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.
Q Yes. My question is: The preliminary report of the trial, from the attorney general in Prague, notifying the Ministry of Justice of what had happened in the trial, was endorsed by you, as you can see there. The date of that report is 1 February, 1943. I am wondering when you endorsed the case file and report of a court incident to your business in Department IV, what did that mean actually, insofar as the condemned man was concerned.
A If I remember correctly, and what I could find out now by looking through the file briefly, I was working on those files at the time as temporary referent and district referent, for penal cases from the area of the district court of appeal Prague. I may also add that the supervision over German authorities of Administration of Justice in the area of the district court of appeal of Prague were up to the Reich Ministry of Justice together with the Reich Protector, and without doubt, the Reich Protector was the superior authority between the two, so that we in the Reich Ministry of Justice had relatively only a very small opportunity to influence. What my notes meant here in detail, I cannot decipher in a hurry, I would have to have a sufficient amount of time in order to look at these events.
Q Yes. We won't go into detail about that case, but it does appear, does it not, from that case file that you worked with the case and that the facts, substantially as I have stated them, were known to you, and that you endorsed the report of the Prague Special Court; is that much true?
A Whether I considered that it was good, I cannot say now in a hurry, that I knew it, that is obvious.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt you. The Court did not rule on your Exhibit 544. It is received in evidence.
MR. WOLLEYHAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Before we leave this field of criminal cases involving fo reigners, or nationals other than Germans, I show you now, Dr. von Ammon, some notes on a conference that you both attended and prepared the notes.
This conference was held on the 12 October 1941, in the Ministry of Justice. On the agenda was to discuss measures regarding criminal procedure against foreign workers in the Reich. It appears that you wrote up the notes on the conference and to that conference notes attached alist of attendance, that is, the people who were there. It appears that in addition to yourself, Dr. Vollmer was there and Dr. Mettgenberg representing the Ministry of Justice. Then we have a number of mother people who attended the conference listed there and they representend the office of the plenipotentiary of the Employment of Labor. I ask you was the man who attended the conference on behalf of that office representing Fritz Sauckel. Was Fritz Sauckel plenipotentiary for the employment of labor then?
A Yes.
Q And these other men who attended the conference represent the RSHA. I believe Kaltenbrunner was the chief of the RSHA at that time, wasn't he?
A First, I would like to make a remark. You said that the discussion took place on the 12th of October, 1941. That apparently is not correct.
Q In 1943, I beg your pardon.
A In 1943, Kaltenbrunner must have been chief of the RSHAas far as I remember.
Q And the Reich Fuehrer SS was Himmler, of course.
A Yes, yes.
Q And the propaganda Minister was Dr. Goebbels, of course.
A Yes.
Q And the German labor front was Robert Ley, naturally?
A Yes.
Q And all these people who attended this conference represented those various offices and people, didn't they?
A Yes.
Q Now you and the other discussed a number of things at that conference, including the speeding up of decisions on execution of death penalties with regard to these foreigners in the Reich, and the necessity of enlightening foreign workers on German war time criminal law and the Foreign Office was complaining that the death sentences against foreign workers were being carried out without consulting the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office also asked legal advice as to whether or not foreign workers could be penalized more severely that Germans in criminal proceedings and I believe that toward the end of the conference you boss, Vollmer, assured the Foreign Office that foreign workers could be penalized more severely than Germans, since they are more dangerous than Germans because of their foreign character and origin. I ask you Dr. von Ammon, if you stated last Friday and this morning, if different treatment of these foreign workers was not contemplated by this conference, why was the conference necessary? It is obvious isn't it, from this conference, that foreign workers were not going to be treated the same before the law as Germans, isn't it?
A If I am not very much mistaken the conference at that time was initiated by the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office had desired to be allowed to participate in decisions concerning the execution of a death sentence. In the Ministry of Justice misgivings had been raised about this for the reason that by the participation of the Foreign Office, the decision about clemecy questions might under certain circumstances be very much delayed. That was, as far as I remember, the main reason for that conference. In detail I cannot answer these questions now. In order to do so, you will have to give me an opportunity to read this record through at peace and at case. But I may comment to an other remark of yours Mr. Prosecutor.
Q One moment, Dr. von Ammon, excuse me. Merely from what I said and as you can see from the title of the conference and from a general scanning of the notes that you write it is obvious, isn't it, that foreign workers in Germany were not tried or treated by the law the same way as German nationals were, isn't that obvious from the nature of the conference itself?
A No, it is not obvious.
Q Then tell me this, if it is not obvious, and you were going to tell me that foreign workers were treated by law the same as Germans, then was there any purpose in having conference at all on that subject?
A They were treated insofar different and that is, better that Germans because the Foreign Office took interest in them. In death sentences against German citizens the Foreign Office was not interested at all but was interested in death sentences against foreigners and that is the reason for this conference.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the Prosecution offers these conference notes which we now discussing written by the defendant von Ammon as Prosecution Exhibit 545.
WITNESS: May I make a remark in regard to this document?
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Yes, Certainly.
A I would like to remark in regard to this document that this record is signed by me but I believe that I can remember with certainty that in the note which I had written my division chief Vollmer inserted some notes. I would have to see the original in order to find out what I actually wrote in my handwriting and what Vollmer wrote as supplementary remarks.
Q If you can remember those details, who signed what, why can't you remember what was in it?
A The approximate content I can remember. Details, of course, no longer, as it was four years ago.
Q With respect to the Nacht and Nebel material you discussed the Prosecution exhibit No. 335. In that report of 29 and 30 of June 1944, you stated that since the Allied Invasion of France over the Normandy Beachheads had not caused undue tension and that it would be unnecessary at that time to make penalties in the nacht and nebel cases more severe. Now tell me, was the enforcement of the nacht and nebel program in your opinion, both then and now directly dictated and tied in with the progress of hostilities?
A Not with the progress of hostilities but from the strength of the resistance movement.
Q In other words, the nacht and nebel in your opinion was not primarily directed at the actual fighting of the war but in consolidating and keeping in good order the area thereby acquired, is that it?
A One can say so, I believe.
Q Now along that line would you say that the military commander in France was of the same opinion as you when he writes in document NG 231, which is Prosecution Exhibit 332. He says there on the first page, or rather he describes the deportation of nacht and nebel prisoners from France to Germany in accordance with Hitler's directives, as a most effective punishment, exceeding the death sentence, in deterrent effect. You would rather from that wouldn't you that the military commander in France was very satisfied with the nacht and nebel as far as keeping from France in line?
A Yes, yes.
Q Now, Dr. von Ammon, if the nacht and nebel defendants, as you say, were fully informed of the nature and results of proceedings against them, why then did you deem it necessary, not once, but twice, to re-draft that letter to Bormann which is Exhibit 327, if these women knew all that was going on?
Why were you so anxious to have Bormann inform the women that reprieves had been granted. Obviously they didn't know it before?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, unfortunately, I did not quite understand your question. I wrote the letter to Bormann twice because Thierack would not sign the first draft.
Q. Yes, Dr. Von Ammon, I understand that, but I am asking you now, why you bothered to write it even once if these nacht and nebel defendants as you say, knew all about the proceedings against them any way?
A. They did not know that they would not have to count upon the execution of the death sentence until further notice. Hitler had not issued an express pardon for these women but had only granted a reprieve and had only decided that after the end of the war a definite decision was to be made, and until that time the poor women were in uncertainty, they did not know whether the death sentences would be executed or not and I wanted to do away with it and let the women at least be given information which was somewhat calming, that at least until further notice they would not be executed.
Q. Then at least so far as their clemency please being granted or refused and the basic fact whether they were going on living or not, they weren't informed about that, were they?
A. No, they were not informed and that was supposed to be the purpose of the letter, thus to achieve that they would be informed.
Q. Yes. Now the defendant Mettgenberg the other day, if I am not mistaken, said that some nacht and nebel defendants at least were acquitted and returned to their homes in the western occupied territories, whereas you have said that for reasons of military security and secrecy, it was impossible either to send them home after they were acquitted or to release them in Germany.
Now between the contradictory statements of yourself and Dr. Mettgenberg, just which is the case, did they go home or didn't they?
A. I believe there is no contradiction between our testimony. On principle, it was like this: The acquitted nacht and nebel prisoners and those who were not indicted at all had to remain in Germany until the end of the war. However, the possibility had been created for those whose innocence had been found out before trial or in the case of whom it was found out before the trial that no adequate suspicion against them existed, these were returned to the occupied territories. Use of that possibility in individual cases was made but however, not to a very large extent, and the rule was that the persons concerned remained in Germany until the end of the war.
Q. And that was in the custody of the Gestapo, is that right?
A. Yes, at least after the changes which Thierack made since October, 1942; before October 1942, the other regulation applied, that they were in the custody of the administration of Justice.
Court No. III, case No. 3.
Q Now, Dr. von Ammon, there is just one thing further in this custody-of-the-Gestapo business that confuses me. After the arrangement had been made late in 1944 to transfer these nacht and nebel prisoners to the Gestapo for protective custody, there has been a lot of talk here about the fact that the court authorities finally handed over to the Gestapo these people, at least in some measure.
What actually was involved in this handing over of hacht and nebel prisoners to the Gestapo as far as the courts and the justice Administration were concerned? By handing over, what actually did happen so far as the Courts and the Ministry are concerned? Did you sign a re lease? Did you actually put them in trucks and take them to the other side of town, or what happened?
A Unfortunately I cannot give you that information. You have to turn to the referent of the Department for Penal Administration, to your witness Hecker, who carried out those transfers.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the count room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:.
Q. Dr. von Ammon, with respect to the winding up of the Nacht and Nebel affairs in the Ministry in the handing over of these people to the Gestapo, the witness Hecker, in Exhibit 416, says that you attended a number of the conference during which this method was ironed out. It's surprising that you don't know how it happened. How did these people get off your hands? Was it a paper transfer or what was it?
A. No, two ordinances about Departments 4 and 5 were issued and they were issued to the Chief General Prosecutors concerned to the effect that they were to transfer the prisoners to the competent authority, the Gestapo.
Q. Now, you have said frequently here that you were always out to avoid severity in these Nacht and Nebel sentences and, in that respect, that you opposed the harsch and violent policies of your boss Vollmer. Tell me, in August, 1943, when Vollmer was required to give all the members of his department, including you, an efficiency report, what efficiency rating did he give you?
A. I have no idea. I did not see that efficiency report.
Q. When were you promoted to Ministerialrat?
A. I was promoted on the 20th of April, 1943 - but the promotion took effect from the 1st of March, 1943.
Q. And that promotion in 1943 was during the time you were working on the Nacht and Nebel program, wasn't it?
A. Yes, it was.