A (continued) By referring to the background history, I suggested a generous way of handling these clemency matters, but Thierack refused. I still have to comment on two notations concerning reports. The first one is also on page 5, "Russian from District of Kursk, paragraph 2, public enemy decree, Gestapo wants to punish by applying police measures," From the reference to the paragraph, of the penal decree on can conclude that the competency of the Administration of Justice was stressed and that the penal proceedings were already pending.
At that time I had refused to have individuals turned over; so did tho Department Chief, but I cannot tell what happened later. Then there is a notation, I quote, "Jabowski, a Pole, raped a German woman. He was executed by hanging, Kripo asked that a certificate for burial should be issued." That notation has the following meaning: by excluding the competency of the Administration of Justice and without the knowledge of the Administration of Justice, the Criminal Police had dealt with that case on their own.
They wanted a certification for burial which the local prosecutor, who was a competent in this case, did -- properly--not want to grant. One could not change the facts. I suggested that, in writing and orally, protest should be made to the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA,) and that a certificate should be issued with the statement at the same time that the Criminal Police had carried out the execution.
I myself, on orders from the Minister, complained to tho Chief of the Criminal Police; for the rest, my suggestion was accepted and carried out.
Page five also contains the following notation, I quote: "An Eastern worker from the old Soviet territory stole a jacket. The gestapo transferred him to a work in a correction camp and demands that the sentence for one month in prison should be annulled." That notation shows that an ordinary trial and sentence for theft had been carried out by the Administration of Justice. However, before the Administration of Justice had the chance to make the convict serve his term, the gestapo had taken steps on their own.
The gestapo sent him to a labor and correction camp. I together with the Chief of my department, opposed the suggestion made by the Gestapo and because the Russian had already been put into a labor camp I had requested that he be returned to his place of work. Thierack did not contradict; however, the annulment of the sentence which the police had demanded, was illegal and did not take place.
Q On page 3 of the document which you have before you, you also find the notation: (I quote) "Granting clemency concerning Bichler and Daub, killed Catholic priest in May, 1940, at Posen." The grant of clemency can be found as Exhibit 255 in Book IV-a of the Prosecution. Will you please quote from that document and then make your comments on it?
A That notation on the report goes together with the clemency decision, which has already been submitted as Exhibit 255. The decision to grant clemency was made by Minister Thierack and that, in spite of our objections, and in spite of the extreme leniency expressed in the sentence. That, as far as I know, happened after contact had been taken up with Himmler who had expressed that which for granting of clemency.
The report was made because in December 1942, that is several months later, after the clemency decision which is contained in Document 255 had been made. Himmler had complained to Thierack that the clemency decision had not yet been carried out. That is, up to that time.
Q You closed that document book too soon. I wanted to ask you to explain the following: Your notation which I have quoted states: "They have in May 1940 murdered a Catholic priest at Posen." Was that sentence for murder of for manslaughter? And what is the difference?
A When in spring, 1940, that case was reported to us, there were considerable difficulties to be overcome to carry out these proceedings.
I personally was of the opinion at that time that a sentence for murder had to be pronounced. The court at Hohensalza in its verdict of the 1st June 1940 found manslaughter to be the case and sentenced the culprits to 15 years in a penitentiary each. From the notation, one can see that we still considered that case a case of murder.
Q And from the way it was termed here, can one see your point of view in the clemency question?
A My assistant, myself and my Department Chief considered that clemency decision quite impossible.
Q I still should like to have a statement from you concerning the case Pirzel on pare three. I quote: "Crime against war economic order; Gauleiter Ueberreither demands death sentence." The case is important because subsequently I should like to discuss the affidavit by Suchomel. Do you still remember what happened after the demand of the Gauleiter Ueberreither, and who was it.
A In the case of this notation, we are concerned with the following. A farmer had not made adequate deliveries. He had fed milk and grain to his livestock and since he was known to be an opponent or considered to be an opponent of the NSDAP the local Gauleiter Ueberreither wanted to make an example. He requested the Ministry of Justice in writing to see to it that Birzel was sentenced to death. The case was not of a kind that one could have had the prosecutor ask for a death sentence. The department chief and myself reported to Thierack and convinced him.
Ueberreither received a rejection letter and Pirzel was sentenced to four years in a penitentiary.
Q Concerning your attitude in the case, Pirzel and the entire picture of the activities, we find that the statements made by Suchomel in his affidavit are quite in contradiction. It is Exhibit 534. What do you have to say to it?
A When Suchomel was my superior as the sub-department chief and frequently deputized for the department chief, he never made any objections of this kind to me.
Files of the courts were submitted to me only on very rare occasions. I received only reports from the senior prosecutors as Suchomel knows full well, and it is quite impossible that a minimum of a hundred reports of that kind were submitted in one single day, because the yearly average of such reports received by a section was about 1,500.
Notations with the name of the defendant and the extent of the legal slaughter and of the demand for punishment made by or expected to be made by, the prosecution -- such notations had to be made when the case was submitted to the department chief. The word "Einlegen" I cannot understand. I never used it. Decisive remarks about agreeing to or disagreeing with the suggestion made by the Senior Prosecutor were only made by the chief of the department or sometimes as his deputy by Suchomel himself. If I had misgivings concerning the demands to be expected by the prosecutor or the senior prosecutor, then I had to make a report.
The War Economy case where a father and son were executed was not known to me. Nor was I the competent referent for clemency matters in cases of death sentences.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q I have called for Suchomel for cross-examination concerning this affidavit and I hope that he will appear here.
No, we have only two more documents concerning the period of your work at the Ministry, Exhibit 262 and 638 from Volume IV-A, and I should like to have you comment on these.
There are first the notes concerning your visit to Goering on the 24th of September, 1942, Exhibit 262.
A Upon orders by Minister Thierack, I was sent to Goering. Goering had some requests to make to the Minister of Justice. I received numerous requests from Goering, among others the suggestion which is mentioned in Exhibit 262, and, through the official channels, I submitted my notes to the Minister. I did not deal any further with the matter. The men handling these matters were the late Westphal and the witness Hecker, but I could observe that Goering's suggestions were not carried out because I accompanied Westphal when he discussed the matter with General Meindl.
Q In my endeavor to procure witnesses or documents in connection with this matter I was not able to obtain any better results than to speak to Goering's adjutant, Colonel von Brauchitsch, since Goering is dead. He is not here. He is in Garmisch, and in the last few days I received an affidavit from him for which I ask to have Exhibit #34 reserved. As soon as it is translated it will be submitted to the Prosecution that the Prosecution can state its point of view.
The Prosecution, in its opening statement of 5 March, on Page 141 of the German transcript, expressed that you, witness, through the suggestion by Goering, I quote "became particularly well acquainted of the murder practiced against Jews in Poland and in the Soviet Union." What can you say in connection with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit is that?
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q That is the opening speech. No exhibit, the opening speech of the 5th of March on page 141 of the German transcript. It is a charge Court No. III, Case No. 3.on which he may be able to comment.
A When I was with Goering, it was at the Reichsjaegerheim at Rohmindener Heide. Goering showed me pictures and reports which showed indescribable atrocities of Russian parachutists who had been found to be convicts behind the German combat lines. In his excitement he had conceived the thought of carrying out reprisals. I never took that suggestion seriously. It was known to me that the Army and the Waffen SS, just like armies all over the world, had units for individuals with previous convictions. I assumed that Goering also wanted to establish units of that kind in the Luftwaffe. The generals of the Luftwaffe refused. When I discussed that idea of Goering's with General Meindl, he agreed, after a few sentences, that that was out of the question. Meindl called the then Chief of General Staff of the Luftwaffe, General Jeschonek, by telephone and five minutes later the matter was dropped and nothing was done in that direction.
Q That was a remark made by the Prosecution, not a document, on which you commented, but as far as documents are concerned, there are still Exhibits 366 and 367, one after the other, on which I would like you to comment, but quite briefly.
A That deals with the duty of local police offices concerning burial. It is a notation on a letter, on which, I think, Dr. Mettgenberg has already commented. It concerns the duty of the police to bury all bodies which are not interred by their relatives and that obligation of the police applied also to bodies of individuals who had been executed. The man in charge of these matters was, as can be seep from this letter, Ministerialrat Westphal, the general referent of the department. He also had to handle the carrying out of the penal decree concerning Poles. My activity in this matter consisted of two telephone calls. It is a typical example of supporting the referent, a support which I had to give as liaison man to the police as one can see from the directive of the Minister of Justice Guertner of the 17th of December, 1937. Since nothing happened upon my suggestion, Westphal wrote a letter to the Chief of the Court No. III, Case No. 3.German Police - that is the second document.
That letter, since I had made a telephone call previously, was submitted to me for information as is customary according to the routine of a ministry.
Q I believe that takes care of it, but there is something else which appears very important. One can only get a complete picture of your work in the Ministry of Justice if you explain to us how you used your position at the Ministry of Justice and your position as liaison man to the police for the protection of people who were politically persecuted. Did you become active in that direction upon suggestions by the personnel department or by private individuals?
A Yes, that was part of my daily routine. It was very well known.
Q What kind of matters were those?
A Essentially those were cases of cancelling measures taken by the Gestapo, such as protective custody and other measures.
Q Since we are going to hear a witness on this matter, Herr Otto Lenz, and another witness, perhaps some time later, the Attorney Schultz, we only want to discuss briefly a few cases. Do you remember, for instance, the 200 Jewish legal consultants, who, in November, 1938, were taken into protective custody by the Gestapo?
A I remember numerous cases of that kind and I also remember these measures against the Jewish legal consultants. In many cases which, privately or through the personnel department or other offices of the Ministry of Justice, were brought to my attention, I have no recollection of names any more, but many of the people concerned have written to me now, here in the prison, and that made it possible for me to remember cases of support to individual persons. The 200 Jewish legal consultants had been arrested after the Jewish pogrom of 1938, not only in Berlin but throughout the entire area of the Reich. I was informed about that by the referent of the personnel department who was competent for matters of attorneys and also for Jewish legal consultants. Any reason for the arrest by the police could not be found. Upon the request Court No. III, Case No. 3.of Under-Secretary Schlegelberger, to whom that matter was also reported, I at once got in touch with the leading officials of the Gestapo at Berlin, that is, with the competent Chief of the Gestapo, the Chief of the Personnel Department.
It was possible immediately to set free the 200 Jewish legal consultants in Berlin. Those in the Reich were also released, but a few days later.
Q I believe that that subject is designed more than any other for submission of affidavits. A large number of letters were spontaneously sent to me when the charges of the indictment against Joel became known and I believe that the documents best speak for themselves, documents which, in this connection, I would like to submit. I am only sorry that I have to bother the Tribunal by submitting for identification several exhibits.
As my Exhibit #35 I shall submit, from my document book II, the document 42, on page 75.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
The affidavit Hermann Schoetensack.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit may be marked for identification Exhibit 35.
DR. HAENSEL: The next document from this book is my document No. 43, which I offer as Exhibit No. 36, that begins on page 82, that is the affidavit by Dr. Kurowski-Schmitz.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: Then follows Document No. 44 on page 86, which will be Exhibit No. 37.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked.
DR. HAENSEL: And on page 90 in the same book, there is my document No. 45, which will be Exhibit No. 38, an affidavit by Koeper.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked.
DR. HAENSEL: In this connection, there is in document book 3, I beg your pardon, in the same document book No. 2, Exhibit 39, it is my document no. 45, correction my document no. 46. That is the affidavit Roth on page 93.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked Exhibit No. 39.
DR. HAENSEL: And then in document book 3, also in this connection, affidavit by Emilie Boesel on page 66, my document No. 66, which will be exhibit 40.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked Exhibit 40 for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: From the same book, Affidavit by Klinke on Page 69, my document No. 67, which is to receive Exhibit No. 41.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked.
DR. HAENSEL: And this concludes this group of questions from document book 3, page 62, the affidavit Roethe, my document no. 64 and it is to become exhibit No. 42.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Dr. Joel, that concludes your activities in the Ministry, and I come now to your work as general public prosecutor (Generstaatsanwalt);
Court No. III, Case No. III.
according to your personnel data on 16 May 1943 you were appointed general public prosecutor and on 17 August 1943 you were introduced in Hamm, Exhibit 54, Volume 1-A; how did it come about that you were transferred from the Ministry of Justice?
A When the Ministry of Justice was taken over by Minister Thierack, it was clear to me and everyone else, the old Gurtner-that Schlegelberger's policy would be abandoned. Thierack, as everybody knew, owed his appointment to important personalities in the party. That Thierack himself and the people around him wanted to get me out of the Ministry was known beyond doubt.
Q But how did you actually get concrete information about this and what did you do after you obtained that information; what did you do yourself?
A Official knowledge of my intended transfer from the Ministry, that is my final transfer out of the Ministry, I obtained twelve hours before I was introduced into my office in Hamm. About the fact that I had to leave the Ministry, I was informed by Minister Thierack immediately after he assumed office. He called me into his office and told me that I had to get out of the Ministry. Immediately after he assumed office, I tried to get out of the Administration of Justice and to find a position in other parts of the Civil Service or, as I would have preferred, in private economy. In writing and orally, I made numerous attempts to leave the Administration of Justice through the Foreign Office, through the Legal Department of the Army, through the Four Year Plan and through the Armament Ministry.
Q Do you happen to remember the name of anybody whom you approached, names which could assist me with submitting affidavits?
A I received the answer from the Foreign Office through Dr. Best, as for the Amy Administration of Justice, the Chief, Herr von Boggelberg had stated he would be willing to give me a job, as for the Four Year Plan, it was Ministerial Counciller Gritzbach and in the Armament Ministry, President Clasen.
Q The evidence in this connection is to be found in Exhibit 4 Court No. III, Case No. III.
and Exhibit 17. One has already been submitted and the other one announced. I shall also submit for identification as Exhibit 43, my document No. 62 in document book 3 on page 53 of my document book 3. That is to be Exhibit 43, the affidavit Best.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. I did not get your paging on that, what is your document number?
DR. HAENSEL: It is my document No. 62 in document book 3 on page 52, an affidavit by Dr. Werner Best.
Also an affidavit by Gritzbach, in this case I should like to submit an affidavit which I received only a few days ago and which has not yet been translated. It is Exhibit No. 44. The Prosecution will also receive it later to state its position.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve No. 44 for that exhibit.
DR. HAENSEL: Please tell us something about Thierack's reaction to your efforts to get out of the Ministry?
THE WITNESS: Thierack did not know anything about that. But, as I stated, soon after he assumed office he called me into his office and merely stated I was to leave the Reich Ministry of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question, Dr. Joel? How long did you serve in the Reich Ministry of Justice after Dr. Thierack became the Minister?
THE WITNESS: About one year, Mr. President. When Minister Thierack told me I had to leave, I asked him to release me from the Civil Service. Thierack replied what would happen to me would be decided by him.
DR. HAENSEL: You also discussed your possible transfer to the Ministry for Armament Production; what became of that plan?
THE WITNESS: The Ministry for Armament Production had agreed to take me into their legal department. Since Thierack had refused to release me from the Civil Service, I asked the official in question to speak to Thierack himself and to ask for my release.
DR. HAENSEL: Would the Tribunal please permit me one more question? The Prosecution refers to Exhibit No. 54, that is your introduction Court No. III, Case No. III.
into the office in Hamm, what can you say about that?
THE WITNESS: I cannot say anything about that. I was introduced, that is all. A very short explanation, is it not?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at the usual hour.
(A recess was taken until 6 August 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 6 August 1947, 0930-1630 The Honorable James T. Brandt, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert and the defendant Barnickel, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: We have made inquiry concerning the defendant Barnickel and he is again excused for today.
The defendant Engert has been excused.
Let the notation be made.
DR. HAENSEL: I ask to be permitted to continue my direct examination of Guenter Joel.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
GUENTER JOEL (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. HAENSEL: Yesterday we had arrived at the introduction of Guenter Joel into office at Hamm. Now I submit, for identification, as Exhibit 45, my document No. 51, the affidavit of Vogel, from document book III, at page 20; that is at page 20 in the English book.
THE PRESIDENT: You are offering that as Exhibit 45?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, 45, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification Exhibit 45.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Vogel was an official of the Administration of Justice of Hamm.
I don't know whether you still remember him, witness. He says in his affidavit that the remembers the introduction into office of Dr. Joel at Hamm because representatives of the Sate, of the Armed Forces, and of the Party appeared in full iniform, whereas Joel himself were a gray summer suit. It must have been summer then. Do you remember, on the basis of all that, when it was?
A Of course I can remember, it is also to be found in a document It was on the 17th of August 1943.
Q We have already heard that your transfer to Hamm had been disposed of quite some time previously, but, as I understood you, you only found about that decision--which was made at an ealier date-later. Would you please explain to the Tribunal since when the question of your transfer was pending, and how that threat of a transfer influenced your work at the Ministry under Thierack?
A I have already explained that immediately after Thierack assumed office in September of 1942, Theirack called me into his office and told me that I could not remain in the Ministry. I asked him at that time to be permitted to leave the Civil Service. He rejected that and he told me to tell him as soon as possible whether I agreed to my transfer. I did not do that. In the month of November he again called me into his office. I remember clearly that it was on the 27th of November--the 26th or the 27th of November. He told me that he had not received any statement from me and that therefore he would have to dispose over me. In December of 1921 was informed that my assignment as liaison man to the police no longer was made us of, that he made a different arrangement with the Chief of the German Police.
During the following months--that is to say, at the beginning of 1943--I was informed by an official in the Personnel Department that my appointment as General Prosecutor had been initialed. Then, in the subsequent months, I did not hear anything about a possible appointment or a possible transfer. Thierack did not speak to me about it any more.
In the month of May, 1943, I found out from the Personnel Department that the decree of appointment was already in Thierack's desk drawer. In July of 1943, together with the Chief of the Penal Department, I made a trip to find emergency quarters for the department on account of aerial warfare. I was in Berlin on a Sunday, and when the subsequent Monday morning, I went to the Ministry- that was the l6th of August, 1943- I happened to meet Under-Secretary Rothenberger, who was just going to the railroad station in order to introduce me the next morning in Hamm. Until that moment I did not know anything about it myself. At 12 o'clock noon, on Monday, Under-Secretary Rothenberger took me with him in his car, and at 1 o'clock we drove from Berlin to Hamm where everything was already prepared for my introduction into office, and the next morning I was introduced.
Q You were appointed General Prosecutor in Hamm, and in December of 1943, for the first time, you had something to do with NN Cases. The prosecution has submitted several documents regarding NN cases, but only those can possible concern you which came to your attention after you had assumed, office in Hamm, that is, after the 17th of August, 1943.
I have had Volume VI submitted to you, and I shall refer to the following documents? Exhibit 324, Exhibit 328, Exhibit 330, Exhibit 308 and from Volume I-C, Exhibit 80.
I ask you now to comment about your connection with NN Cases.
AAs for penal cases against inhabitants of the Occupied Western Territories concerning offenses against the occupying power, with which the Administration of Justice had to do since 1941 and 1942, I only got in touch in September 1943. At the Reich Ministry of Justice I never had anything to do with the handling of NN cases nor knew anything about them. I never found out anything about them either because of the special regulations concerning maintenance of secrecy. I found out, after assuming office in Hamm, that my subordinate Senior Prosecutor at Essen was handling NN cases.
The military courts in Belgium submitted to him records of investigations. He filed indictments with the District Court at Essen.
In NN cases the Central Prosecutor had no possibility to make any decision because the Reich Minister of Justice re served the right of any more important decision which otherwise would be made by a prosecutor.
By the circular Decree of the 6 February 1942, which has been submitted hero as Exhibit 308, the Senior Prosecutors had to submit the indictment and the demand for punishment that they expected to make, the fact that they did not wish to file an indictment, that they wished to cancel the warrant for arrest, the Reich Ministry of Justice and ask for its approval, or procure evidence from abroad to.
As things were, I could only make suggestions as General Prosecutor. Moreover, I had to pass on these reports to the Ministry of Justice. It also happened in individual cases that tho Ministry of Justice immediately got in touch with the Senior Prosecutor at Essen. Decisions which came down from the Reich Ministry of Justice I had to pass on without any possibility of changing them to the Senior public Prosecutor.
I am speaking now of Document 80, NG-482, Bock I-C, P-78. That is a decree by the Reich Minister of Justice of 28 February 1944 which was directed to the President of the District Court of Appeals at Hamm and was submitted to me for information. The Reich Ministry of Justice criticized in that decree the point of view taken by tho Special Court at Essen which judged the possession of hunting arms more leniently that the possession of fire arms belonging to the army.
As can be seen furthermore from the decree, the Reich Ministry of Justice, by directive of the 13 July 1943; had instructed the Senior Public Prosecutor at Essen to handle the questions of possession:
of hunting arrows or army fire arms in the same manner. The sentence at the Special Court of Essen of the 7 December 1945 had not allowed that instruction. Therefore, the President of the District Court of Appeals was requested to explain to the Special Court, the opinion of the Reich Ministry of Justice in these cases. As general Prosecutor I did not have any steps to take in that matter and I did not take any stops.
One general instruction of the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning dealing with NN cases passed through my office during my term of office. It is a decree by the Reich Ministry of Justice of the 21 January 1944, Exhibit 328. It is in Document book of the Prosecution No. VI, Page 112. It deals with the transfer of NN prisoners, who had been acquitted or who had served their term, to the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number are you referring to?
DR. HAENSEL: 328, your Honor.
A (Continuing)- That regulation by the Reich Ministry of Justice had to be passed on to the Senior Prosecutor at Essen. As I was informed at that time, the Military Courts only transferred cases to Germany, if they could expect a conviction, with certainty. Therefore, this seemed to me, to be a decree which could hardly be applied because prison terms, for offenses against the occupied power and for illegal possession of fire arms, usually were for several years, and therefore, cases were the individuals had already served their term would simply not occur.
In addition, the Reich Ministry of Justice had issued a general directive so that the Senior Prosecutor at Essen wouldn't even have consulted me. Moreover, sentences were not served in my district, evidently because we were too close to the Western front. In other words, I had no NN prisoners. During the time when I had connection with NN cases not a single case to my attention where an NN prisoner, who had served his term, was turned over to the police.
As for further thoughts about the fate of these NN prisoners who had been acquitted or had served their term, I was relieved of them, because in the beginning of 1944 the transfer of the NN court at Essen to the district of the District Court of Appeals Kattowice at Kattowice was discussed on account of the enemy threat to the West, and in fact that was accomplished on 14 March, 1944.
As for the secrecy, at a conference with General von Falkenhausen at Brussels and his judge advocate, we had agreed that prisoners who were acquitted or who had been convicted, if the war should last a considerable time, should be afforded an opportunity of serving their term and then to return to their homeland. I considered the part played by the Administration of Justice in these matters, which really belonged to the competency of the military courts, a sort of legal remedy and this matter itself is a matter of the armed forces.
In Brussels I found out that Belgians knew where their compatriots were sentenced; that in the summer of 1943 people who had been acquitted had returned home and that Germans attorneys had some connection with dependents of Belgians who had been convicted. Methods of secrecy, therefore, in this sense, were not complete. I did not take any steps. The trials before the Special Court at Essen were conducted just as trials against Germans. Defense counsel were appointed and that defense counsel became active in the course of the trials was evident from the record.
Document Exhibit 330 is an excerpt from a situation report of 26 January 1944. 0 passed on a suggestion received by the Senior Prosecutor at Essen to expedite trials against inhabitants of occupied countries with the Chief Reich Prosecutor.
Furthermore, I suggested, when approval to file an indictment was requested, that the files should not be sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice. That suggestion was made because there was reason to fear the loss of the files due to bombings.
Then, if I furthermore considered interrogations of witnesses abroad superfluous and stated so, that was done because such interrogations were carried out in Belgium by German officials and I did not see why there should be an obligation to ask for a special approval.
Dr. Mettgenberg and von Ammon paid me a visit at Hamm on the 5th of November 1943 in order to discuss with me whether it would be possible to transfer Dutch NN cases to Essen. I affirmed that. My point of view to leave NN cases at Essen was due to the fact that for one thing, the armed forces and I did not want to move the Belgians any further from their homeland. Secondly, the NN prisoners who were sentenced in Essen could be quartered at the penitentiary of Papenburg where they were safe from bombings, and thirdly, because my prosecutors asked me not to be transferred to the East.
Q: In addition to Exhibit 524 in Volume VI, may I call your attention to Exhibit 504. That is in Volume VI supplement. On account of the date, I should like you to look at it.
A: From Exhibit 504 it can be seen that on the 15th of March 1944, instead of the special court at Essen, the special court at Oppeln became competent for inhabitants of Belgium, In conclusion I should like to state that for about five months I had to do with NN cases and that upon my instruction or with my knowledge, during my time of office until the 1st of March, 1944, not one NN prisoner was transferred from the administration of justice. Instruct tions which came down after the 1st of March, 1944, from the Reich Ministry of Justice did not concern me any longer. From that time I did not hear anything about the handling of NN cases any longer.
Q: In connection with the NN cases I should like to submit, for identification, the Affidavit Engelmann, as Exhibit 46 from my document book 3 on page 25. It is my Document #52.