THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
W Mr. Oeschey, you referred to the fact that you were able, on several occasions, successfully to intervene in cases of occasional political custody orders. I didn't understand what you meant by that. What was the political custody order that you referred to? I don't mean specifically but I mean what was its character?
A I was referring to orders issued by the Gastapo or the RSHAconcerning a man or a woman, to take them into protective custody far political reasons. Those people had been in protective custody in police prisons and some were in concentration camps.
Q I understand that you could only intervene in occasional cases but were the cases of political custody of that type common in your experience?
A Such requests reached the Gaudirector a few times from relatives: requests for aid, a request to get the person who was in protective custody released. I cannot give you any figures from memory. As to whether protective custody as such was very often imposed by the police, about that I cannot give you any reliable information. I had no insight into such matters.
Q One other question before we pass too far from it. You have made recommendations on the Gaulegal office concerning matters of verdicts and clemency. To whom di you send those reports? I didn't understand that.
A My opinion on clemency matters; is that what you mean, your Honor?
Q Yes, and on the nullity pleas and the like. To whom did you send your reports direct?
A Concerning clemency pleas, my reports were sent to the Office for Clemency Pleas.
Q To the Ministry of Justice?
A No, not with the Ministry of Justice; no, it was incorporated in the Party office.
Q And would that be the local Party office or the central party office? I am just inquiring to whom, by designation of office, you sent your reports.
A My opinion on clemency matters I sent to the office for Clemency Pleas, the Clemency Office. That was the official name of that office, the Clemency Office, and that office was part of the Gaustabsamt Office of the Gau Directorate. There the clemency plea was finally dealt with and was then forwarded to the office which was competent to make a decision, that is to say, to the Prosecution. In many cases it was sent direct to the Reich Ministry of Justice or to the other agencies which were competent to make a final decision on clemency pleas.
Q I still don't quite understand this office which was competent in the Party for clemency matters. Was it in Berlin or in Nurnberg, the one to which you directly sent your reports?
A That was with the Gauleitung in Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all I wanted to know.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q Concerning this matter of political custody, what part did the Gau office play in determining who should be taken into protective custody for political reasons? Did they determine that fact?
A No, no. The Gaudirectorate had no decision on that matter. Political protective custody was ordered or, rather, could be provisionally ordered by the Gestapo and finally only by the RSHA, as far as I know. The Gaudirectorate itself never ordered protective custody and I, myself, had nothing to do with ordering protective custody. On the contrary, it was my job to revoke such protective custody.
A They never ordered protective custody.
Q I understand that, but did they make complaints or suggestions to the RSHA or the Gestapo that certain people should be taken into protective custody? Did they ever do that for political reasons?
A I, myself, do not know of any such case. As to whether some office of the Gaudirectorate, perhaps the Gauleiter himself, together with the Gestapo or the RSHA, made representations concerning one definite person and would have them taken into political custody, that I do not know.
Q That is perhaps the answer, but the Gau office would, on occasion, make representations to the RSHA or the Gestapo that certain persons would be taken into protective custody; is that correct?
A I don't know. I never saw anything of that kind happen in Nurnberg and as to whether it happened elsewhere, that I don't know.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Witness, if the Gaudirectorate had made suggestions to the RSHA in order to have an order for protective custody issued in the case of a certain individual, if that had happened, would you be able to say what department at the Gaudirectorate would have been competent?
A No. In my view only the Gauleiter himself could have done that.
Q If complaints or applications came in from the population which referred only to verdicts or to orders for protective custody or which concerned clemency matters, were they only received if these applications had been made by Party members or ware they also accepted if they had come from people who were not Party members? Was there any difference made?
A There was no difference made. I, myself, never tried to find out whether the applicant or the person who wanted to make a complaint was a party member or a member of a formation of the Party; nor did I try to find out what other political attitude he had.
Q I now want to revert to the subject of Doebig. In his affidavit and as a witness here Doebig mentions several cases where complaints were made to him about you. One case dealt with the Fraenkische Schuhfabrik the Franconian Boot Factory, director Schubert.
Then there was the case of the Juvenile Court and there was the Ankenbrand Case. Furthermore, in a report which I shall refer later, a report which was made about Doebig from a political angle, several other cases are mentioned.
Are those cases of complaints which reached the Gaudirectorate and about which you talked to Doebig in accordance with the agreement which you had reached with him and about which you have told us?
AAll the cases you have mentioned just now did constitute such complaints.
Q In the case of the Franconian Boot Factory - Fraenkische Schuhfabrik - was it the Gaudirectorate that first dealt with that case?
A The complaint in connection with that case reached us from the German Labor Front and in the case of complaints about the presiding judge at the Juvenile Court, it was the Hitler Youth Leadership which made the complaint, the regional leadership in Nurnberg.
As concerns the complaint against Judge Ankenbrand, that was first made by a party to the proceedings which had lost the case and which now complained to the district leadership in Nurnberg. The Nurnberg District leadership then told the Gaudirectorate about the Ankenbrand Case.
Q Did these complaints in any one case lead to a criticism of the judges who had been attacked?
AAs far as I remember, that could be avoided in every single case. In the Ankenbrand Case it was possible to revoke a decision to throw him out of the Party.
Q The statements by the witness are corroborated by the affidavits which I have submitted, Exhibits 10 and 14. Doebig testifies that you, together with Rothaug, had engaged in intrigues so as to remove him, Doebig, from his job as president of the District Court of Appeals. That charge is made in Prosecution Exhibit 237, Volume III-E, Page 38-A and in the transcript, Page 1755. Please comment on the matter.
A It is not correct to say that I, together with Herr Rothaug, engaged in intrigues against Doebig. It must have been in the autumn of 1942 when Holz, the Gauleiter, in his capacity as Reich Defense Commissar, examined all the holders of top offices of state, trade and Army. At that time, it may have been in November, 1942, I, by the Secretariat of the Reich Defense Commissar, was requested to give my opinion of Doebig concerning his political attitude and his character. I was also asked to answer the question whether one could expect him to offer loyal and sincere cooperation.
As that request reached me in my capacity as head of the Rechtswahrer Bund I, as in all similar cases, passed it on to the competent Gaugruppenwalter, that means in the Doebig case I passed on the request to Herr Rothaug, asking him to comment on this matter.
According to the instructions issued for the Rochtswahrerbund, the Gauwalter, before giving such an evaluation of a member, had first to hear the opinion of the competent Gaugruppenwalter and what ho said had to be entered in some way into the files.
A few weeks later, as far as I remember, it was a handwritten statement on Doebig that at that time Rothaug passed on to me and the evaluation as very unfavorable.
When I had read it through I talked the matter over with Rothaug. I told him something like this I said, "Concerning the consequences which this possibly might have for Doebig I could only pass on this evaluation if there was absolute certainty that what was said in the evaluation was correct." I made that statement for the reason alone because most of the matters with which Doebig was charged I did not -8540-A know from my own experience.
Rothaug said that everything he had put down was based on absolutely reliable facts and that he would take responsibility for everything he had said and for all conceivable results that might arise from it.
I was content with that statement, and at my office at the Gau I had that document about Doebig copied so that it could be passed on to the Reich Defense Commissar. I dictated to the typist merely the introductory sentence. The rest was an exact copy of Rothaug's report which I gave to the typist.
Q. To corroborate this statement, I am going to introduce an affidavit. It will be a supplement to Volume I. The Prosecution, as Exhibit 561 a little while ago, introduced a document which you have seen. Was that document concerned with the report you have just mentioned and which was typed by your typist?
A. Yes, that is that same document. The first sentence in this document which says: "In accordance with my instructions I describe below the experiences which the Party has gained concerning the above mentioned person," that sentence is my own.
Q. You have already said that. You needn't mention it again. The witness Rothaug testified that only part of this report, that is to say, statements concerning certain cases being concerned with judges from the area of the District Court of Appeals, that he hadn't writ the those himself because he didn't know anything about those cases. What can you say to clear up that contradiction?
A. I think this is an error on the part of Rathaug's memory. It is true that those cases concerning certain judges were dealt with by the Gaudirectorate but if such complaints were directed against members of the Rechtswahrerbund, I always, after the case had been dealt with, made a written report which was passed on to the Gaugruppenwalter who was competent to deal with the member in question, so that he might be informed on the matter and that the document might be filed with the membership files.
In the case of judges these matters were passed on to Herr Rothaug.
The purpose of that measure was to have the matter entered in the files, in case the matter should be brought up again at a later date. I assume that Rothaug at the time referred to such reports and in view of the length of teme that has elapsed since, he might well have forgotten about it.
Q. What happened to that document next?
A. I, myself, passed on the document to the Gauleiter and Reich Defense Commissar and I pointed out that concerning the text of this document as a whole, I was not able to guarantee its correctness and I also informed him that this was a copy of the report which I had received from Rothaug and that Rothaug was prepared to guarantee that that report was correct.
Gauleiter Holz went over the report with me and eliminated quite a few incriminating points, saying that they were insignificant. And with regards to the remaining points, he decided to gain his own information am therefore he decides, to give Doebig an opportunity to justify himself. He was given such an opportunity and, as far as I remember, Doebig, first of all in writing, gave his view concerning the charges made against him, and Gauleiter Holz then asked him to come to see him and he did go to see him. The final outcome is evident from Exhibit 554.
Two letters from Gauleiter Holz to Thierack are involved. The first letter was written before the talk with Doebig and the second letter was written afterwards because it made the first letter appear altogether pointless. Why all the same both letters were dispatched I don't know; nor do I know why the letter which I signed, of the 18 December, 1942, which was put out of date by the talk which Doebig had with Holz, I don't know why that was sent to Theirack all the same. At any rate, Gauleiter Holz' attitude, as expressed in the second letter, was such that any serious consequences for Doebig were avoided.
Q. You said that the Gauleiter and Reich Defense Commissar had examined the positions of not only Doebig but also those of other high functionaries.
Were there any other officials apart from Doebig who were relieved from their posts at that time?
A. Yes. I remember that apart from a few Landraete - heads rural districts - first of all the general commanding the military district was relieved and that also in the management of the district finance office and the Jau labor office a change was made.
I think that those changes were at any rate due to the reviewing which had taken place.
Q. Did you have any personal interest in having Doebig transferred
A. No.
Q. I an now coming to the end of your political work and before I finish I should like to ask you the following: Did you have any particular sources of information available to you which were not open to other people?
A. No. As far as I know, there was in the party a special information organ which was only open to the Gauleiter; perhaps even still to the Gau Stabsleiter, but it was very secret and I myself never saw it. All I saw was the so-called Verfuegungsblatt, a Gazette, which contained official instructions from the party chancellery and I believe also from the Fuehrer's Chancellery.
Q. What did you know about concentration camps?
A. I knew that such camps were in existence. As concerns the concentration camp Dachau, I had known about its existence already since an early date. At a later time I saw from newspapers, from trials, and from other information, which I received from people who came to ask me legal advice at the legal office, and from the Party Chancelery that there was a camp known as Flossenburg, Mauthausen, Buchenwald and I think I also I also heard about Auschwitz camp. From a trial concerned with manslaughter, I know that at the Flossenburg camp asocial elements were accommodated. As for the conditions which were actually prevailing in concentration camps, I only heard for the first time after the collapse. On the contrary, from criminal proceedings a against defendants who had spread so-called atrocity rumors about the concentration camps, from those I gathered that those reports were either invented or greatly exaggerated, as the defendants at the trial, without any duress, withdrew their original statements or toned them down considerably, and the only statement they kept up was that the discipline at the camp was severe but by no means inhuman.
I didn't know there was any killings going on at the concentration camps; I certainly knew nothing about mass killings.
Q. What did you know about the slave worker's program?
A. From my work for the party I heard nothing about that. In my work as a judge I did come in contact with foreign workers, however; but such a worker never asserted that any illicit means had been used to bring him to Germany to work there. The majority of workers, particularly skilled workers, on the contrary emphasized that they were caring decent pay and that they liked it here.
Q. What did you know about the Germanization of non-German territories?
A. I knew nothing about that.
Q. What did you know about the killing of enemy fliers?
A. I knew nothing about that.
Q. I refer to the affidavit by Daenzl, my Exhibit 10. I am now passing on to your work as a judge with the Special Court and with the courts martial. Did you work as an independent judge; or, were you a civil servant who was bound by instructions.
A. I always attached great importance to my independence as a judge. That independence which found its natural restriction in the fact that we were bound by the law and also by the fact that we had to observe decisions made by higher courts; all that I viewed from the point of view that it was the task of the judge to serve the entire nation; and that he must not place himself outside the historical and political development; that in other words when making decisions as a judge, he must not remove himself from the ground on which he is placed, but that on the other hand, whenever he decided in an individual case, no official superior--not even the Reich Ministry of Justice nor any Party Agency either--must be allowed to interfere with him.
Q. Concerning Hitler's well known speech made on the 26th of April, 1942, did that speech eliminate your independence as a judge?
A. I cannot answer that question with yes in view of the way you have put the question. Every judge was very much affected by that speech, not only because it was insulting in its form, but mainly because of the far reaching effects of this speech--by which that means the decision of the Reichstag--, not the independence of the judge was eliminated, but its guraantee. From now on it was possible for Hitler to remove any judge on behalf of his jurisdiction, at his own discretion, and without previous proceedings.
Q. I refer to my Exhibit 9. Were you ever subjected to any criticism on account of the sentences you passed?
A. The word criticism is a little too strong. Twich during the period when I was the permanent president of the Special Court, I was called to Dr. Emmert, who was then the president of the district court of appeal, and on the basis of reports he had received from the SD, he complained to me about a few verdicts which had been passed when I was presiding judge. The charge was that my sentences had been too mild, too lenient. In the case of two verdicts, they concerned proceedings where the defendants had been convicted by us for an offense against the Malicious Acts Law. The criticism was directed against the fact that we had not assumed that the offense had been committed against the law concerning the undermining of military morale. The nullity plea was made in connection with both those sentences, and in connection with the nullity plea the two sentences were quashed and the matter was referred to the People's Court. In the other case the criticism was that the sentence which had been passed in the case of an offence against the Malicious Acts Law was far below the Reich average. In this case, however, the nullity plea was not made.
Q. Those statements made by the witness are in the two affidavits, my Exhibits 3 and 8, and which led to the report being made in which the witness mentioned all those matters are contained in my Exhibit 16, and they appear on page 65. Witness, you have testified that as a judge in deciding an individual case you felt yourself to be independent. Does that not contradict the fact that in the so-called guidance discussions individual cases were actually discussed?
A. The system of guidance which was introduced by Minister Thierack, in my view, did not eliminate the independence of the judge. To start with, Thierack maintained the severe guidance of the prosecution and matters which have been mentioned repeatedly at this trial here, but later he also referred this principle of guidance to the judges. In these guidance discussions which he introduced, no instructions were to be issued to the judges; their independence was to remain unaffected, but all of us considered those guidance discussions as a very doubtful and unfortunate measure, for the danger that in spite of all freedom of decision, the free and independant opinion of a judge might perhaps not be prevented but affected that danger existed; and it was now more or less left to the discretion and the skill, and the wisdom of the president of the district court of appeal how the matter was handled. When Emmert, who was then president of the district court of appeal, asked me to attend those guidance meetings, I voiced my misgivings to him quite openly. He approved of these misgivings of mine, but he told me that he had to hold these meetings; and that he would avoid the exertion of any influence. He was mainly interested then to discuss all the more important penal cases that occurred in his district and that ho should be informed about them; and at the same time he was interested in familiarizing himself with the war penal laws and war jurisdiction.
THE PRESIDENT: Special circumstances, over which we have little control, require that we recess half an hour early. We will recess this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 10 September 1947).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 10 Sept.
1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: First while you wait for your witness to arrive it has occurred to us that the summer season is very rapidly approaching an end that some of the defendants are sitting with their backs to open windows. If that should appear to imperil your health at any time, gentlemen, let your counsel know and we will see to it that something is done about it.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
You may hold up your right hard and repeat after me the following oath:
I Swear by God the almighty and Omniscient that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF GEORG DECHANT BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. Witness, will you please give us your full name?
A. Georg Dechant.
Q. Will you please give us your personal data?
A. I was born on the 7th of April 1893 in Solenhofen in Franconia.
Q. Were you an SA official?
A. I was with the SA group Francania in Nurnberg.
Q. What was your last rank?
A. My last rank with the SA was SA gruppenfuehrer.
Q. Were you ever an official Judge with the Peoples Court?
A. Yes, between June 1944, when I was appointed to the People's Court as the Honorary Associate Lay Judge I took part in two sessions and then I was ousted from that position.
Q. Were you for your activities as a lay judge ever particularly trained or prepared?
A. I was in no sense of the word prepared or trained for that position. I did not take part in any meetings of the judges nor did I take part in any training courses nor anything else, nor did I ever receive any judges' information or official directives, nor was I introduced into the tasks of a Lay Judge. All that happened was that before the first session opened I was sworn in. My first knowledge of a case under review I obtained by my copy of the indictment prior to the trial.
Q. witness, as a Lay Judge were you ever influenced by members of the Gestapo or SD or were you in a position while you were a Lay Judge to observe any such influence on the course of the trial?
A. No, never. Nobody of the Gestapo even approached me during during the trial. I never noticed any such influence. I never did see any Gestapo officials present in the court room but simply the usual Court officials. I did not know what was in the files.
Q. Witness, can you tell us something about the fundamental attitude taken by the highest SA leadership toward the SD?
A. Certainly, there was an order issued by the Chief of Staff according to which the SA was never collaborate or to take over offices in the SD at any time.
Q. Witness, did you know anything about the attitude taken by the Chief of Staff concerning the use to be made by SA officers as Lay Judges with the Peoples' Court?
A. Yes, Peterson told me in his capacity as a main office chief with the Chief of Staff that the SA achieved a decision on the part of the SA Chief of Staff, according to which after about July 1944, no full the SA officer was to be transferred as a Lay Judge to the Peoples' Court. Relieved from their positions The Chief of Staff also promised at that time to have those who were Lay Judges at the time and also full time SA officers. By consulting with the Reich Ministry of Justice the full time SA officers were to be removed from all outside tasks in favor of their own work as SA officers.
Q. Witness, can you tell us anything about the influence taken by the Lay Judge on proceedings before the Peoples' Court?
A. Yes, the first knowledge of the facts as the basis of the trial a lay judge received by his copy of the indictment prior to the the trial. As far as all preliminary proceedings were concerned, starting with the denouncement, investigations and up to the serving of the indictment, the Lay Judge took no part in those things at all nor did he know the file stat all. As far as the lay judge was concerned he only took a very small part in the proceedings. He had the right to act by occasional questions when the verdict was considered but the reporting judge had the first word and he summed up the result of the proof, pointed to the legal regulations and made the first suggestion for the sentence and then opinions were exchanged about that. That was the first opportunity also for the lay judge to voice his own opinion about the case. Personal considerations were limited by the legal regulations, the knowledge about which and the application of which was up to the legal participants. If there was no unanimity a vote was taken. After the sentence was pronounced, the work of the lay judge had terminated. As far as serving the sentence and the execution of the sentence, elemency pleas and so forth were concerned, the lay judge could have no influence whatsoever.
Q. Witness, were you in this position of a lay judge with the Peoples' Court, did you ever meet the President Laemmle?
A. Yes, it happened as follows: I met him during the second session in which I took part, Laemmle was the presiding judge.
Q. Can you give us your impression which you gathered of Laemle now during that trial?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I object to that question. Laemmle is not in issue here.
DR. ASCHENAUER: May I say it has been said here that Laemmle frequently was a reporting judge in the sessions in which Petersen participated.
I have frequently and repeatedly in other sessions asked questions about Laemmle for that very reason. Peterson was temporarily an associate judge in Freisler's Senate. For that reason it is of importance to know all about the persons who surrounded Freisler because therefrom the Tribunal will be able to form an opinion as to how Freisler and his associates behaved as it were. On behalf of Peterson, it is important to find out all about Laemmle.
THE PRESIDENT: How many cases did this witness try, two cases was it?
DR. ASCHENAUER: He took part in two sessions of the Peoples' Court.
THE PRESIDENT: And you want him to characterize Laemmle?
Court No. III, Case No. III.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I want him to give us his impression of Laemmle on the basis of the way Laemmle conducted the second session, of which he was the Chairman, and in which Dechant was the honorary associate judge.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you are asking with reference to the conduct of Laemmle in a case in which the defendant Peterson was associate judge; is that right?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No; Dechant was the associate judge.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in what respect does that affect the defendant Petersen?
DR. ASCHENAUER: In other cases I asked questions about Laemmle in order to arrive at an opinion about the opposition to Freislar.
THE PRESIDENT: Did Laemmle sit with Petersen?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he can tell, if he knows, what his conduct was--what Laemmle's conduct was--in connection with the cases in which Petersen sat as a judge. You are at liberty to do that.
THE WITNESS: No, I never took part in any session where Petersen was present. I can only speak about the impression which Laemmle made in the session, as a judge and as a man, where I was the honorary associate judge.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see that this affects Petersen.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The prosecution have attempted to describe the People's Court, as a collective entity, as an instrument o destroy political opponents. For that reason it seems to me to be important to form a picture of the personalities who took part in the meetings of the People's Court. It is important to destroy the impression which the prosecution have attempted to paint in this court.
THE PRESIDENT: We are only interested in the action of the People's Court insofar as it discloses tee conduct of any of the defendants in this case.
Now this man was not a defendant. If you want to have him characterize the action of this other judge in a few brief sentences, we will permit you to do it, but it seems to be completely remote from any issue in the case.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. Then perhaps, witness, you could give us a very brief opinion about Laemmle in this respect.
A. The impression Laemmle made on me as a judge and as a man was a very good one. The way he conducted a session was calm, free of all sharpness, and he never curtailed the rights of the defendant. His conduct with witnesses was entirely correct. The way he looked into the proof was conscientious and scrupulous. I never doubted his sense of responsibility at all.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. Thank you very much.
Witness, since when so you know Petersen?
A. I had met Petersen, roughly, by the end of 1934 when he was active at the Reich Leaders School at Munich, After the death of Chief of Staff Roehm, Victor Lutze, his successor, went into the whole of the SA Leaders Corps and eliminated all those who no longer seemed suitable, including those whose knowledge and abilities were insufficient. As a Standartenfuehrer I took part in one of these investigations, which was held at the Reich Leaders School in Munich, and Petersen was among the teaching end investigating staff of that school.
Q. What was his reputation at the time?
A. He enjoyed a very good reputation with the SA. He was well liked and popular because he was not one of those ambitious SA opportunists. He had started at the bottom of the latter and had achieved his position or his rank honestly.