THE PRESIDENT: Inclusive - you may proceed.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: Witness, I have put to you Exhibit 11, a letter from Guertner, in order for you to read it, and I ask you to comment on this document, how it can about, and about the reference by the Central Office of the Prosecution to the document.
A: I have said already that the Reich Minister of Justice on account of the ill treatments in the concentration camps made complaints of a general nature to the Chief of the Security Police. When these complaints had no success, but, as can be seen from the beginning of this letter by the Reich Minister of Justice of the 14th of May 1935, were answered in a negative manner by the inspector of the Gestapo, the Minister of Justice considered it necessary to approach the person competent for the entire police in Germany, that is, the Reich Minister of the Interior. Therefore, he charged Mr. Haacke and myself with describing the occurrences to him as they had happened in certain camps. He also had himself informed about the fact that ill treatment of prisoners had occurred during police interrogations. Since the Inspector of the Gestapo apparently considered that these were ill treatments as disciplinary actions in the concentration camps, or as means to bring about a truthful statement in interrogations and thought he could justify it by doing so, the Minister of Justice was of the opinion that in consideration of the seriousness of these ill treatments that could not be a justification. Therefore, we drafted that statement of the general point of view to the Minister of Justice concerning ill treatment by police officers. It is expressed in detail in this letter, that it has been the experience of the administration of justice that statement made or obtained under duress are of no significance and that moreover the penal law that was in effect and which to carry out should also be the job of the Minister of Justice, requires that officials who commit ill treatments in office, should be threatened with special penalties.
A number of examples were cited from the camps which I had investigated in order to explain the seriousness of the ill treatments, and in a further sentence following the examples we stated that these few examples show such a large measure of atrocity which is an insult to the feelings of every German that it is quite impossible to even consider any mitigating circumstances. As a request to the Reich Minister of the Interior the letter closes with two points which I should like to read. The Minister of Justice says: "It appears to be necessary for the competent minister to issue to all police officials of all categories a directive prohibiting with out exception mistreatment of prisoners for the purpose of extorting statements. 2 - All mistreatments committed entirely or in part for personal motives must be followed up and punished by all state authorities concerned in close cooperation.
BY JUSTICE HARDING:
Q: What connection did you have with the writing of this letter?
A: The letter was drafted by my assistant von Haacke and myself and was reviewed by Senior Government Councillor von Donani, personal referent of the Minister Guertner and then the Minister of Justice himself also made a few additions.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: The content of the letter furthermore permits the conclusion that mistreatments occurred during interrogations by the police.
Now did the Minister thereupon order you to carry out investigation proceedings?
A: Yes, that happened, and that again in cases where the local offices on account of the resistance offered could not carry out such investigations. Two investigations which caused a great deal of commotion were the proceedings against the criminal police in Berlin, and against the members of the gestapo office in Duesseldorf. The proceeding against the officials of the gestapo in Berlin, concerned officials of the criminal police by the names of Winzer, Dunst, and others; the proceedings in Dusseldorf concerned two officials by the name of Heinemann and Schoeneberg. The resistance offered by the Chief of the Security Police could be eliminated. On account of the Dusseldorf proceedings it was necessary that I approach the gauleiter personally, because one of the police officials was the bearer of the Golden Party Badge. The investigation could be carried out, and the officials concerned received sentences amounting to considerable prison terms.
DR. HAENSEL: I would like to have submitted the files of these proceedings, and I have asked for them, but unfortunately I was unable to obtain them. Therefore, I have but one alternative, that is to submit an affidavit concerning the Dusseldorf proceedings too. Therefore, I submit for identification my document 17, from document book 1, on page 86, for identification as Exhibit 12, Volume 1, page 86. It is an affidavit by Senior Public Prosecutor, Robert Kottner, who was active in Dussseldorf and who now resides at Cologne. I shall refrain from reading it. I only submit it for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification as Exhibit No. 12.
DR. HAENSEL: No. 12. May I continue?
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q After the Central Prosecution was dissolved, were you still charged with criminal proceedings against officials of the police concerning mistreatment in office?
A No. After the Central Prosecution was dissolved, neither Herr von Haacke nor I received any assignments of the aort from the Minister, not even concerning more severe interrogations.
Q I put to you document Exhibit 33, NG-310, in Volume, I-B, at page 56. That is the document book of the Prosecution. That is a document which you have initialed, together with other Referents, in 1934, wherein Hitler interfered for the first time as the supreme judicial authority in the Administration of Justice. The public of the world knows about these matters under the name of "Roehm Putsch", but it should really be called "Heydrich-Himmler Putsch", because those were the active participants.
Is it correct--as we can see time and again in the description of events--that Minister Guertner considered the matter closed by the law of 3 July 1934?
A No, that is not correct at all. The Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, initialed an investigation of these occurences.
Q May I ask you first to look briefly at the document which I have put before you? And then we shall continue. That is Exhibit 33.
A Yes; that is the internal regulation of Department III of the Ministry of Justice according to which penal proceedings concerning interrogations under duress by the Gestapo should be handled by Senior Prosecutor Klemm. That internal regulation os of the 17th October 1937, and on that date Herr von Haacke and I no longer had anything to do with proceedings of that kind.
Q Would you kindly explain how, by order of Minister Guertner, you became active in connection with the so-called Roehm Putsch?
A We--Herr von Haacke and I--became active in connection with the events around the Roehm Putsch. As far as we knew, when the law of 3 July 1934 was issued, the proceedings concerning the killing of about 20 SA leaders, who had alledgedly been guilty of high treason, were affected. The rest of the punishable offenses were to be prosecuted; Hitler demonstrated that also in public in his speech to the German nation on the 15th of July of that year. Haacke and I, upon the initiative of Minister Guertner, made the necessary investigations. The police had not kept any records and did not become active. Therefore, we had to go to great pains to obtain the necessary information from other sources.
After a complete view had been gained of the events and Hitler had not kept his promise--the promise given in his speech of the 15th of July--Minister Guertner decided to report personally, first to Goering and subsequently to Hitler himself. Undersecretary Freisler, Oberregierungsrat von Donani, and I accompanied the Minister of Justice. Hitler and Goering demanded, very insistently, that these cases should be prosecuted. Goering did not say anything; that is, he did not contradict. Hitler first wanted to hear Himmler on the subject. Later I found out that Hitler believed that he had to quash the remaining cases, against the express intentions of the Minister of Justice. Only few proceedings were actually carried out. Personally, I remember the carrying out of one criminal case on account of the killing of a councilman in Waldenburg in Silesia.
Q Concerning this case, which is very interesting because it was really carried out, the affidavit by Haacke--that is my Exhibit 1, on page 11--states that the culprits were sentenced by the Court of Assizes of Broslau to considerable prison terms. Is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q I believe you should round a title out the picture, which resulted from the conditions under which the Central Prosecution had to be put in action. However, only give us short examples.
A The Central Prosecution always had to go into action, as I say when political opponents of the NSDAP were affected by criminal actions. Only in such cases, Party officials wanted to prevent the carrying out of the penal proceedings. I will mention a few cases, the cause of which can be found in the struggle of the NSDAP against the Catholic Church.
At Staade, members of the Party and its affiliated organizations had dragged a clergyman around through the streets of the city who was forced to carry a sign, which read: "I am a slave of the Jews." I overcame the resistance of the Gauleiter, who considered that action a quite comprehensible result of public opinion, and the proceedings were actually carried out. One of my assistants at Berlin had to represent the prosecution because threats were voiced against the local prosecution and the court. The result was prison terms. The judges, as far as they were members of the Party, were expelled from the NSDAP.
Then another case: The Reich Minister of Interior in Berlin had approved a public collection from the Catholic welfare Organization, Caritas, at Munich. The Bavarian Minister of the Interior who at the same time was a Gauleiter, did not recognize that approval. The people who went around collecting money were members of Catholic orders, monks and nuns, and Catholic citizens of Munich they were attacked by members of the Party and its organization and robbed of the money that had been collected. The police, upon instructions by the Bavarian Minister of the Interior and Gauleiter did not interfere. I immediately went to Munich, talked to the Gauleiter, conducted an investigation for about four weeks, and then initialed the prosecution of the case.
The culprits were punished. The Gauleiter complained in writing to Minister Guertner and wrote him, referring to me, that he would no longer tolerate having the Prussian Senior Prosecutor Joel conduct any official functions in his Gau.
I should like to mention one more case. Old Party members had taken a cruise on the Rhine, they had disturbed church services and attacked the police when they tried to interfere and had knowcked them down. The local Gauleiter wanted to prevent proceedings, the prosecutors conducting investigations were threatened that the Party would take steps against them. I decided that I myself would represent the case of the prosecution in the trial, and the result was prison terms. When I left the Court building hundreds of people demonstrated against me in the streets because I had caused the convicted individuals to be arrested in the courtroom.
One last example: A councilman Busch, at Crefeld, had been mistreated because of his former membership in the "Centrum Party." His brother, a lawyer, who had filed claims for the restitution of expenses incurred in medical treatment, was threatened by the SA and his house was shot at. I reported that case to the them Minister President of Prussia, Goering. I intervened with a unit of the regular police at Crefeld, and I removed the Police President and SA Oberfuehrer from office. Only after that was I ever able to start investigations down there. The culprits were later on sentenced.
DR. HAENSEL: I have tried to obtain the official files concerning these occurences in order to be able to submit documents. However, I was not successful, and here again I can only submit affidavits which elucidate these events.
I offer my document No. 16 for identification, it is in document book I, at page 84.
It is an affidavit by Friedrich Wilhelm Meyer. Furthermore, for identification, I offer as Exhibit 14 my Document 69. That is an affidavit by Hattingen which, however could not be taken into one of the three document books because it was received only after these document books had been completed. It will be found in a supplementary volume which has not yet been translated. Therefore, it will take some time until the English translation can be submitted to the Prosecution in this case. However, in order to have all my documents together, I should like to suggest nevertheless that this exhibit number be reserved for identification of that document.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 14-
DR. HAENSEL: Exhibit No. 14.
THE PRESIDENT: For what affidavit?
DR. HAENSEL: For my affidavit, Document Book--it will be 4 after the first 3. It is on Page 6, No. 69. Furthermore, I refer in this connection to Exhibit 15 which I offer for identification. It is Document 19 in my document Book on Page 94.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give me the name of the affiant whose affidavit will be Exhibit 14?
DR. HAENSEL: Hattingen: H-a-t-t-i-n-g-e-n.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, regarding Exhibit 14, that affidavit has not been certified according to the rules. I have spoken with Dr. Haensel and pointed out to him that the document in its present form apparently is not admissible, and Dr. Haensel has said that he will resubmit it before it is processed in order to make it conform.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve that number for it.
DR. HEANSEL: Exhibit 15 is the affidavit Piesker, Document 19 on Page 94 of Document book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification as Exhibit 15.
DR. HAENSEL: Concerning the Busch case, I offer for identification an affidavit by Busch as Exhibit 16. It is document Book 1 on Page 88.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: Then I refer again to the Diels affidavit which was already submitted as Exhibit 4, Document Book I, Document No. 7 BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Do you remember, witness, a case concerning corruption at a leading Party office; a case in which you were active in which you encountered particular difficulties?
A I remember many cases of that kind, and I shall give two examples. In the first one there were proceedings against three department chiefs of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer in Berlin who were guilty of embezzling money. The other is a case against the Deputy Chief of the National Socialist Civil Service League.
In the first case all leading party officers, with the exception of the Reich Treasury of the National Socialist German Workers Party, were working against us. In the second case, in addition to other difficulties, there was primarily the following: An official who belonged to the Reich Central Office of the German Civil Service League and who was also an employee of the Ministry wrote a defense plea from the files. Minister Guertner removed here. All these cases resulted in considerable prison terms.
DR. HAENSEL: I have tried to obtain these files from Berlin.
I requested them bit I did not succeed in receiving them. Therefore, I submit an affidavit by Thyssen for identification as Exhibit 17. It is in my document book II on Page 20, my document No. 27, the Thyssen affidavit, Document book II, Page 20, Document 27 for identification as Exhibit 17, and in the absence of the original files, I also refer to Exhibit 5 already in evidence -- the Jaeckel affidavit, Document II, my document No. 30, and I refer particularly to Page 34, Figure 5.
THE PRESIDENT: That is your exhibit 5, isn't it?
DR. HEANSEL. My exhibit 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 17 is marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: For identification, yes.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Did the central Prosecution exist until the war?
A No, it was quite suddenly dissolved by Undersecretary Dr. Freisler in October 1937.
THE PRESIDENT: What was it that was dissolved? I did not understand.
THE WITNESS: The Central Prosecution.
DR. HAENSEL: Zentral Staatsanwaltschaft, that is a department of the Ministry or that sub-department where Dr. Joel was.
A (Continuing) The dissolution of that department occured in October, 1937, because it was alledged that its activities were no longer necessary. That was based on numerous complaints from Party offices to which Undersecretary Freisler acceded. But there was also a group of old Party members in the Reich Ministry of Justice that was very active for that dissolution and whose suggestions Undersecretary Freisler had accepted.
DR. HAENSEL: Here I should like to refer again to my Exhibit 1 affidavit von Haacke. It is in my document book No, 1 on Page 14 and I ask to be permitted, as an exception--and you will see the reason immediately--to read a passage from that document, because it sounds quite different when read from the affidavit than when it is stated by Joel. I read from Document Book 1, Page 14:
"Of course, such activity as described, resulted for Joel and myself in continual sharp hostility from Party offices, particularly as Joel and I, as professional officials only having entered the Party after the seizure of power and holding no office there appeared little authorized to act thus in the eyes of the Party offices.
In the Ministry itself, we, and particularly Joel, were continually having difficulties with Undersecretary Freisler, to whom our proceedings nearly always appeared too severe. These sometimes become open scenes. Thus I remember the time when Joel bursquely broke off his report at a department conference with Undersecretary Freisler, and after a normal leave taking left the Secretarys' room, after Undersecretary Freisler had made irrelevant replies and reproaches about his objective report of investigation proceeding against deputy Gauleiter Schmalz (Hannover), containing the reproach that he had proceeded too sharply against Schmalz."
"Even though Joel and I always had the confidence and the full approval of Minister Guertner, Under Secretary Freisler quit surprisingly dissolved the special department Central Public Prosecution in October, 1937, after a few such conflicts in which he censured our proceeding in some criminal cases of corruption as being too severe.
"Joel and I thus became general district penal Referenten in the Ministry. It is also relevant that some time later the then Chief Public Prosecutor Klemm made an accusation against Joel to the Secret State Police (Gestapo), as far as I remember, it was to Ministerialrat Director Dr. Best, that he had proceeded so severely against members of the Party because of a hostile attitude to the Party. Joe was informed officially by Dr. Best of this charge. He communicated it to Minister Guertner at once, on the latter's order, investigations were instituted by Ministerial Director Dr. Crohne against Joel and me to have this reproach cleared up. These pointed to the complete objectivity and lawfulness of the work we had done during the four years that the special branch had existed."
THE PRESIDENT: May I say to you, Dr. Haensel, that your reading of this affidavit is not to be distinguished in any way from the affidavits which we suggested to you need not be read. If it serves any purpose in connection with the examination of this witness it would be only as a leading question. Now, proceed with the examination of the witness. We will read your affidavits.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Do you have anything to say concerning these statements in this affidavit?
A No. I have already explained that the dissolution of the Central Public Prosecution was also sought by some individuals within the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q After the Central Public Prosecution was dissolved, were you ever assigned to deal with individual penal cases -- that is to say, with special cases?
A Yes, I became a district referent but, on the whole, I dealt with special assignments. The Minister of Justice Guertner, in a circular decree of the Ministry of Justice of 6 October 1937, which dissolved the Central Public Prosecution, had reserved the right to assign, in important cases, to one of his assistants the individual investigations. That happened frequently.
Q This circular decree can be found in my Document Book 1, page 8, Document # 3, and following this statement made by the witness, I want to submit it for identification as Exhibit 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Copy from penal administrative regulations. This circular decree shows that the right was reserved to assign Joel as referent for special individual cases.
Could you tell the Court in what field these special assignments were?
A They were penal cases which, up to then, the Central Public Prosecution had to deal with and which Minister Guertner considered especially important. After 1935, there were frequently penal cases concerning excesses and illegal activities against Jews.
Q Before we refer to Document, Exhibit 370, submitted by the prosecution, which is NG 616, in Document Book V-D, page 230, I want to put a preliminary question to you.
Before 1938, did you take any steps concerning anti-Jewish ocurrences?
A Yes, frequently. Such penal prosecutions caused special resistance on the part of the Party offices. We frequently had to intervene to support the local prosecutions. I want to give an example. At Marienburg, in East Prussia, members of the SA had committed various actions against local inhabitants who were known to be friends of the Jews, and, on that occasion, a Jewess who had relations to an SA man, was considerably ill-treated.
The Gauleiter and the SA Leaders in East Prussia objected to investigations. The competent prosecution office at Elbing could not carry out any such investigations. By order of Minister Guertner, after reporting to him, Herr von Haacke and I flew to Marienburg, carried out the investigation, and brought about the trial and sentencing of the culprits. The result was a prison term of five years.
Q It was not possible to obtain these files because they are files from East Prussia. Therefore, I took an affidavit from one of the decisive officials, Regierungsrat Marotzki, and I am offering it now, for identification, as Exhibit 19. It can be found in document book 2, on page 14. My document # 25, Marotzki Affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q That case is also discussed in a document already offered as Exhibit 5, that is the Jaeckel Affidavit, Document Book II, page 37, No. 9.
What did you do about the Ayranization measures that became known on the part of high Party functionaries in connection with an official of the Gestapo in Berlin?
A There was much discussion in the foreign press about the Ayranization proceedings in the Gau Berlin in the years 1934-1935. The people who carried on those Ayranizations were chiefs (Gauamtsleiter) of the Gauamt Berlin. The Regierungsrat of the Secret State Police (Gestapo) had been instigated by them to work with them. It was a case of well-known Jewish merchants, the Brothers Guggenheim, Gusowsky, Braunspan, Aaron, and Joel. Against the carrying out of investigations considerable opposition was brought into play by the Deputy of the Fuehrer, the Chancellory of the Fuehrer, the Chief of the Security Police and last, but not least, by the Gauleiter of Berlin, Dr. Goebbels.
In the focal point of all these events, these attacks, was the then Senior Public Prosecutor Lautz of Berlin. Upon the initiative of Minister of Justice Guertner, von Haacke and I intervened. After great difficulties we could remove some of the obstacles, and the proceedings against the Chiefs of the Gau Office, against the Regierungsrat of the Gestapo, and against other collaborators, took place. The results were that the Regierungsrat of the Gestapo was sentenced to seven years in a penitentiary. Similar sentences were pronounced against the Gau office chiefs of the Gau Berlin.
Q I have tried to obtain these files also from the public prosecution office in Berlin, but I was not successful. The only thing which I have received by way of documents, and which I can offer here are files of the Supreme Party Court concerning Alexander von Steinmeister who is mentioned in these proceedings. I have obtained photostatic copies of these files and am offering them, as far as they are relevant for this case, for identification as Exhibit 20. There are to be found in my document book # 1 on pages 70 an following, and they are my document # 5. The files of the Supreme Party Court concerning Steinmeister -- photostatic copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification Exhibit 20.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q I submit these files to you, witness, and ask you to comment particularly on page 75.
THE WITNESS: The files, which I have just received, contain on page 75 the ruling by the National Socialist German workers Party, Gau Court of Berlin, against the former Party member Alexander von Steinmeister of 13 November 1936, which shows that the proceedings -- apparently the Party Court Proceedings against von Steinmeister -- was suspended pending final decision of the criminal proceedings against Doepke and others - file number of Central Office of the Public Prosecutor Z.St.g.10b, 3/35 g.Rs.
On page 73 is the ruling showing the former Regierungsrat was expelled from the National Socialist Jurists' League. The ruling of the Gau Honor Court of Berlin is of 26 June 1946. It says there: "Regierungsrat von Steinmeister was convicted of robberty with extortion in factual connection with offenses against Section 343 of the Criminal Code, in two cases of attempted robbery with extortion in factual connection with offenses against Section 341 of the Criminal Code, of compulsion applied in office, of removal of documents, of false certification of disloyalty and sentenced to a total term of seven years in a penitentiary. Furthermore, the sentence deprived the accused of the honorary civil rights for a term of five years. The petition for appeal of the accused was dismissed through ruling of the second Senate of the Reich Supreme Court dated 1st March 1937."
DR. HAENSEL: Immediately after the discussions of these subjects, we have to deal with the Jewish programs of 1938. Did you have anything to do with this matter officially? I have submitted to you Exhibit 28, NG-629, a document from Prosecution Document Book I-b, page 59, where your name is mentioned together with Minister Guertner. It is exhibit of the Prosecution 28, Book 1-B, page 59.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Concerning the matter of the programs against the Jews in 1938, I want to state that I had something to do with the matter, Minister Guertner assigned me first of all to find out how this action originated. The Reich Minister of Justice and the Administration of Justice as well as everyone else in Germany, was surprised by these events. I received no information either from Party offices or from the police. Through the Public Prosecutor in Munich I was able to get an impression of the events.
Reich Minister Goebbels, on the occasion of the meeting of old Party functionaries in Munich on the 9th November in the Old Town Hall building, after receiving a report of the death of Herr von Rath, had incited to these excesses in a public speech. As a result of telephone calls received from Munich, the various Gauleiters started the actions throughout the entire country. Goebbels, thus started it. The chief of in the Secret Police, who was in Munich, issued two orders during the same night. In the first order he requested the chiefs of State Police offices to bet in touch with the political leaders of the NSDAP. In the second order he demanded that steps be taken against looters.
On the basis of these facts, the Reich Minister of Justice could gain the following impression; Many punishable acts had been committed, particularly arson committed against synagogues and destruction of Jewish stores. The Reich Minister had given the signal for it, and the police only interferred whenever it had received specific orders to take steps against individuals who had robbed or looted.
In the report rendered by Minister Guertner to Goering I stated specifically that Reich Minister Goebbels was the instigator. I assumed that steps would be taken against Goebbels.
That, however, was an expectation which did not come true. To prosecute individuals who believed in the legality of the orders that same down from the NSDAP was not possible, because every court would have acquitted them because they did not think they had committed anything illegal. Therefore, with any chance of success, only such punishable acts could be prosecuted which had occurred in connection with arson or damage to objects.
I received instructions to that effect from Minister Huertner. The Party offered opposition against that. The Party wanted to leave to the Party courts any proceedings concerning the acts of the 9th and 10th of November and wanted to have the jurisdiction of the State eliminated.
Upon instructions from Minister Guertner, I negotiated twice with the chief of the Central Office of the Supreme Party Court at Munich. The first meeting resulted in an arrangement that the Party courts should come to preliminary decisions and wanted to determine themselves what cases could be transferred to the Administration of Justice. That was not in accordance with the law and could not be accepted by the Ministry of Justice.
Again I travelled to Munich, and in the second meeting we succeeded in obtaining that all matters, after all Party members or members of any party formations had received a hearing, all these matters would be turned over to the Administration of Justice for penal prosecution. Numerous penal cases were tried all over the Reich after that.
In spite of the fact that we received some clarification with the Supreme Party Court that these trials had to be carried out, local Party officers again and again made it necessary that the Reich Ministry interfere through me to overcome difficulties, which were put in the way of carrying out these proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you tell us the date of these proceedings again?
THE WITNESS: 9th and 10th of November of 1938 and our investigations which followed subsequently.
THE PRESIDENT: 1938, thank you.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Several proceedings concerning criminal acts in connection with that event were reserved by the Supreme Party Court in contravention of our arrangements. They had negotiations with Goering and also talked to Hitler, without informing the Minister of Justice about that. The Minister of Justice found out about that only several months later.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: Herr von Haacke in his affidavit, Exhibit 1, which has repeatedly been quoted and which is on page 17 of my Document Book 1, mentions that together with you he had drafted a report about these events in which you tried to explain to Hitler the tremendous consequences of these actions. Do you remember that?
A: Yes, I remember that a final report was made, in which the mistreatment of persons, and damage to objects was stated.
Q: Before the files here fly away, I should like to offer Exhibit 1 for identification. It is an exhibit not yet contained in one of the document books. Therefore the same applies as to Exhibit Hattingen. I just ask to have the exhibit number reserved, Exhibit 21, for an affidavit by Carl Hoeller, my document No. 74 and that is supposed to receive the exhibit No. 21, after it has been translated.
Then we come to the events in Nurnberg, which are referred to in Prosecution Exhibit 370 which the witness Joel has before him. What can you state in connection with that document of the prosecution, Exhibit 370, NG-616, volume V D.
A: Of the events in Nurnberg, I was informed not by the chiefs of the Administration of Justice but by Police President Dr. Martin, and I immediately went to Nurnberg. I described my first impressions in Nurnberg to Minister Guertner by telephone and at the same time told him that law and order (Rechtsordnung) Franconia no longer existed. The facts are known to the Court from this document. In order to create the possibility to take action against Streicher, Goering had to be asked for support, because there was no other leading Party member who could be made to take steps against Streicher. I began to work in Nurnberg with a commission in February of 1938. The transfer of all real estate to Gauleiter Holz, which already had been secured by entry in the real estate register was nullified by my activities.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours).