Therefore, I will have to ask permission of the Court to finish that supplementary volume later, so that before that I can submit my other four volumes, that is at the end of the week these volumes will be ready and I may then submit my four volumes.
THE PRESIDENT: These inquiries are only partial for the moment and we will hope to receive a brief written statistical statement from each defendant, as indicated in my previous order, in the previous order of the Tribunal.
Court No. III, Case No. III.
Do you wish to proceed first this afternoon with the exhibits which have been offered in behalf of the defendant Joel? Or what is your pleasure in that matter?
MR. KING: It is quite immaterial, Your Honor, with me. However, it might be well, since we did interrupt the cross-examination and it will probably take ten or fifteen minutes to proceed with the crossexamination, when it is finished, when the defendant Joel is excused, to then proceed with the discussion of these books. If the Court has no choice in the matter, I think that would be preferable to us.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. HAENSEL: May I make just one remark? I have called a witness, Otto Lenz. Lenz is a very bury man who has just come from Berlin, and he is supposed to proceed to Frankfurt tomorrow to the Economic Council. I should like to ask, since my examination of this witness will not take very long, that if possible the question of the exhibits should be discussed after the examination of Lenz. I believe that it doesn't really make any difference for all of us, and we could let the witness go.
THE PRESIDENT: No objection to that? Is there any objection to that?
MR. KING: No objection to that, Your Honor.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May Your Honor please, I have one more thing.
It has been called to my attention, with reference to the condition in the translation room, that not a single document has been allocated to approximately one dozen translators who are sitting in room 77. This constitutes an entire translation section which is idle, apparently due to poor allocation fo work in the Language Division. I call the attention of the Tribunal to that, with the request that something be done to nut these people to work in view of the condition in this courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Furnish us a memorandum of the information which you have just given verbally.
DR. LA FOLLETTE: I will furnish it now, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. DOESSL (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug): Your Honor-
THE PRESIDENT: Have you been informed of the ruling which we made this morning? Have you been informed of the ruling?
DR. KOESSL: Yes I was very grateful for it, and I should like to ask permission to put the question before the Tribunal as to whether the witnesses which I have called for tomorrow can be examined by me tomorrow or whether it is the decision of Tribunal that the entire case of Rothaug only has to begin on Monday. The idea to hear the witnesses tomorrow was just a suggestion that I made ou of the opportunity which offered itself.
THE PRESIDENT: We have assumed that counsel was very anxious to have the time between now and Monday in the preparation of the examination of the defendant Rothaug, and we do not desire, as I said this morning, any further continuances for that defendant. You may start your entire case on Monday.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you very much indeed.
GUENTHER JOEL (Resumed) CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. KING:
Q Your answer to the question I asked just before the luncheon recess was interrupted. Would you mind repeating your answer as to why investigators did not go to Hamburg to investigate the abuses in concentration camps there?
AAs far as I know, that Reich Minister of Justice, during those years in question, did not receive any reports from Hamburg. That goes for the year1933-1934. Later, when the Administration of Justice of the Reich also tool over the Administration of Justice in the Ciry of Hamburg, I no longer heard that there was a concentration Camp in Hamburg.
Q When did that occur? When did the Reich Ministry of Justice to over the Hamburg courts, the system there?
AAs far as I know, that occurred all over the Reich on the 1st of April,1935.
Q Your letter was written on the 14th of May, 1935?
A Yes.
Q Now, the concentration camp matter which you referred to there did those abuses occur prior to April 1st, is that your point?
A Yes, and that refers particularly to a camp which was near Hamburg, but in Prussian territory; that is to say in a territory which belinged to the Land Prussia.
Q Do you recall the name of that camp?
A I relieve it did not have a name, it was a so-called wild concentration camp which, after Hitler came into power, had been established similarly to Kemna and Bredow. It was a camp which was really established first in the Dlbe Valley. For example, the names "Kemna" and "Bredow" emanated from us. Bredow, the camp at Stettin, was as far as I remember, the name of the district of the city where the Vulkan Works were. That explains the name of Bredow. Kemna was also a well known factory in Wuppertal. I believe the district of the city had that name, and that was a camp on the Elbe.
Q What did you mean this morning when you said that it was never necessary to go to Hamburg because the Justice officials there were able to tale care of these thing themselves? What did you mean by that?
AAs for assignments which I received from the Reich Minister of Justice, they were to effect to support the local prosecutions of they encountered difficulties with offices of the Party. In cases of that king I just went to the offices which caused these difficulties, personally, and tried to convince these offices that it was necessary to carry out penal proceedings. If I had not received ay assignment of that kind to go to Hamburg, then I would have had to assume that the local officials--if any difficulties presented themselves-- were in a position to straighten them out personally in the interest of the Administration of Justice.
Q Such as the Public Prosecutor in Hamburg?
A If it was a matter of carrying out invertigations in criminal proceedings, it was a matter for the Public Prosecutor.
Q Dr. Joel, how do you define a Polish national, after 1 September, 1939?
A A Polish national, after the 1st of September, 1939, is exactly t the same as a Polish national before the 1st of September 1939.
Q Not Germans then?
A A Polish national is never a German.
Q Do you recall Exhibit 356, in which you review the death sentences of persons from the Occupies Eastern Territories?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me how you can say that persons from the Occupied. Eastern Territories are not Polish but German? Would you explain that?
A The decisions in clemency matters, as far as Poles and Jews were concerned, were put into the hands of the Reichsstathalter on order of Hiler.
Q Excuse me, Fr. Joel; I meant to refer to Exhibit 280. The decree which you have just mentioned is Exhibeit 356. I am sorry; go ahead.
AAnd in the incorporated Eastern Territories, as we have heard, since for 150 year these provicnes were under Prussian or German Rule until 1918, there were many Germans. To that was added the fact that aft after the termination of the Polish campaign, numerous Germans had gone there. Therefore, in the cases of these individuals, we had to do with Germans.
Q You don't mean to imply, do you, that all of these clemency pleas which you passed on related to Germans who had gone to Poland immediatelu before or during the war and were sentenced prior to the time that you passed on their clemency matters? You don't mean that, do you?
A No, no. I said that these had to be added. In most cases they were Germans who, according to the Versailles Treaty of 1918, had been forced to become Poles and who after that part of Poland, had again become a German provine as it was before, were Germans again.
Q Let me ask you, Dr. Joel, what was the nationality of these people between the end of the first World War and up ;to the end of the Polish campaign in 1939? They were Polish nationals then, weren't they, for a period of 21 years?
A I could not say that with precision. Some of them remained Germans. Others became Polish nationals if they considered it opportune.
Q And once having become Polish nationals in that period, is it your theory that as soon as Germany conquered Poland they, ipso facto, became German nationals as a result of that conquest?
A I am not of that opinion; but they became Germans again by their own choice after Poland had been conquered and after the treaty between Germany and Russia of September, 1939, had been concluded, which regulated these matters.
Q How did they become Germans? Did they go through the official form of changing their citizenship or did they become Germans because it was politicially the thing to do by simply saying: they were Germans?
AAbout that I cannot make ay precise statements because that was a matter of the administrative agencies; but as far as I know, an arrangement was made according to which everyone had the possibility to request German citizenship.
Q When did you request German citizenship, as you were about to review their clemency matters?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean when did they request it?
MR. KING: Well, I understood the witness to say that he had the opportunity to request.
THE PRESIDENT: That is incorrect.
MR. KING: I am sorry.
BY MR. KING:
Q Now, it was of some concern to you, was it not, when you were passing on their clemency matters, to know whether or not they were Polish citizens? That is right, isn't it?
A No; I did not worry about that because, as far as I was concerned, they were Germans. Otherwise I wouldn't have had to handle these cases.
Q Just one more question. How did you know they were Germans? Who told you they were?
A From the court files and the reports which the senior prosecutors submitted, one could not see that they were foreigners. In addition to that, I knew of the decree by the Fuehrer according to which the Ministry of Justice, in handling clemeney matters, was no longer competent to handle clemency matters concerning Poles or Jews.
Q. Dr. Joel, I am at the moment looking at page 2 of the Document 698 which is Exhibit 280, and there I find a list of individuals whose death sentences you were reviewing. Now, in that list there are eight names. I am just picking these at random. Of the eight names five of them end in "ski". Do you think that is a very common ending for a good old German name?
A. I have had the experience that names ending with "ski" all the way from Breslau to Berlin were quite a common occurrence.
Q. That is, you could review names like that day after day and have no doubts in your mind that they were not pure Germans or at least of German nationality?
A. No, I had no doubts because there was always the possibility to obtain German citizenship if he had lived in that country during the time when it was still a province of Prussia.
Q. Were you finished, Dr. Joel? And in addition to that you relied on the decree, which is Exhibit 356, which said that the Ministry of Justice had no jurisdiction over Poles and Jews?
A. Yes. Other cases were not even submitted to the Ministry of Justice.
Q. All right. Can you tell me, how far it is from Hamm to Essen by the shortest good road?
A. On the shortest and best road from Hamm to Essen, about 100 kilometers.
Q. Is it that far? If it is 27 kilometers from Duesseldorf to Essen how far is it from Dusseldorf to Harm?
A. Is it just as far from Duesseldorf to Essen as it is from Duesseldorf to Hamm?
Q. No; I asked you how far it was from Duesseldorf to Hamm.
A. A little more.
Q. So it isn't quite a hundred kilometers then from Essen to Hamm. You really were not concerned, were you, with that extra distance in the transportation of NN Prisoners from Bergium? I mean, the added distance from Essen to Hamm is not sufficiently great to give you great concern, is it?
A. The transportation of NN prisoners from Essen to Hamm? I don't get it.
Q. No, no. You testified this morning that after a certain point the NN prisoners from Belgium were not transported to Hamm but, rather, were transported to Essen because it was the desire to eliminate long distance travel on the part of the authorities who had their custody and who were responsible for their prosecution.
My question is simply this: The distance between Hamm and Essen was not sufficiently great to cause any great problem, was it?
A. I believe you have misunderstood me.
Q. Will you straighten me out on that then?
A. I discussed the document which I believe refers to the presence of Dr. Mettgenberg on the 5 November 1943 in Hamm. In the course of that conference the question was raised whether the handling of NN cases should be transferred from Essen to Oppeln on account of the threat by the enemy in the West and in connection with that I said that according to the arrangement I had made with the competent Advocate General of the armed forces, that the armed forces were not interested in transporting the NN prisoners any further away from their homeland.
And I believe that there is a great difference whether one transports them in about five or six hours from Brussels to Essen or over two days across Germany to Oppeln.
That was what I referred to in discussing the distance. There weren't any NN prisoners in Hamm because Hamm has no district court. There is only a district court of appeals there and the usual small local court.
Q. When did the NN cases no longer come under your jurisdiction in Hamm? In other words, I will state it more simply: When did you try your last NN case while you were prosecutor at Hamm?
A. I never tried an NN case. I was general public prosecutor in Hamm. nor did the senior prosecutor at Essen ever try an NN case. But the NN cases that were pending there, they were handled by prosecutors and then they were tried and sentenced before the court in Essen. I never even attended a trial of that kind in Essen.
THE PRESIDENT: Just answer the question as to when the last trial of NN was held in your district regardless of whether you were there or not.
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I can only assume. On the 15 of March, 1944, the first trials started at Oppeln. Before that date all the files, all the records, the prosecutors who were familiar with the matter and several judges were transferred from Essen to Oppeln.
THE PRESIDENT: I am trying to understand your testimony. Do you mean that you don't know when, in your district, the last persons who had been brought into Germany under the NN procedure were tried?
THE WITNESS: I could not tell you the date of the last trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you give us an approximation according to your best recollection?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you do that?
THE WITNESS: First of March 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Than you.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Taking your last statement in the way that you gave it, what was the relationship between you, as chief prosecutor in Hamm, and the people who actually tried the NN Cases?
A. They were the same relations as existed in other proceedings between the general public prosecutor and the public prosecutor, with the one exception that in normal penal cases the general public prosecutor could give certain directions or instructions, concerning the way these cases were handled; but that in NN cases, according to the decree of the 6 February, 1942, they were bandied in such a way that the indictment and other matters had to be submitted to the Minister of Justice and Ms approval had to be obtained.
Q. But you could and did attempt to indicate to the Minister of Justice what the procedure should be, did you not?
A There were definite regulations and instructions from the Minister of Justice concerning the manner of proceedings, which have been submitted here as documents. Within the scope of these instructions by the Minister of Justice, I was, of course, in a position to make certain suggestions.
Q Can you tell me, Dr. Joel, what ultimately happened to the property in the Gau Franken which was, at the outset, taken over by the people who ran the Gau?
A That I could not say, but I believe that, at some later date, Goering, in an agreement with the Ministry of Finance, made a decision which applied to the entire territory of the Reich.
Q You made a recommendation, did you not, in your report which is Exhibit 370, which was written in February, 1939. In the last paragraph of which .... I think you'll find that on probably page 9 and 10 of the loose document which you have. In any event, it's the last paragraph of your letter.
A Well, that is not exactly a recommendation. It's just a statement to the effect that the decree by the plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan had gone into force and that Ayranization depended upon the application of the Regierungspresident.
Q Let me read a sentence that I have particularly in mind. You say in concluding your letter:
"It was therefore decided ..." You are discussing the result of a conference. You're saying:
"It was therefore decided to enter Deputy Gauleiter Holz as quasi--trustee purchaser in the land register so as to enable the Gau to dispose of the properties and to exclude intervention of the Reich Treasury Department of the Party. The reasons given for this were that the Gau Franconia had its own special merits in the Jewish problem and that it must therefore receive special rights."
And you go on to say:
"The special task of the Gau in town planning and in connection with the National Party Congress, as well as the fact that its production is weak if it is compared with other Gaus and that it had been particularly looted by the Jews, would justify its acquiring an extraordinary amount of property."
Now, this letter was written, as you testified, toward the end of the period of your investigation. Now, I ask you, was this the core of your recommendation in the Nuernberg property matter?
A. That was not my point of view but the report which I made to the Minister of Justice contained a description of everything that happened here, and what you have just read is the presentation of a conference with the Deputy Gauleiter Holz of which I was informed and about which I received information through a lawyer at Nuernberg because I considered it important to find out what went on during that conference. On page 9, you will find, in my report, that it was not I who had that conference and not I who gave that recommendation, but it is shown clearly that the conference with the Deputy Gauleiter was attended by City Council Sandreuter, Gauamtsleiters Wolff and Nagel; the three notaries who had been involved with Ayranization of Jewish property in Nuernberg, Reinfurt, Koppel and Hussel; the judge dealing with the real estate at Nuernberg--Doerr; the judge at Furth-Leiss Deputy Gauleiter. Holz and Nagel, Gauamtsleiter were the speakers, etc., and then I described here what I found out and that concludes the description of occurrences. That should be considered a recommendation on my part cannot be seen from it.
Q You don't consider it strange that the ultimate disposition of the property coincides very closely with the statements you make in your last paragraph? That is just pure coincidence, is that right?
A I haven't made any statement at all about it. I was merely investigating official and it was my duty to investigate what had been discussed during that conference. I didn't state my personal point of view.
Q You were the investigator in charge and this was the close of your period of investigation.
A I was here to investigate as to how far the officials of the administration of justice had taken illegal steps and the report itself begins and it expresses:
"I had a thorough conference with the Magistrate in charge of Land Registry at the Local Court in Furth, Herr Amtsgerichtsrat Leiss, today. Amtsgerichtsrat Leiss reported on his experiences with entries in the Land Register from the point of view mentioned above and made roughly the following statements:"
And then I mention the matters which I considered were important enough to be brought to the attention of the Minister.
Q Can you tell me roughly, Dr. Joel, when the transfer of this Jewish property in Nuernberg was effected so that the land was registered under the name of Holz or perhaps some other Gau official?
A The property was not really transferred, but notations were made in the real estate register in favor of Holz.
Q Yes.
AAs the when that happened I cannot tell with any precision, but I have a sheet from the real estate register here from which I can see that. This is a copy of a page of the real estate register of Furth. I don't recall the date any more.
Q Well, the date is the important thing. If you have that there, well be glad to have the date.
A When these entries have been made, on which day, I cannot see from this sheet from the real estate register. I can only see when it was cancelled and that shows the following: I have before me the copy of an extract from the real estate register of the Nuernberg Local Court of the 22 January 1941:
"ORDER "In the land register for Gleishammer volume 40, sheet 1173, must be entered:
"1/II Meta Landsberger" Apparently that is the Jewish owner of the property.
"Section I, No, 3; the entry of the new owner under No. 2/II is not valid."
Underneath, it says:
"2/II Holz Karl" That is the Deputy Gauleiter's name which was entered.
"Owner is the person entered under No. 1/I - that is Meta Landsberger again - entered of the strength of authorization for correction of 24 April 1940."
I can find these dates here.
Q Dr. Joel, I'd like to show you a document which I have identified as NG 1566. This is a report of a conference which you attended and during the course of which you were called upon or, at any rate, did make a report on a certain matter. On page 4 - I presume it's on page 4 in the German as well, in the middle of the page, you are reported to have made the following recommendations:
"Whatever actions were taken against the Jews before the 9 November 1938 must be treated like the events having taken place during the period from 9-11 November 1938."
Then you go on to say:
"All deeds committed after 11 November 1938 are to be treated as usual since the counter-order was known at that time."
I have one question only.
Does that mean, as it appears to mean, that all measures taken against the Jews prior to 11 November 1938 were, according to your interpretation, not to be punished or property was not to be returned? If that is not the meaning, what is the meaning of that paragraph?
A I do not believe that that had anything to do with matters of civil law, but that was a question of the handling on the basis of penal law - that is the events of 9, 10 and 11 November.
Q Well, applying it to criminal law is that the interpretation?
A One moment, may I be permitted to read what I find on page four?
I can only state that this report is in accord with what I actually stated.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to clarify one matter. What the prosecution read to you was as follows: "All deeds committed after 11 November 1938." It is not clear to me whether the word deeds was intended to apply to deeds of conveyance or to acts; what was the proper understanding of that phrase?
Did it refer to criminal deeds or to deads of conveyance of property?
THE WITNESS: No, I personally had nothing to do with matters of civil law. Acts are not mentioned here.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not asking you that, I am asking you what the word "deeds" means there?
THE WITNESS: It is not here in the German text. It says in the German text, "What has been committed before that and that date.."
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I want to know. Thank you.
THE WITNESS .... Committed actions against Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: And the last sentence, the translation says here, "All deeds committed after 11 November 1938 are to be treated as usual; " what is the German?
THE WITNESS: It says here the following: "What ever has been committed, committed after 11 November 1938, to be treated as usual, because at that time the counter-order was known."
That means the following: during 9, 10 and 11 November a counterorder was issued to the Party that no arson should be committed and no more Jewish stores should be destroyed.
The question was important as to whether it could be granted that they knew or did not knew whether they were committing anything illegal before. After that counter order that could not be assumed any more, therefore those cases had to be prosecuted.
THE PRESIDENT: So that your interpretation of this is then that any acts committed after 11 November had to be prosecuted, those committed prior to 11 November were not to be prosecuted; is that right?
THE WITNESS: That is not correct. Special handling of these cases should only apply to crimes committed on 9, 10 and 11 November, upon orders of Minister Goebbels. For if one did not punish the Minister Goebbels, then in our opinion one could not punish the ones who had carried out such orders on his part. However, after the 11th, when it was known that the order by Goebbels had been cancelled and rescinded officially, then no perpetrator could refer to the fact that they acted upon orders of Goebbels.
THE PRESIDENT: And were therefore to be prosecuted?
THE WITNESS: And were therefore to be prosecuted, yes.
BY MR. KING:
Q I am not sure I have this right yet, Dr. Joel, between 9 and 11 November the people who committed these acts were not to be prosecuted in your opinion; right?
A Individuals were not prosecuted if they committed arson and damage to objects, because it was clear to us that Goebbels had ordered that and that the perpetrators had received instructions to that effect by the agencies of the Party. In your opinion Goebbels was the only one who could be punished for that.
Q Yes, I understand that. What do you mean by the first part of the sentence, in which you say, "Whatever actions were taken against the Jews before November 9 must be treated like the events having taken place during the period from 9-11 November 1938."
The plain meaning of that is obviously that acts committed in September, October, November, or even prior to that are not to be prosecuted; is that right?
A No, that refers to the procedure at the beginning of November. Here in this court room, as well as in this report just submitted, I set forth that for all actions committed against Jews after 9 November, the Supreme Party court and the disciplinary courts of the Party throughout the country had the competency for disciplinary actions. I also set forth that considerable action was necessary on the part of Minister Guertner and twice I had to negotiate with Minich in order to establish the competency for the ordinary courts for these purposes, but we had to make the concession to the Supreme Party Court that before the prosecution actually took place against Party members, the Party Court would have an opportunity to take disciplinary steps against them. For that purpose the Senior public Prosecutor in the various local communities had to submit the files to the Party Courts so the Party Courts could take the necessary steps before hand and that should apply to all cases which happened before 11 November. That is what this provision refers to.
Q Dr. Joel, only one more question on this matter. Since Goebbels had issued the order for mass arson against the Jews, it was your theory that the people who committed that arson could not be prosecuted? Now, let me ask you: did you apply the same reasoning to murder and ether crimes which you knew to be against the law?
A No, but the order by Goebbels concerning arson and damage to objects only referred to these specific acts. When the arrangement was made and the competency of the Administration of Justice was reestablished, we did not know of any other acts committed.
Therefore, I also said in my direct examination that a number of acts, which had been committed, were withheld by the Supreme Party Court and that later Minister Goering was informed about these cases and he subsequently informed Guertner.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you one question before counsel goes to another subject? As I remember your testimony, you did assist in the prosecution of some of the people who had acquired Jewish property by illegal means during the period concerning which you have just been testifying; did you not?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you report or your actions, result in the actual returning to the Jewish owners of any of the property, which was illegally taken from them?
THE WITNESS: In the case which I mentioned, the case from Berlin, the illegal arrest and the Aryanization of the property of the brothers Guckenheimer and others, the first result was their release and as far as I know upon their return the restribution of a the property. As far as I know of course, these business men conducted negotiations voluntarily to give up their business in Germany and these negotiations were conducted in a perfectly adequate manner.
THE PRESIDENT: Did these negotiations result in the formerly mentioned transfer of 15 percent of the property.
A No, that was a measure taken in Nuernberg.
Q Well, do I understand then that it is your belief not only in one or more cases which you mentioned, but in general, that the property which had been illegally acquired from the Jews and registered to Gau officials, was as a general rule returned to the Jewish owners?
A Yes, I believed that at the time.
Q Do you believe it now?
A I couldn't say that for sure because I really have no insight in these matters.
MR. KING: We offer the document NG-1566 as Prosecution Exhibit 552.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: Distribution has been made. The Prosecution at this time has no more questions of Dr. Joel. It may possibly be when the balance of the documents are submitted that we may wish to recall him briefly to discuss some of them.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q I have a further question , Dr. Joel. You also testified concerning prosecutions which were conducted under your supervision against members of the police who had illegally treated prisoners, particularly in connection with interrogations. I wonder if you could tell us under what statutes or decrees the prosecution were conducted. Could you do that?
A The prosecutions were carried out on the basis of the previsions of the German Penal Code for acts of violence in office.
Q Were those statutes repealed during the period of the war at all?
A No, it is still in force. The Penal Code is still in force.
Q The next question: In 1937 the central prosecution's office was abolished.
A Yes, yes by a decree of the Minister of Justice.
Q By name of office, who was the, or who were the persons who abolished -- I mean what official position was the Minister of Justice, for instance.
A The Reich Minister of Justice signed a circular on the 18th October, 1937, by virtue of which the central public prosecution was dissolved.
Q Did he sign that alone?
A Yes. It was a dissolution regulation on the part of the Minister of Justice.
Q You testified that you dealt with the NN cases for about five months. During that time do you know of any NN prisoners were acquitted?
A No case of that kind was reported to me through my office.
Q You have no knowledge of any acquittal.
A I have no knowledge of that.
Q One other statement that you made that I didn't understand. I think it was to the effect that Reich Minister Guertner used you in connection with acts by Hitler for the correction of judgments. I remember you used that phrase. Would you explain what you meant that-how you were used in connection with that procedure?
A Hitler orders to the police were to the affect that convinted individuals sentences were considered too mild. These orders were considered by me always to be corrections of sentences, and since these orders -- caused a lot of trouble, a lot of work to the Minister of Justice, because immediately after these orders were received, letters of protest had to be drafted; files had to be obtained from the various localities; intervention had to be made with the police; that the limit of twenty-four hours which Hitler had set for the execution or administration of punishment should be extended.