sentenced to death. The death sentences which the People's Court pronounced were I think justified and I can even say from an international point of view, the death sentence was appropriate. They were cases of espionage, guerilla activities, serious cases of aiding and abetting the enemy, as well as the support of enemy parachutists etc. About the offences which were the basis for sentences for the People's Court, the witness Walter Roemer also testified here in this Court. I refer to the testimony of the 24th of April by this witness. I can also refer to what the defendant Lautz said here on the witness stand. After examining the statistical material, I have to correct another sentence from my affidavit of the 17 December, 1946. In that case I stated that aiding and abetting the enemy always practically resulted in a pronouncement of the death sentence before the People's Court. After careful consideration, however, I have no reason for expressing the opinion that the number of death sentences was larger in the case of aiding and abetting the enemy than in the case of espionage and guerilla activity. Here too I assume that the death sentence amounted to fifty percent. Characteristic sentences in these courts were those pronounced for illegal possession of arms. I already mentioned that in the decree issued by the military commander in normal cases the death sen tence was provided and only in lighter cases a prison sentence.
In fact only very few death sentences were pronounced because of the illegal possession of arms. These cases were special cases, as for instance possession of an entire ammunition depot. In a great majority of cases and I want to state that illegal possession of arms, according to numbers, played an important role, because of the overwhelming number of prison sentences, which were pronounced because of the illegal possession of arms. The action by the President of the District Court of Appeals of Kattowice who in the discussion at Oppeln instigated a more severe punishment because of possession of arms, was at that time generally rejected. In the few cases in which because of illegal possession of arms, the death sentence was pronounced, almost without exception, the execution of the death sentence was avoided by clemency pleas.
Q.- The affidavit of Judge Advocate General Dr. Boetticher also deals with the practice of the courts. I shall offer this as Ammon Exhibit No. 3. I shall read the text of the affidavit.
"From 1 July 1942 to August 1944, I was Chefrichter (Chief Justice) with the Military Commander in France. In this capacity the jurisdiction exercised by the special cases Courts at Cologne and Breslau in NN cases also became known to me, since I received copies of the sentences of these special courts. To an overwhelming extent the sentenced cases concerned illegal possession of arms by the civilian population. The death sentences was to be applied to this crime primarily and in all less serious cases the possibility of prison sentences existed. From the copies of the sentences of the special courts which I received I gained the impression that the special courts sentences these crimes rather mildly, compared with the penalty provided. As far as I remember the special courts of Cologne and Breslau only pronounced the death sentence in a very few cases. In particular, I cannot recall that any death sentence was pronounced because of the illegal possession of arms. I, as well as the Military Commander in France, the Judges subordinate to him and their legal advisers, were in absolute agreement with this practice of NN courts and stated that we were satisfied with the results of the taking over of NN cases by the civilian courts.
To that extent, the favorable effect from the taking over of NN cases by civilian courts was apparent. On the one hand we had been forced in view of keeping the matter secret to introduce several special regulations for the proceedings. On the other hand, however, the fact that the sentences were not made public involved the possibility that the necessity of a deterrent, which otherwise was necessary for reasons of military security could be refrained from, and that the offense could be punished by a prison sentence rather than a death sentence." I submit this affidavit of the 30th of July 1947, as Exhibit Ammon No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q.- I now come to the clemency proceedings of the Reich Ministry of Justice in death sentences pronounced for NN cases. Please comment on this.
A.- The clemency procedure of NN death sentences was in principle the same as in other death sentences. However, there were some peculiarities. One of these was that the gauleiters did not participate in the clemency proceedings. They did not participate because the offense had been committed in the occupied territory and not within the gau of a gauleiter.
A further peculiarity consisted in the fact that Hitler, as I already mentioned before, reserved to himself the right to make the decision on the clemency plea in death sentences pronounced against women from the occupied Western territories.
Finally, I should like to point out that in NN cases, because of the lack of the possibility of a deterrent, there was no so-called. "lightening" (Blitz) execution. The practice in regard to clemency questions followed by Thierack was, as has been discussed here frequently, severe. It was not easy for a referent to succeed in getting a clemency plea granted by him. Nevertheless, I succeeded in doing so in a number of cases.
However, when I made the attempt to bring about the granting of a clemency plea in several cases, I became subject to the scorn of Thierack in which he made derogatory remarks about the obstinacy which I applied.
Q.- The NN regulations in the execution of which you had to cooperate, - did you have any misgivings about them?
A.- In the application of the NN regulations I was, of course, conscious of their severity. I considered especially severe the strict regulations about the seclusion of NN prisoners from the outside world which made every correspondence of the NN prisoners with their relatives impossible. Furthermore, I considered very severe the regulations which provided that on principle also those NN prisoners, for whom no offense, or at least no serious offense could be proven, should, remain in custody. That I considered very severe. But I kept to the statements that were made when these regulations were issued; that these regulations were necessary in order to suppress the increasing resistance movement in the occupied territories.
The regulations issued seemed to me to be still better than -- and this would have been possible in the case of offenses against the occupying forces in the occupied territories -- death sentences which would have been pronounced as a matter of principle.
As the witness Lehmann testified here, the seclusion of NN prisoners from the outside world was, so to say, the price to be paid for the possibility of greater leniency in sentencing. Under this point of view it seemed to me to be acceptable. That very strong resistance movements existed in the occupied territories which, in a certain sense, could be considered as the second illegal army and thus influenced the military situation considerably, that is the historical fact.
Q.- Did you have an opportunity to give up your NN section and to take over another section?
A.- As I already stated in the affidavit which I made out and which I quoted repeatedly, the affidavit of 17 December, 1946, I did not like dealing with NN cases. Whether a person likes his special professional field is, on the whole, dependent on his inner attitude. In any case, I can say about myself that the activity in a referat, a section in which of necessity severity and above all death sentences appeared, was not to my liking, especially since people were concerned who, as such, were not criminals and who could not be denied a human understanding on one's part.
For that reason, in the Summer of 1944, I made the attempt to swap my section with another section in the personnel division of the Ministry of Justice. At that time it was intended to promote Ministerial Counsel Wittland who was a member of the personnel division. In that case he would have left the Ministry of Justice. The section comprised organization of the courts and civil service law.
At that time I requested to receive this section when Wittland would leave. From August, 1944, until January, 1945, I used part of my time, in order to get acquainted with the personnel department. However, the party chancellory then objected to Wittland's promotion and, therefore, it did not take place and I had to remain in my former section.
Q.- Did you regard the NN regulations as being within the frame work of international Law?
A.- In answering that question, I have to make a clear distinction. The NN decree was signed by Keitel on order of Hitler. The enforcement regulations for the NN decree were, first of all, by the OKW and for the sphere of the Ministry of Justice issued by the Ministry of Justice. The basic enforcement regulations of the Ministry of Justice in regard to the NN decree were worked out not by me as referent, nor in my department at all. Outside of the leadership of the Ministry the penal legislation department, Department 3, was competent for this. Department 4, and I as referent, were in a certain sense merely executive organs in the application of the existing legal regulations.
The examination as to whether the NN decree and the basic executive regulations were in accordance with international law, was therefore up to the people who were competent for the issuance of the decree and working on the regulations and the drafting of the regulations. But the executive organ neither has the duty nor the right for review as has been discussed here frequently.
Of course, as a jurist, I thought about these questions and can say that crimes of that nature as were prosecuted as NN cases can be punished with the most severe penalty according to international law, and that penalties of that kind are also usually applied by all states, as is obvious, I believe; that the courts martial, which otherwise sentences in occupied territory, that this is replaced by a civil court in the home country, is also not contrary to international law.
And now, in regard to the question of limiting regulations of the NN procedure, the essential factor was that a just decision by the court was not prevented by these. In the statements I have made so far I have already pointed out that the limiting regulations of the NN procedure did not exert a negative influence for the defendant in the proceeding.
Keeping the prisoners incommunicado had been ordered by the Fuehrer Order and by the military authorities. The question of military necessity was not subject to renew by us.
International law puts these military interests over the personal interests of the inhabitants of the occupied territories.
From all these considerations I did not see that the NN regulations were contrary to international law.
Q.- Since the prosecution has submitted documents about the conditions in concentration camps against all defendants who continued working in the Ministry of Justice after 1942, I have to ask you too what you knew about occurrences in concentration camps.
A.- My various official positions could not afford me any knowledge about such events. Even at the time when members of the SS did not yet have their independent jurisdiction, when reports about these excesses in concentration camps could thus still reach the Ministry of Justice, my section was not affected by this, and this was entirely regardless of the fact that these reports only provided knowledge of a very small section of actual conditions.
In conversations too, within the Ministry, I heard very little about these matters, probably because they were treated as secret and I was not in a special confidential relationship with the referents who were working on these matters. For those reasons, for example, the occurrences in the Kemma and Hohenstein Camps being known to me only here during this trial, I myself never visited a concentration camp. As far as private knowledge is concerned, I considered being kept in the concentration camp, of course, as something unpleasant, especially since the camps were cut off from the outside world, the uncertainty of the period of detention, the lack of orderly legal recourse. That abuses might have occurred for those reasons I assumed without knowing anything definite about it.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Acquaintances of mine who had been in a concentration camp and from whom I might have found out some definite details, I did not have. Although I had quite good relationships with protestant church circles, for example, I did not even know, did not gain any definite knowledge about Niemoeller's being kept in a concentration camp. About systematic killings and mass exterminations I heard only after the surrender.
Q The witness Suchomel makes the assertion in an affidavit that, in the fall of 1942, you were present at a meeting when a lecture about the euthanasia problem was delivered. The witness Suchomel took back his original assertion during cross examination. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, I would like to ask you whether you ever worked on euthanasia questions?
A No.
Q That concludes my direct examination of the defendant.
BY DR. GRUBE (Defense Counsel for the defendant Lautz):
Q I ask for permission to address one question to the witness.
Witness, from documents which the Prosecution has submitted for example, Exhibit 327 - it is apparent that the defendant Lautz repeatedly discussed cases with you which were in connection with the NN proceedings. May I ask you, did the defendant Lautz also negotiate with you, when in the fall of 1944, through a so-called Fuehrer decree, the administration of justice had to discontinue its jurisdiction in NN cases?
A No. As far as I remember, at that time Reich Public Prosecutor Parisius was the only one who called me on the telephone, and if I'm not mistaken, I restricted myself, in the main, at the time to referring Parisius to Hecker because he was competent for the questions broached by Parisius.
Q Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. ORTH (Defense Counsel for defendant Altstoetter):
Q Witness, did you ever officially or unofficially discuss with the defendant Altstoetter the Fuehrer decree or the NN cases?
A Not before the surrender.
Q Did you, in writing, inform Altstoetter about the nature of NN Court No. III, Case No. 3.cases?
A No.
Q Thank you, I have no further questions.
BY DR. DOETZER (Defense Counsel for defendant Nebelung):
Q Witness, you have, at various times, mentioned that the peoples' court was competent for the sentencing of NN cases. I now want to ask you, and please answer this question, whether you ever read a sentence which you pronounced by the IV Senate of the Peoples' Court with the defendant Nebelung as the presiding judge?
A The answer to that question is supposed to refer to NN cases?
Q To NN cases.
A No. As far as I know, the IV Senate of the peoples' court never was concerned with NN cases. If I'm not very much mistaken, only the I and II Senates were competent for NN cases, and the overwhelming majority of NN cases were referred to the II Senate.
Q Thank you very much, witness.
BY DR. SCHILF (Defense Counsel for defendant Klemm):
Q Witness, in 1944, I believe, you once reported to the defendant Klemm in two cases in which the Ministry of Justice had encountered difficulties with the Party Chancellery or with the Gau leadership of Berlin. Do you remember your reports to Under Secretary Klemm?
A Yes, I can remember two different reports, the subject of which were cases of that nature.
Q Will you please describe to the Tribunal what was at stake?
A The two reports I made during the time I was in Department 1, that is, the Personnel Department. Both reports probably took place in the last months of 1944. During the first report I was concerned with the putting of different members of the administration of justice into the different units of the Volkssturm. The Volkssturm was the last military unit that was activated, I believe, in the fall of 1944 when the Allied Forces in the West and East of Germany had advanced into Reich territory. At that time, all men who were able to bear arms up to sixty years, I believe, were recruited for the Volkssturm. The members Court No. III, Case No. 3.of the Volkssturm were then divided into several categories, depending upon whether the person was more or less essential in his profession.
The administration of justice, at that time, of course, was interested in having its employees, or at least a large part of its employees, classified in that category which would be used only if the utmost necessity existed. The reason was, of course, that it should be prevented that the administration of justice, through too extensive callings up, would be paralysed entirely. At that time, I was ordered by the Ministry of Justice to discuss with the competent referent in the Party Chancellery the assigning of the members of the administration of justice into the different categories of the Volkssturm. The Party Chancellery was in charge of the whole matter of the Volkssturm. My negotiations with the referent of the Party Chancellery were without much success since he apparently had little understanding for the interests of the administration of justice. Together with my department chief, Ministerial Director Leetz, I then reported about the results of the negotiation to Under Secretary Klemm. Klemm was, at that time, very angry about the behavior of the referent in the Party Chancellery. He stated that he would take the matter into his own hands and then wrote a letter to the competent department chief in the Party Chancellery. This letter was not in the usual tone used in letters between ministries. I cannot recall details today, but I still remember that the letter brought about the result that the Party Chancellery then complied with all our requests to the fullest extent.
Q Dr. von Ammon, will you please tell the Tribunal also about the second report. This, I think, concerned the Gau Leadership of Berlin?
A In the second case, it concerned the fact that a member of the Ministry of Justice, a Senior Public Prosecutor, who had been declared essential for the administration of justice, was suddenly drafted into the Wehrmacht. This was contrary to the agreements which we had made with the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht would have been obligated in advance to enter into discussions with us. I was, at that time, commissioned to look into the affairs and, with a great deal of effort, I found out that Court No. III, Case No. 3.the drafting of this member of the administration of justice concerned, had taken place at the instigation of the Gau Leadership of the NSDAP in Berlin and that this was done for the reason that the employee of the administration of justice allegedly, once had gone into a public air raid shelter before the official air raid alarm was sounded.
The Gau Leadership of Berlin, at that time, assumed the position that the man should be afforded an opportunity at the front to demonstrate his lack of courage. At that time, I reported this case to the defendant Klemm and Klemm was very indignant also about the independent steps taken by the Gau Leadership. In my presence, he telephoned to the Gau Leadership of Berlin and I believe he spoke with the deputy Gau Leader Schack. At that time he very indignantly expressed our point of view and the Gau Leadership then gave in and the drafting of this person concerned into the Wehrmacht was withdrawn.
Q Dr. von Ammon, apparently you reported to Klemm at that time in your activity in Department 1?
A Yes.
Q That was Personnel matters?
A Yes.
Q May it please the Tribunal, one more question in my capacity as defense counsel for Dr. Mettgenberg. The Prosecution has introduced Exhibit 381 - that is, NG 204. This exhibit consists of six sheets, the sixth sheet, that is, the last one, contains notes. These notes were not included in their entirety in the document books, and, as far as I have been informed, they have only been translated in part in the English document book. The reason was that these were handwritten notes by the witness Dr. von Ammon and the handwritten notes were so difficult to read that the translators and typists could not read them completely. The witness Dr. von Ammon subsequently has deciphered the entire note in a photostat and I now ask for permission to let him read this note which is important for the interpretation of Exhibit 381.
Unfortunately I do not have the photostat here before me, but I had it at my disposal a few weeks ago, and I have deciphered the following from it:
First, there is a note which I made on the 1st of July. I may interpolate here, that there are several notes, not only one. The first one says, first record in A-3 then there is a date, the second on the 20th of June, but that should probably be a later date, the 20th of June must be wrong. Then: Report to Ministerial Director. Third, on the 12th July, with Roman Numeral IV, small "a", 954-43g, submit again. Brackets, discussion with Ministerialdirigent Dr. Mettgenberg, Ministerial Councillor Dr. Huelle. The note bears my initials, and the date 1 July is underneath. Then there is a note which apparently originated with the business office. This reads: "According to the decree of 1 July 1943, in Roman Numeral IV, small "a" 1295-43g submitted. "Then there is a new note made by myself, which bears my initials and the date of 13 July. This reads, "first, on the 12th July at the office of Ministerialdirigent, Dr. Mettgenberg, a discussion took place in which Ministerial Councillor Dr. Huelle and "now comes an official title which I could not decipher, probably judge advocate or Senior judge advocate, Blumenhagen-This is the name of the individual of the Wehrmacht Legal Division" participated. Ministerial Dr. Mettgenberg stated that on the part of the Reich Ministry of Justice there were misgivings, against the extension of the procedure followed in the Netherlands (refraining from judicial sentence), to other areas. As a reason for this he pointed above all to the danger of a reaction in the enemy countries. Ministerial Councillor Huelle does not expect any answer to his letter June 23rd. Secondly, a month later (cleaning up Netherlands NN cases.)" Then there are two notes which bears the initials of the defendants Mettgenberg, but all these notes have been copied into the two documents books almost in their entirety.
Only in the case of the last note I have to say that a few words have been left out, at least in the German document Book. This note reads: "First, the telephone call which took place today resulted in the information that General Field Marshal Keitel's decision has not yet been received, and that it is expected now." That is the most important thing.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination of this witness?
You may cross-examine
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Mr. von Ammon, last Friday you stated with regard to your relationship with the Nazi Party that you were a victim of Nazi propaganda and that you were not enthusiastic party member for ideological reasons. Weren't you omitting some very important events in your political career?
A First of all I believe that I did not express myself in that crass matter, that I described myself as a victim of Nazi propaganda. I only stated that under the influence of Nazi propaganda I saw many a thing in a more favorable light that it actually was, and that I was not an enthusiastic National Socialist, because from my ideological point of view, much kept me apart from the party. I am not aware from the fact, that I left out anything important in making such a statement.
Q Then you don't consider it important note worthy enough to remember it that on the 9 of November 1923 you actively participated with Hitler and others in the famous Munich Putsch; why don't you remember that, Dr. von Ammon?
A Of course, I remember that, but it is not correct that I left these events out, really rather I stated as a high school student, as well as a student I belonged to patriotic youth organizations and to nationalists associations. Among these nationalists associations belonged also the Oberland Bund, which actually, as you indicated, participated in the so-called Hitler Putsch of 9 November 1923.
Q As a result of that Putsch in which you participated wasn't Hitler tried and impressioned for high treason for trying to overthrown the German Republic force?
A Yes.
Q Were you tried, Dr. von Ammon?
A No.
Q Why not.
A Because my participation in the Hitler Putsch was so unsignificant. By the way, my participation wasn't at that time even found out by the authorities, as was the case with the large majority of those who participated.
Q If your participation and membership in the Nazi activity at that time had become known you would have lost your job, wouldn't you, in the Government, or did you have a job at that time?
A No, certainly not. First, I was still a student at that time, as I stated before, and also I do not believe I would have lost my job. Many participants that is many civil servants who participated, at least, if they took part in a subordinate role such as I, were in any way affected in their positions. Moreover, I would like to state at that time it was not a Nazi activity within the meaning of that phrase, the Oberland Bund was not a National Socialist organization.
It was a patriotic self-protective organization, which in the years after the First World War in the fight of against the attempted Communist, uprising and in the fight against the Polish uprising in Upper Silesia in 1921, without a doubt had its merits. To be sure I participated in the Hitler Putsch at that time, but at that time the fronts were not well delineated as yet, that the actual Putsch could be described as unequivocal Nazi action.
MR. WOOLEYHAN:
If that is so, Dr. von Ammon, apparently officials in the Ministry of Justice were not aware of it really, because as I read your official personnel files here which came from the Ministry and which I am sure you have seen many times, with respect to your membership in the early political associations, you are credited with having participated and I am quoting: "In the Nazi uprising in Munich on the 9th of November, 1923." Now, in later years, Dr. von Ammon, did the Nazi Party ever give you any tangible momento of that famous event of 1923?
A First of all, in order to correct you, I would like to say that I never saw my personnel files, as you assume, Mr. Prosecutor. I do not know at all what is written in these personnel files. As far as the question is concerned whether I have a tangible momento of my participation in the Hitler putsch, I have to answer that this momento was limited to a pass which permitted me to participate in the festivities which yearly on the 8th and 9th of November took place in Munich
Q Ah -
AAnd I may also add that I only soldem made use of this pass.
Q What number was that card or pass?
A Unfortunately I don't recall.
Q Do you remember that in November 1937 you wrote the Minister of Justice and asked for leave in order to attend the celebration in Munich in commemoration of the 1923 putsch, and in which letter you informed the Minister that because you took an active part in the national uprising in 1923, and as holder of the permanent identity card No. 510, that you receive free transportation in order to go to Munich to that affair. Do you remember that?
A I remember it, and the reference to free transportation also recalls my why I addressed this request to the Reich Minister of Justice. I had many relatives in Munich; among others my widowed mother was still living in Munich; and this afforded me an opportunity to visit these relatives free of cost.
And, therefore, I addressed this request to the Minister of Justice.
Q Tell me, Dr. von Ammon, in later years when you used to go back to Munich on the 8th and 9th of November, to attend these celebrations, these festivities, other than your mother, what party officials did you see and meet there, that any of us would recognize the names? Did you see Hitler there?
A I saw him in the Buerger-Brau-Keller. He gave a speech there, and I was in the visitor's gallery of the Buerger-Braeu-Keller, and from up there I saw him speak. I never had any personal contacts with him; and I was never introduced to him.
Q Did anyone force you to attend these yearly celebrations in Munich of the Nazi Party, or did you go of your own accord?
A No, I went on my own accord.
Q If that is true, Dr. von Ammon, and you went down to Munich annually to attend these festivities of the Nazi Party, why did you go if you didn't agree with the ideology of the Nazi Party?
A First I may again correct you. I did not go there yearly. If I am not mistaken, I only went there in 1937 and 1938, and the important factor in my going there was that in this way I could go to Munich free of cost. This also is apparent from the fact that in 1939, when I was again living in Munich, I did not participate in the festivities. On the other hand, in order to answer your main question now, I did not believe that it would impair my ideology of I participated in the festivities of a party with which I agreed in many points, but not on all points.
Q In connection with your work in Department IV, of the Ministry, in your capacity as a lawyer, with experience in international affairs, were you officially connected in any way with legal matters incident to the annexation of Austria.
A Yes. This was not connected with my activity as referent for international penal cases, but independent of this activity, after the Anschluss of Austria, the annexation, in 1938, I was made liaison official of the then Department III, Administration of Criminal Law, to a newly formed department, I believe it was VIII, which dealt with Austrian affairs.
Q Dr. von Ammon, does that explain why it was that on the 23rd of September, 1938, the defendant Mettgenberg wrote certain officials in the Ministry of Justice and I am quoting now: "That the incorporation of Austria is still in the initial stages. Dr. von Ammon is the only consultant for individual matters who exclusively handles international affairs. Therefore, he cannot be spared before a qualified replacement is available." Is that what you were just describing?
A I don't know that regulation, but I have no reason to assume that you are reading it incorrectly.
Q May it please the Court, the Prosecution offers as Exhibit 544 the official personnel file of the defendant von Ammon, from which I have been reading. Dr. von Ammon, again with respect to your work in Division IV, in criminal cases involving people of foreign nationality, I hand you now a case file, the original of which it appears that you at several times looked at during the course of business, and I want you merely to explain your official connection with it. You see there the sentence of the special court in Prague which sentenced to death the Czechoslovakian Jew Loewenstein. The charge was that Loewenstein had tried to leave the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia so as to avoid evacuation to a concentration camp as a Jew. Therefore, he falsified the passport of an aryan. He was condemned to death because the special court in Prague held it to be a serious crime to evade the measures against the Jews, and to leave the Reich in order to agitate against Germany. So far as you can refresh your recollection is that a fair summary of the case?
A I can only remember the case very vaguely, but it most have been something like that.