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.
A. The case Bonnes was like this: Bonnes was first sentenced to death, and then Klemm intervened in favor of an extraordinary objection against that sentence; the minister agreed. Before it came, however, the attorney had already succeeded with an application for reopening of the trial, but also in the trial Bonnes was sentenced to death. Thereupon the minister upon the report made to him by Klemm at first agreed that the sentence be commuted to eight years in the penitentiary, but when the Gauleiter was of a different opinion, he changed his mind confirmed the sentence, and Klemm could no longer do anything about it.
THE PRESIDENT: We have heard all of that before; every world of it.
Q. Mr. Hartmen, I come now to another subject, relating to the cases where allied fliers had been shot down over Germany and who were lynched by the population. I went to put two questions to you, but first I want to hand you a letter by the Reichminister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers, of the 4th June, 1944. I have a photostatic copy before me which shows a handwritten remark which Thierack is said to have written. May it please the Court, this is Exhibit 109, Document 635-PS. I hand this photostatic copy to the witness. It is not easy to read.
A. Yes, I can see it.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your question, Dr. Schilf?
DR. SCHILF: I want to ask the witness to read that remark on the letter by Thierack, in handwriting, and I want to ask him if that remark was actually written by Thierack.
A. It can be clearly seen that that is Thierack's handwriting; he wrote circular decree, adding the remark that such cases have to be submitted to me to examine the question of quashing. Signed Th. Above Klemm initialed.
Q. It is very hard to read; if you want to look at it again, COURT, III, CASE III there is another sentence in the next line -- for the purpose of examination to be submitted to me, if pending.
What was the purpose of that note, that remark of Thierack's?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object for the reason that this witness cannot possibly know what Thierack's purpose was.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
Q. I ask you what did you personally assume was the reason for Thierack's remarks?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, for it is not pertinent what this witness assumed that Thierack thought; it has no probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
Q. Did you see that decree by Thierack at that time? That circular decree?
A. I remember that I discussed the case with Under Secretary Klemm.
Q. What did you discuss with Klemm?
A. Klemm said that he was of the opinion that the result, the success of the circular decree of that kind would be that the cases would be submitted to us in the ministry and that at least we would be informed about them.
A. And by being informed about it, did you in the ministry oppose influencing the prosecution of cases where the German population had lynched allied fliers?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Just a minute. I object for the reason that this witness cannot testify as to a possibility which existed only in the minds of some one in the ministry. If he can testify at all it should be what influence this defendant Klemm might have had; if he knows the facts from which he can base his information on.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have any knowledge as to what influence Klemm had or exercised in the matter of the assassination of fliers, you may state it; limit your testimony to that matter.
A. With reference to that subject I can say that according to my knowledge one case was actually carried out against a man who had lynched a flyer, and that was after that circular decree had been issued. That case was discussed at the time; it was a SA leader from Dusseldorf who had shot down two fliers; the case was prosecuted and not quashed.
Q. Do you happen to have any information about the fact that Klemm issued directives to the District Referents (Bezirks referenten) that such cases should be prosecuted by the public prosecutions?
A. I know that Ministerialrat Muetschke in the case of that kind reported to under secretary Klemm and that Klemm directed him to see that that case -- I believe it was in Munich -- should be prosecuted.
Q. According to the content of that circular decree by Thierack, cases should be submitted to him for his examination. Is it known to you whether Thierack actually quashed cases of that kind?
A. I don't know of any single case of a quashing.
Q. Now I have another question pertaining to the personality of Klemm; that is the relation of Klemm to Freisler; that is, Freisler who was at that time president of the People's Court. Did you make any observations as to how these relations were?
A. Klemm's relations to Freisler and vice versa, were bad; they went out of each other's way. I never saw that Freisler came to see Klemm officially in 1944. On the other hand Klemm never went to see Freisler. He particularly did not attend any sessions of the People's Court, not even in connection with the 20th July case; I, however, was there once.
Q. Did Klemm have any opportunity to observe Freisler's manner of conducting trials, and did he say anything to you about it?
A. I told him about the manner in which Freisler conducted the trial of the 20th of July, and he asked me -- I had the impression that he welcomed that opportunity - he asked me also to give that report to the minister; that report, of course, was quite negative. In that connection he stated that it was quite irresponsible that a man of the type of Freisler was presiding judge in the People's Court.
Q. Now, I want to ask you about another individual, and that is the general public prosecutor Hansen. Did you happen to know what Klemm's relations were to him?
A. I remember the connections because it was Hansen with whom I came out of the People's Court session, and Hansen approved of the manner in which Freisler conducted a trial. I told Klemm about that.
THE PRESIDENT: The question was: If you remember what the relations between Klemm and Hansen was. Answer the question.
A. Yes. And when I told him about this, he told me I am not surprised that that is Hansen's point of view because Hansen is a very ambitious man and he asserts himself even though he does not always stick to the truth. That was what Klemm told me about Hansen when I reported to him about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you refresh your memory as to just what office Hansen held as a prosecutor?
A. Hansen was general public prosecutor at the Kammergericht at Berlin, the highest Prussian court.
Q. As Klemm's adjutant, you must have heard statements, remarks by Klemm about his attitude toward the police in general; if that is the case, please describe it.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Wait a minute, if you please. I object, Your Honor, on the ground that this can only be a self-serving declaration which cannot possibly have any probative value. These are only selfserving declarations.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection so over-ruled-. We have received a great many declarations which but for the fact that they are not post litem motam might be called self-serving; this is merely one of them. The weight of the testimony is for the Tribunal. You may answer the question.
A. I had the impression that Klemm tried to re-establish the prestige which the administration of justice had lost with the police. I can give a practical example for that. Department III had submitted a draft for a decree concerning the competence of the city and country home guards; and, according to the SS, competence over the guard should be turned over to the SS and police courts. Department III had already prepared the draft. Klemm, however, did not agree and rejected it because he did not want to see any more spheres of influence turned over from the sphere of the administration of justice to the police.
Q. Could you give us another definite example to show that Klemm had tried to regain his sphere of influence from the police to the administration of justice?
A. An entire sphere, no.
Q. Could you observe in individual cases that Klemm opposed the police very strictly if such a conflict arose between the police and the administration of justice?
A. Klemm had started a folder where he kept all those cases; in all those cases where he had complained to the RSHA in writing against transgressions by the police. These were mostly cases of arrest, after terms had been served, and the refusal to turn over cases from the police to the administration of justice.
Q. Did Klemm, in your presence, state what his intentions were with that folder?
A. Yes, he hold me that he wanted to collect that material against the police so that when the time had come, the right moment had come, to use it in an attack against the police.
Q. Mr. Hartmann, did you ever hear it mentioned t!iat Klemm, as under secretary, had anything to do with so-called more severe interrogations?
A. During the entire year of 1944 no such case was submitted.
Q. Did you ever hear anything from Klemm about his relations to the General Public Prosecutor Joel, the present defendant Joel?
A. Yes, I know that there is a considerable tension between Klemm and Joel. Both, one may well say, are each other's enemy, and that is true for the both of them, Joel as well as Klemm consider each other enemies; and I remember that Klemm told me that the minister in 1943, asked his opinion about the appointment of Joel as general public prosecutor in Hamm, and Klemm had answered -- don't ask me, please; you know what my opinion of Joel is, and I would not want to make any statement.
Q. That is sufficient. As Klenm.'s adjutant in 1944, did you make any observations as to whether Klemn was in close relations with Bormann -- orally, or in correspondence?
A. From my observations, I know that Klemm rejected the character of Bormann, and from my work as adjutant I can report that not a single letter was received in Klemn's office from Bormann, nor that Klemn ever wrote to Bormann directly.
Q. My last question concerns the relations of Klenm to Thierack. How was that, according to your observations?
A. According to my observations I can say that these relations were good, but I had the impression that it wasn't so much on the basis of the same ways of thought, but of many years of personal contact. Klemm was certainly at a disadvantage because he was much more sentimental than the cold, calculating Thierack. Furthermore, I had the impression that Klenm in an increasing measure after he had gained the confidence of the people in the ministry, tried to succeed with his ideas with the minister. For the first few months he merely played the part of the first adjutant so to say, and I also had the impression that by these attempts to gain a certain amount of independence on the part of Klemn, a certain tension, had arisen between the two.
Q. As far as these relations between Thierack and Klemn were good relations, what were the consequences for the administration of justice?
A. According to my observations, in my opinion, one could only achieve anything with Thierack if one was on good terns with him, and, therefore, I am of the opinion that as far as good relations existed between Klemn and Thierack, that could have only favored results for the administration of justice.
Q. Thank you. I have no further questions for the defendant Klemm. However, if the Court please, I have a few questions for the defendant Mettgenberg which I want to put to the witness.
They concern technical questions.
By JUDGE HARDING: I have some questions pertaining to this testimony that perhaps might be asked at this time.
Q. How long were you the adjutant for the defendant Klemm?
A. From the beginning of January 1944 until the end of December, 1944.
Q. You have shown considerable familiarity with the various details of his activities. Do you know whether he was acting minister on January the 29th, 1944?
A. Well, I couldn't say that from memory.
Q. Do you know around that part of the month of January where Thierack was?
A. No, I don't remember that either.
Q. Did you ever hear of the incident at Sonnenburg where a great many people were turned over to the police and executed?
A. No. In the beginning of 1945 I became a soldier again, and then during the entire year of 1945, of course, I had no contact.
Q. At the beginning of 1945, you say, you became soldier?
A. Yes.
Q. Just what time in 1945 did you become a soldier?
A. On the 3rd of January, 1945.
Q. You never heard of the matter of Sonnenburg?
A. I heard about it by the counsel.
Q. Did you ever hear of it before that?
A. No, I didn't know it before that.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. For the defendant Mettgenberg, I have a technical question. Mr. Hartmann, did a duty trip have to be approved by somebody in the ministry?
A. As far as the department chiefs were concerned, all duty trips to another country, had to be approved by the under secretary.
Q. Who approved duty trips of the ministerialdirigents?
A. The department chief.
Q. And the trips by the department chiefs you said?
A. The under secretary, but it happened if the ministerialdirector for instance with some of his assistants wanted to go on a duty trip, that in that case the approval for all the gentlemen in the group was given by the undersecretary, because the undersecretary was the one who had to give the approval for the ministerialdirector.
Q. Were there any forms or applications for such approval or permission?
A. Yes, there were mimeographed forms.
Q. Did such forms go through your hands; did you see them?
A. Yes.
Q. If a ministerialdirector was to be accompanied by another official of the ministry, on an official trip, was the permission, the approval requested on the same form, or was it different?
A. No, As a rule the approval was requested and was given on the same form for both gentlemen.
Q. Then, you as the adjutant of the undersecretary saw the applications at the same time?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you happen to remember that you ever saw an application for a duty trip to be undertaken by Dr. Vollmer, who was chief of department IV, Ministerial Director, and Dr. Mettgenberg?
A. No, I would have noticed that because Mettgenberg was Vollmer's deputy and on principle did not leave the ministry at the same time as his chief did for an extended trip.
Q. According to that, do you consider it quite impossible that you might have forgotten about any such applications?
A. Yes.
Q. You know the concentration camp Mauthausen, don't you; do you happen to know Mauthausen?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you there?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it have attracted your attention if Herr Vollmer, together with Dr. Mettgenberg, during the time when you were the adjutant of the under secretary, would have made a trip to Mauthausen?
A. I certainly believe that I wouldn't have overlooked that.
Q. Do you happen to have any indications that Dr. Mettgenberg once visited the concentration camp Mauthausen?
A. No, no indications whatsoever.
Q. Are you of the opinion that the former Ministerialdirigent Herr Suchomel, who has asserted here as a witness that Dr. Mettgenberg together with Vollmer had gone to Mauthausen may be mistaken on the basis of the reasons that you have given us?
A. Yes.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor
THE PRESIDENT: Sustained
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defendant's counsel desire to examine this witness? It appears there is none.
You may cross examine