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.
With the aid of his personal relations with Klopfer, Klemm endeavored and usually was successful to convince Klopfer of the point of view of the Administration of Justice and to eliminate the influence of the individual assistant in the Party Chancellery.
Q. Could you possibly give the court a few further examples to show that Klemm has tried as an Under-Secretary to serve the cause of justice?
A. Well, that is a little difficult because I, myself, did not work in Department IV, but I happen to know from cases with which I dealt as adjutant that I could always count on Klemm's support. I want to give me example. A Dr. Handloser in 1938 had sent 10,000 marks from Holland to London to a former Jewish friend. In 1943 he was put on trial for currency violations. In 1944, it was the practice that all these cases were quashed with the exception of those that dealt with Jews. Upon my report, during which I pointed out that after all this was just a sentiment of gratitude expressed therein, that case also contrary to the practice of the courts, upon Klemm's initiative was quashed.
Q. Mr. Hartmann; now an organizational question. The position of Klemm as Under-Secretary in relation to the individual department--you have already mentioned Department IV--now I want to ask you: Department XV, was that theoretically or practically under Klemm?
A. Department XV already according to the table of organization, was not under Klemm. I don't remember that it was even working in 1944, but I know for sure that matters of that department was never reported to Klemm and Referents of that department did not report to him personally either.
Q. What about Department V?
A. Department V was, as such, Under-Secretary Klemm. In effect however, that department already in 1943 was evacuated to, I believe it was Zoedeneck. The way it was handled was thereafter that the depart merit chief, whenever lie happened that reports from Department V that were submitted to Klemm were very few.
There was one case about personnel and another case about the Party card file. Perhaps it was five to six times altogether.
Q. Who was the Chief of Department V?
A. Ministerial Director Engert.
Q. Did he as a rule report directly to the Minister or to UnderSecretary Klemm?
A. No. Ministerial Director Engert, according to my experience, went always directly to the Minister. I believe he also had very good personal relations to the Minister, but I don't know anything definite about that.
Q. Now, another organizational question. The position of Klemm, as far as Department IV was concerned, what was it?
A. Department IV was directly under Under-Secretary Klemm, but already at Rothenberger's time that department had always been, so to say, the favorite child of Thierack because the focal point of the administration of justice during the war was with the penal administration of justice, and Thierack did not want to miss any important matter upon which he could not put his signature that the department had to report to him personally.
Q. Were there any distinctions made between important matters and matters of minor importance, or did Thierack also handle matters of minor importance?
A. No, in matters of minor importance Klemm could decided directly.
Q. And in matters of principal importance?
A. In matters of principal importance the Minister had to handle them, and that could be seen from the fact that he signed them. A certen routine had been developed in this regard.
Q. That routine which you mention played an important part in this trial. It was frequently mentioned as Thierack's course. I would like to ask you whether you car describe what is called Thierack's course which began the moment he became Minister?
A. This course was established on the basis of many precedents which the Minister had created. When the gentlemen in the Ministry had to handle a certain matter, then they knew in most case a from a precedent as to what the Minister would say or do about it. Therefore, they had to apply these principles in each ease. It has to be added that according to the personality of the Minister, one had to have a great deal of personal courage to do everything which probably would have resulted in the removal from office.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that what counsel asked you for was to describe Thierack's course of procedure. Limit you answer to the question asked you. Tell us what that course was, if you can.
A. The course of procedure, the basic attitude of the Minister, can be said in one word: extremely severe. I cannot speak about it in detail because as I have mentioned, I didn't handle penal cases and have no complete information.
Q. Would you please tell the Court whether Klemm could have an influence in that course which was established by Thierack--that is, in 1944, when he became Under-Secretary?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I object for the reason that it calls for a conclusion of this witness as to matters which ho cannot possibly testify as to the state of mind of Klemm and Thierack, of which he can have no knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the witness should limit himself to any specific facts, if he knows them, as to the ability or inability of the defendant Klemm to influence Thierack. We have had a great deal of testimony. The testimony has showed that under certain circumstance the defendant Klemm conferred with Thierack. This witness can appraise the extent of his influence and give specific facts, if he know them.
THE WITNESS: Well, I could mention a few examples where I was present as an adjutant.
THE PRESIDENT: Do it briefly.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. In one case, a woman who had committed postal thefts had been sentenced to death. Klemm, in that case, intervened for her sentence being commuted. The same happened in the case of an attorney from Gerlin--that was the attorney Freiherr von Godin--who had been sentenced to death for undermining of military morale. Herr in this case after the Minister in the final report of the department had stated that he was in favor or the execution, Klemm had gone to the Minister again and after an extended report succeeded that the sentence was not executed. The same holds true for the Frevling case.
THE PRESIDENT: Then your exclusion from these illustrations is that he did have influence with Thierack rather then no did not have influence isn't it?
THE WITNESS No; in fact, that is according to my observations, he did not have any influence to the effect to change the general course, only by finding out specific elements in an individual case once upon a time he could persuade the Minister to make a different decision.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask the next question.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q You also mentioned a case Dreiling. Give us the facts about that.
A In the case Dreiling, that was the case of a woman who had also been sentenced to death for defeatism. That case was of particular interest because hero the Gauleiter of Berlin had stated that he was definitely in favor of execution, and it was very difficult, according to previous experiences, to change the Minister's mind. But in this case also, Klemm succeeded to do so, as I happen to know personally.
Q I believe that is sufficient. I come now to a different group of questions: The so-called "report lists." These lists have played an important part here. I have before me an extensive file which contains the lists of report schedules from January 1944 to January 1945 covering the year 1944. First of all, we have the so-called reports about death sentences. Since doubts have arisen about the accuracy of those socalled report schedules, I should like to discuss a few questions of fact with you. I hand you the copy of these report schedules.
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel referring to something that is in evidence?
DR. SCHILF: No, Mr. President. That is Exhibit 252, Document Book III-L.
THE PRESIDENT: I ask if you had submitted to him certain documents which are in evidence.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, indeed.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Exhibit 252. At the top of those reports lists you see, for instance: Report to the Minister, and the other lists where it says: Report to the Under-Secretary. Who compiled these lists?
A These lists were prepared always by Department IV -- the department for penal law. The Minister, and in exceptional cases, the Under-Secretary determined from time to time the dates when reports about death sentences should be made.
The day before the report itself was made, the department compiled all matters of death sentences which had been handled until that date. I believe that five or six copies were made of it.
Q And who received these lists, that is to say, the copies?
A The original of that list was sent to the adjutant's office of the Minister; one copy went to the adjutant's office of the Undersecretary; and other copies to the chief of department IV or to the individual referents.
Q You said the office of the adjutant of the Under-Secretary was you, wasn't it?
A Yes, first of all it was I. In this case, for instance, at any rate I was completely informed about these matters.
Q And what did you do with these lists?
A I handed the lists to the Under-Secretary and after the report had been made either to him or to the Minister, which of course is what happened as a rule, then he gave these lists back to me. In the meantime, after each column, he had marked down, mostly with his purple pencil, the individual decisions.
THE PRESIDENT: Who had marked it?
THE WITNESS: Under-Secretary Klemm. He did that because this is what could happen: If the Minister had decided any individual case, then it sometimes happened that he did not sign the decision himself because during the time the report was made it was not yet available. Then the matter was submitted to the Under-Secretary for signature. In order to find out what the decision was in the individual case, the Under-Secretary then looked at his list and checked whether it was correct.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q And what else did you do with the lists after you had received them back with the remarks made by Klemm?
A Then they were put to the files.
Q In other words, they remained with you?
A Yes, they remained with me.
Q If you would be so kind, Mr. Hartmann, to look through the file now that I have handed to you. As I have already said, those are lists from 1944, and I am asking you whether according to the first impression which these lists give you, whether it is possible that all the death sentences are listed there?
A Well, I see two possibilities that reports might not be included in these lists; that is in so called lightening executions -- blitz executions. I believe I don't have to explain what blitz executions means.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean they are not recorded in there?
THE WITNESS: They were not recorded there, and then were not recorded the death sentences of the trial of the 20th of July 1944 because they were separately reported to the Minister. But with the exception of these two things, all reports are listed here.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Mr. Hartmann, since you had an opportunity to observe those matters at close distance, can you give us an estimate as to how many sentences may have been in these two categories during the year 1944?
A If I consider that the death sentences of the 20th July might have been about 50 in 1944, and that lightening executions happened very rarely in 1944, I should like to estimate that about between 60 and 100 cases -- but certainly not more are not contained in these lists.
Q In connection with that, I would like you to discuss the following. Did Klemm receive a copy of these lists even when he did not attend the conference with the Minister?
A No, generally he didn't.
Q You have already mentioned that Klemm, with his pencil, made notes. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to hand you the original-however, it is before the Tribunal in a photostatic copy. Could one conclude if Klemm's handwritten notes are very frequent on these lists, that those are the lists which you kept for Klemm?
A Well, if they show Klemm's handwriting, then they are the lists which I kept in my files, and where the report was made either before the Minister in the presence of the Under-Secretary or in exceptional cases where the report was made to the Under-Secretary himself.
Q From the sequence of these lists in which these lists were put, one could see that there was a report about once a week, mostly to the Minister; in exceptional cases, to the Under-Secretary. Was there a possibility that both the Minister and the Under-Secretary received a report list?
A I didn't quite understand the quite understand the question. The Under-Secretary and the Minister? No, each one had a copy. The Minister had the original and the Under-Secretary had the copy of a list of that kind.
Q I mean the headings. It says there: Report to the Minister; Report to the Under-Secretary. Well, the headings are correct, aren't they? They are in accordance with the actual facts?
A Yes, because the department prepared the list of reports very shortly before the date when the reports were to be made, and in case -well, the Minister wasn't there--, that one knew the day before he was very rarely absent in such cases, the department marked these lists already previously with the heading: Report to the Under-Secretary.
Q You said that only in few exceptional cases, reports were made to the Under-Secretary alone. Could you give us an estimate how often that may have happened in 1944?
A I can give you an approximate figure, because in those cases where the report was made to the Under-Secretary, the gentlemen of Department IV always had to go through my office. I, myself, did not attend the reports, but, of course, that was a groat disturbance for me in my work.
THE PRESIDENT: Please give us your estimate.
THE WITNESS: Four to five times.
Q. We went through these lists very carefully and ascertained from all lists that is to say reports to the Minister, as well as to the under secretary, there resulted 2620 death sentences, decisions for death sentences; is that in accordance with your recollection?
A. That may be right.
Q. Now, a witness has testified here, who also worked in the ministry, that in 1944 there were over eight thousand decisions for the death sentence.
A. That is absolutely impossible. I can say that with all certainty. It could not be approximately right that way. One can see that from the fact that those reports took place once a week, and that two reports a week occurred at the most twice, so that it is a simple matter of arithmetic if one wants to estimate the final number of death sentence decisions.
Q. I would like to ask you something about Klemm's practice in clemency decisions. You mentioned already a few examples concerning the clemency decisions.
A. Yes.
Q. Could you give us any other indications for the fact that Klemm was lenient in handling clemency matters; for instance, if reports were made to him as the under secretary; to him alone.
A. I have no personal impressions of that because as I said I did not attend those reports, but I can only say that particularly about that subject I often spoke to under secretary Klemm, and I told him that I personally -
THE PRESIDENT: The question is -- what his attitude was; not what yours was.
A. Well, from the conversation it could be seen that he approved of that attitude of mine and that he always stressed that against this practice and the course of the minister nothing could be done.
Q. It also is said that Klemm succeeded in a case, the Bonnes case, to persuade Thierack for a lenient decision.