I also listened to him have his lectures and this problem wan principally never touched upon in his lectures. I was under the impression that the whole affair was somewhat unpleasant to him, perhaps. As far as his personnel policy was concerned, he left half-Jews, that is, of mixed race, remain in their office. I am thinking of Kauffmann, Rittmeyer, and others. As far as full-Jews were concerned, I know that many of them were still holding offices in 1935, that is, at the time when in the rest of the Reich Jewish Judges had already been dismissed; and as far as the treatment of the Jews who had been dismissed is concerned, I know that they were pensioned and furthermore, I know -- and I know this for certain - in four particular cases, that at Dr. Rothenberger's initiative the pensions were transferred to foreign countries in spite of the fact that the foreign exchange was very difficult during the last years.
Q How did you become Dr. Rothenberger's assistant after he was appointed under-secretary?
AAt that time I was a soldier with the anti-aircraft unit and Dr. Rothenberger, after he was appointed under-secretary, asked me to come to see him. They gave him small farewell celebration in the Buergerkeller and he there described his program. I believe that is known here.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you don't have to testify about that.
A (Continuing) Afterwards, when I was surprised by his offer that I should accompany him to Berlin, I discussed this program with him and I told him, "Do you believe that a man who had handled the Potemka murders in this way, who, on the 30 June 1934, had initiated those incidents, who did participate in the events of November, 1938, and who now in April, 1942, gave such a speech, has any understanding at all for an independent judge?" Thereupon Rothenberger replied: "I discussed the problem with him for five hours and I am convinced with utmost certainty that he does have this understanding."
Q Can you tell us anything as to what Dr. Rothenberger told you after the discussion of September 1942 in Shitomir? You know that this is an important discussion in this trial here.
A The conference of Shitomir was, of course, the decisive one because it took place with our main opponent, SS leader Himmler. Therefore, I tried to find out some details about it. At first I did not succeed.
One evening - it may have been toward the end of September -- I was sitting with Dr. Rothenberger and Ministerial Director Letz in the Hotel Esplanada and there I began to ask about it and I put the individual questions: What will happen now? Will these attacks against the Administration of Justice in the Schwarze Corps stop now? Will the arrest stop now after acquittals and after the term has been served, and, above all, does the prosecution remain within the sphere of the Administration of Justice?
Dr. Rothenberger answered yes to all these question. I was, however, under the impression that in spite of that he was not very happy about this result himself or about this conversation.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, what was the date of this conversation, approximately?
THE WITNESS: The exact date I cannot longer tell you, but I do know that it was approximately ten days after Shitomir, that is, the end of September, 1942.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q And where was this discussion?
A In the Hotel Esplanada in the evening.
Q In Berlin?
A Yes. He told me, however, no more about these matters and I, myself, did not dare to urge him on. When I then left the room together with Letz, I asked, "What is the matter with Rothenberger? After all, we should be rather satisfied." Letz told me, "Well, I believe with Thierack it will become very difficult because in a confidential discussion with Himmler at his wish - that is, Himmler's wish he promised Himmler penitentiary inmates for his armament industries."
We then discussed this question and I, myself, added, "Well, that is not so bad really, because that is not an illegal arrest, that is not connected with it because the penitentiary sentences are not counted during war time anyhow and whether these people are sitting in concentration camps or in a penitentiary, that is not so important for these people actually."
Letz replied, "Well, that is all right, but in that first discussion Rothenberger wanted to make no concessions in this first discussion, especially to Himmler and what Thierack did is a concession."
Q Did Rothenberger or Letz, with whom you spoke at the last, men mention anything to you about a plan of extermination through work and about the fact that Jews, Poles and Ukranians, and so forth, would be transferred to the police?
A No. That point did not come up for discussion at all between Letz and me either, not by Rothenberger at all. Of course, because he didn't even mention the previous point to me.
Q When did you first hear about the subject of extermination through work and of Jews and Poles and so forth?
A I heard about at myself when I, myself, was interned and this news was published in the press. For example, I know for sure that in the Ministry where we, of course, discussed various problems, this subject was never discussed, at least not by those people with whom I spoke.
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger ever have knowledge about Division 5 and 15 and the lectures in those divisions?
A No, I can assure you with absolute certainty that a Referent of Department 5 or 15 never reported to Dr. Rothenberger nor that an incident from those divisions went through my hand.
Q At that time you were adjutant of Rothenberger from 1942 until the end?
A Yes; and all the memoranda that we received from the divisions went through my hands.
Q Do you know anything about an SD inquiry which Himmler instituted against Dr. Rothenberger in the fall of 1942?
A Yes. I heard about that at the time and I still recall that the wording was something like this: "Here we are of the opinion that Rothenberger is not properly suited for this office because, so far, he worked only in a small district. I know also that Rothenberger tried at that time to cause Thierack, on account of this peculiar SD inquiry, to act on his behalf with Himmler, but Thierack did not do so.
Q Witness, accompanying Dr. Rothenberger you took part in his visit to concentration camp Mauthausen. Will you please describe this visit?
A I remember that visit very well. The course that the day took was like this: In the morning we visited Linz; then the Hermann Goering Works; then Mauthausen; subsequently St. Florian and in the evening Rothenberger delivered a lecture.
Rothenberger told me, before we drove into the camp, "I shall have the possibility quite independent of anybody else and without anybody else's presence to speak to the individual inmates of the concentration camp. You should also try to find an opportunity to listen around a little bit. Let us try and see if the agreement that Himmler made is actually being adhered to." When we had arrived in the camp Dr. Rothenberger took approximately ten different inmates aside and went away so that nobody could listen. He took down their names and shortly before we left the concentration camp we went to the administrative division and Dr. Rothenberger asked to see the files of those people with whom he had spoken and he checked whether any reasons whatsoever could be objected to for which these people had been put into concentration camps.
Of course, I asked him, because I was terribly interested in it myself, and he Court No. III, Case No. III.
answered in those cases no objections can be raised. I recall, for example, one case. He was a dangerous criminal who had already a number of previous convictions because of robberies and he was again caught by the police with tools for breaking into a house.
Q. Did you, in Mauthausen, see any implements which served for extermination or any very serious illegal offenses?
A. No, I did not see them. I would like to add the following: These concentration camps existed for nine years at that time and we, as judges, were of course very much interested in knowing what is going on in these camps. Rumors were current in Germany which said that the conditions there were not always as they should be and for me it was, therefore, especially interesting that finally I had the opportunity, after nine years, to inform myself personally and I availed myself of that opportunity. For example, I also talked to one man and asked him: "Why are you here?" Thereupon he told me: "I do not take up arms against my brother." He was Jehova's Witness who was in a concentration camp because he was a Conscientious Objector.
I even went this far. An SS Leader who was accompanying us, I took him aside and told him this: "Listen, I, myself, am a member of the SS" -- he couldn't tell that because I wasn't wearing the SS uniform -- "What is really going on here? You can tell me that. You don't have to be afraid to tell me that. Is there anything going on here that isn't quite proper?" He laughed and said, "Well, that even you believe atrocity stories I would never have thought." We went about everywhere quite freely and God knows we observed everything closely. That is understandable. Of course, the atmosphere was rather oppressive but it was not more so than it is in the camp where I am sitting now for the past two years. It is always a horrible thing if people are deprived of their liberty and separated from their families.
THE PRESIDENT: You will refrain from dissertating upon the conditions of people who in general are confined. Just limit yourself to a statement of the facts as counsel ask them of you.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Witness, of course, in your opinion the possibility exists that many matters that existed in the concentration camp you did not see, in order to complete your description.
A. Yes, of course. That is obvious.
Q. All right. That is what I meant. Now, a further question, the following: You went on trips with Dr. Rothenberger and in connection with that trip to Mauthausen afterwards you took other trips with him, did you not? Could you please describe what purpose these trips served?
A. This trip to Mauthausen was part of a larger trip which took us to Vienna, Graz, Klagenfurt, Linz, Wuerzburg, Bamberg and Nurnberg. Wherever we spoke to the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, it became apparent that serious difficulties with the party existed and in many cases the Gauleiter, with whom Dr. Rothenberger also spoke in each case, tried to achieve it with him that the presidents of the courts concerned would be removed from their office. For example, I am thinking of the president of the District Court of Appeals, Melz in Graz, whom the Gauleiter charged with having too Christian an attitude -- I am thinking of the president of the District Court of Appeals Duerich in Bamburg whom the Gauleiter concerned also wanted absolutely to have removed.
Furthermore, the president of the District Court of Appeals Dietl in Wuerzburg, who also was supposed to be removed from his office and when we came here to Nurmberg, there was such a tense atmosphere between the Gauleiter and the then president of the District Court of Appeals Doebig, that the Gauleiter even refused to organize a meeting for Dr. Rothenberger as long as Doebig was still in office.
Q. Witness, that case is well known. That is to say, we don't have to discuss it any further. I just want to ask you quite generally, did Dr. Rothenberger, in the case of all these differences of opinion between the political offices and the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, unequivocally toward the Reichstatthalters and the Gauleiters represent the attitude of the Administration of Justice and their interests?
A. In all the cases that have been mentioned Dr. Rothenberger left the presidents of the courts in their office against the wishes of the Gauleiter and he also secceeded in having the Minister of Justice agree to this except for the last case Doebig where Thierack himself then later on gave in to the Gauleiter.
Q. All right. Do you know anything about this, for example, that Ministerial Director Soegelkin, who was described as Public Enemy No. 1 in the Ministry because he had been a pacifist, that he was supposed to be excluded from the Party Chancellory but that Rothenberger wanted to keep him under all conditions?
A. The Soegelkin Case is very well known to me because Soegelkin is a good friend of mine. There was a SD report issued against him which described him rather well, really; but, in accordance with the opinion of that time, it was like this, that under these circumstances he was not tenable for the Ministry of Justice. Thierack, too, wanted to have him removed from the Ministry at that time but Dr. Rothenberger, in this case, acted on behalf of Dr. Soegelkin to such an extent that in the end Thierack also agreed that he should become Ministerial Director in the Ministry.
I also recall a second case where the situation was similar. That was District Court president Hildesheim. There the personnel division of the Party Chancellory, had issued a report in which it complained that the president had participated in the Catholic religious procession on Corpus Christi Day and had carried a candle. Dr. Rothenberger thereupon answered that this was no reason to remove him from office and kept him in office.
Q. Witness, do you know anything about Dr. Rothenberger's attempt to become President of the Reich Supreme Court?
A. Yes; perhaps not directly, but indirectly it was quite apparent. At the beginning of 1943 the salaries of the undersecretary, among others, had been raised and his salary now was higher than that of the president of the Reich Supreme Court. Thereupon, Thierack asked the competent Ministerial Director, "Isn't it possible that the undersecretary can become president of the Reich Supreme Court?" At that time this was in general described as a alander of Rothenberger.
Q. Dr. Hartmann, before you stated that Dr. Rothenberger had nothing to do with Division 15 and its affairs. Can you recall that once he was nevertheless concerned with the technical question whether Engert could be promoted to Ministerial Director, whether there was a TO form?
A. Yes, I recall that. Engert came to the Ministry and the Minister asked Dr. Rothenberger whether Engert could receive the official rank of Ministerial Director even though there was no position open for him in the TO. Dr. Rothenberger discussed that with Thierack.
Q. Dr. Rothenberger stated that due to the extra ordinary difficulties of his office he was thinking about resigning from office.
Did you find out anything about that?
A. Dr. Rothenberger never told me anything about that, but if I now look back I would like to mention the following: Letz, whom I mentioned before, told me in the beginning of May, 1943, when I moved into a new room in Berlin, "Well, if there is any point in doing that, I believe we soon have to pack our bags." That is all I can state on that subject.
Q. Rothenberger himself never told you anything about it?
A. No.
Q. Thank you. Witness, can you comment on the Ploetzensee incident? You know the incident, the executions which took place in September, 1943, and the clemency proceedings which proceeded?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring to the accidental killing?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I am referring to the incident where Dr. Rothenberger decided about clemency questions as deputy in September, 1943, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean they were executed by accident?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no evidence to the contrary, as far as that is concerned.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: It is not concerned with those four cases which are clear due to the correspondence which has been submitted, but we are dealing with the general clemency practice which he exercised in the other cases and I only want to ask you, witness, about this general clemency practice and how it came about that there Rothenberger was in charge, who in general had nothing to do with criminal cases.
A. During that particular week Thierack was sick.
He telephoned me and told me, "There are more than 200 people who have been sentenced to death in Ploetzensee. Dr. Rothenberger must decide about the clemency questions before tomorrow morning even if he has to work all night." I informed Dr. Rothenberger about it. The whole matter was extremely unpleasant to him and he immediately told me, "It is out of the question that anyone put time pressure upon me. These questions will be worked over at leisure." And that is how it happened and toward 9:30 in the evening Dr. Rothenberger stopped working, even though not all the cases had been decided. I believe only about 80,
Q. Did he use the next day also in order to decide about the clemency pleas?
A. Yes, the next day further reports were made in this matter.
Q. Did Dr. Rothenberger have anything to do with the Administration of Penalties or the execution?
A. No. Thierack told me expressly that Dr. Rothenberger does not have to worry about the execution.
Q. In conclusion, witness, two questions. The first one refers to the judges' letters. Did Dr. Rothenberger participate in the completion of the criminal part of the judges' letters?
A. As far as I remember, only the civil cases were submitted to us, and the criminal cases were only submitted when the letters were already being presented. The judges letters were being worked on upstairs in the Minister' office, and the criminal part only came to us later on, for our information.
Q. That is to say, the criminal part of the judges' letters went directly to the minister?
A. The competent Referent submitted these criminal cases directly to the Minister, and he decided whether they should be published or not.
Q. Then, Dr. Hartmann, frequently there wore discussions in the Reich Ministry of Justice between Thierack and people of the SS like Kaltenbrunner, Klopfer, etc. Is it know to you that in the case of such conferences with leading men of the SS, of the Party Chancellery, etc., Dr. Rothenberger was very frequently omitted or by-passed and was not consulted?
A. Yes. I even know that on principle he was never asked to attend these conferences, but that these conferences with Kaltenbrunner, Klopfer, etc., always took place only between Thierack and the visitor concerned.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, I have no further questions on direct.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. May I ask you a question, please?
When you visited Mauthausen Concentration Camp, you knew, did you not, that the courts in the Ministry of Justice never sentenced convicted criminals to a concentration camp?
Did you know that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Dr. Rothenberger know it?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you knew that these ten people that he talked with, and the one or two that you talked with, were not there by reason of any action on the part of the Ministry of Justice or the Court, but were there only by reason of action by the Police or by the Party, did you not?
A. Yes, that was preventive custody undertaken by the police.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all.
Is there other direct examination? I think Dr. Schilf wanted the privilege of examining this witness, didn't he? I think you might cross-examine as to this portion, and then again when Dr. Schilf is through, if you are willing to do so. It will save time.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor. The cross-examination will be conducted by Mr. King. I would like to address several questions to the Court, if I may, as to the proceedings.
There is a witness Dr. Gramm here, and a witness Quinti. Gramm is from Hamburg and has been here some time. Also, the prosecution has subpoenaed Dr. Mandry. I was wondering if, after the cross-examination of this witness, although these witnesses relate to Cuhorst and are rebuttal, if the Court would permit me to put these rebuttal witnesses on, or whether the Court would prefer to continue with Rothenberger's witnesses. I only ask that I may know how to conduct my schedule personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other Rothenberger witnesses?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, other witnesses have been summoned from Hamburg, but they are not yet here. I shall be able to find out during the noon recess. This morning, those witnesses whom I wished to examine were not yet here.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any objection to filling in the time with the prosecution's rebuttal witnesses, when we finish with this man?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, I have no objection.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Then may I understand that during the afternoon I may put on these rebuttal Cuhorst witnesses, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Wandschneider's witnesses have not arrived.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Hartmann, you previously testified, I believe, that you joined the Allgemeine SS in November of 1933, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you joined the Party in May of 1933, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You stated, during your direct examination, that you joined the Party, you joined the SS, because you wanted to become a judge. Now, may I ask you, Dr. Hartmann, did you feel it was necessary to belong to the Party and to belong to the SS in order that you could carry out your chosen profession? Did you feel that there was no other way to become a judge in Hamburg?
A. In my own opinion it was, in fact not necessary to be a member of an organization to become a judge.
However, I have already said that there were no other means. It was out of the question that the Riechstatthalter, the Reich Governor, would appoint anybody as a judge who did not belong to a Party organization. Of course, it would have been possible that I might have become a member of the SA, or of the NSKK.
Q. Did the Reichstatthalter appoint the judges, or was that Dr. Rothenberger?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, what?
first assignment?
A. The members of the Allgemeine SS, the General SS, as such, were never used to guard, concentration camp inmates. Therefore, it is entirely out of the question to assume that for myself, for example, the danger existed that I should become a guard in a concentration camp. Moreover, the first concentration camps, as far as I know, were established by Goering with the help of the SA.
Q. Is it your impression, as you say, that the Allgemeine SS members were not guards in the concentration camps? My impression is entirely the contrary.
A. I have now heard about the fact that in 1938, for the first time, members of the Allgemeine SS, the General SS, by way of being drafted into the auxiliary police during the crisis in the Sudetenland, also did service in concentration camps. The same also applies to the time since the outbreak of the war. That is correct.
Q. Were you a member of the Death Read Division, SS?
A. No, I was only a member of the General SS, and as a soldier I served with the Air Force, the Luftwaffe.
Q. Now, I should like to take a couple of subsequent steps to your career. You were appointed assessor in 1935, you said, or was it 1934?
A. In May, 1934, I became assessor.
Q. Yes; I believe you said '35. And then, in 19-
A. (Interposing) No, May '34.
Q. May '34.
A. Yes.
Q. And then you were appointed a judge of the Court of Appeals. Was that in '38 or '39?
A. No, that was in January 1935.
Q. District Court of Appeals?
A. District Court of Appeals was in August 1939.
Q. Yes.
MR. KING: I am about to go into a new series of questions, Your Honor. May I suggest that we recess?
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING. May I inquire of the tribunal if Dr. Kubuschok would refer to ask his questions of the witness now or at the conclusion of my cross?
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you mean Dr. Schilf?
MR. KING: Dr. Schilf, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may do that first.
HANS HARTAMNN (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued.)
BY DR. SCHILF: (Counsel for the defendant Klemm.)
Q Witness, you were the adjutant of the defendant Rothenberger. When Dr. Rothenberger left, you remained in the same position as adjutant for the defendant Klemm when he, in January of 1944, became Undersecretary. Is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q For the benefit of the Tribunal, please describe how it came about that you were taken over as adjutant for Undersecretary Klemm.
A I was informed about the dismissal of Rothenberger on 4 January 1944 when I came back to work after Christmas vacation. That was quite surprising to me. For about eight to fourteen days I had to report to the new Undersecretary about pending matters. Originally I had intended to leave the Ministry to go with Rothenberger. However, during these two weeks in which O worked for Klemm, I changed my decision, and I did that after I had a conversation with Letz. I had discussed the most important questions with Klemm and had ascertained the following: First; that he was an embittered adversary of the SS; also, in 1934, as a member of the SA, he had been arrested. He also told me that a Press Referent of the Ministry of Justice he had conducted a severe attack against the Schwarze Corpse, the Black Corps.
He also informed me that the attitude of the Ministry, toward the Party Chancellory was not quite correct because one had to distinguish between Department II, Department III-P, Personnel, and Department III-C of the Party Chancellory, where Klemm had worked. In this connection he also made it clear to me that the attacks which were leveled from the field offices of the Party to the Party Chancellery were brought before the Party Chancellery, and, as far as numbers were concerned, were far beyond those which were finally carried by the Party Chancellery before the Ministry of Justice.
In spite of the great amount of skepticism which I retained even after that conversation, I decided to remain in office as his adjutant.
Q Witness, as Klemm's adjutant, you certainly had the best opportunity to observe his personal career as Undersecretary. Would you please tell us what you know about that?
A The gentlemen in the Ministry welcomed him with a great deal of reticense, first, because he was an old Party member, and second, because he came from the Party Chancellery. To that had to be added the fact that his position was rather unfortunate in the beginning, all of a sudden, he became the superior of officials who had previously been his superiors.
Q Did the defendant Klemm find a way to overcome the difficulties which you have described? As to the men who were now his subordinates and who had been his superiors before, were they able to change their opinion about him?
A In the course of time, in the subsequent period, the opinion was formed in the Ministry that Undersecretary Klemm was a man with legal concepts, a man who was the type of superior who wanted to act purely on the basis of orders which he gave, but rather by convincing people of the necessity of carrying them out.
Q. Therefore, you could note a change in the opinion about him. Would you please tell us on what else that change of opinion was based and what its consequences were, as far as other gentlemen in the Ministry were concerned?
A. In the place of the skepticism and suspicion which prevailed in the beginning, there came, after a comparatively short time, a feeling of confidence which did not only relate to Klemn's person but also to the actual work. That holds true not only for those gentlemen who had come into office later but also for those who had been taken over from the old Ministry and who themselves, at least some of them, were not Party members. I know, for instance, that Ministerial Dirigent Hesse, Ministerialrat Kriege, as well as Ministerialrat Suchomel had confidence in the work of Klemm; also Ministerialrat Kriege, who was later arrested on the 20th of July, as he repeatedly assured me---I had personal contact with him--had an absolute confidence in the work of Klemm in the Ministry.
Q. You referred now to individuals in the Ministry. May I ask you to give the court a few examples of specific cases.
A. For one, I can offer an example for Klemm's attitude in personal matters. I was the one who submitted applications to him which were sent in my Department I, and I could always ascertain that he leaned willingly to the suggestions of Department I, which stressed the qualifications more than membership of the Party of an individual; that he also agreed to their suggestions and to be sure that he did not select the man who was suggested by the party from a certain Gau because he happened to be an old Party member. He looked for qualification primarily and much less for political background. I also frequently noticed one things which has to be added here: that in cases where the Chief of the Personnel Department happened to know that he could not succeed with certain matters with the Minister because the Minister was more interested in the Party course, that this Chief of Personnel would go to Klemm for support, and in some cases just waited until the Minister was was on vacation in order to have Klemm's orders carried out.
Q. Mr. Hartmann, you mentioned the personnel referent. Would you please tell the court his name?
A. That was Ministerial Director Letz.
Q. Then if I understand you correctly, in time, an atmosphere of confidence developed.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't need to repeat this. Ask your next question. We understand his testimony.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. I want to ask you specifically about that atmosphere of relation of confidence to Department IV--the department dealing with the penal matters Klemm's attitude as far as the work of that department was concern.
A. The officials of Department IV were particularly interested in Klemm's work because in that field of penal law there had been the most frequent attacks from the Party. Here also one could see at least the Referents always assured me that---that Klemm, particularly, as far as the Chancellery was concerned--was of great support for time, and that they could get a great deal of help from him because he knew all the details of a personal nature in the Party Chancellery, and therefore could observe the interests of the Administration of Justice particularly well.
Q. In the course of this trial, statement have been made to the effect that Klemm, after he had left the Party Chancellery, still had personal relations to it, as for instance, to the Under-Secretary Dr. Klopfer. Klemm, on the basis of his former close relations to Klopfer could influence Klopfer to an authority extent.
Q. Is it known to you that on the part of the Ministry letters were written which began with "Dear Gert:"?
A. Yes, that is known to me. Klemm sent all letters to Klopfer dealing with official matters with that heading. The contents of these letters mostly referred to the fact that individual Referents of the Party Chancellery had an attitude towards the Administration of Justice which was not approved by the Ministry.