English Transcript p. 4589, also in Ohlendorf transcript, where Ohlendorf explains the meaning of the formulations contained in his affidavit, Prosecution Exhibit 148, with regard to the inspections mentioned there. These show clearly that Schubert, with the exception of the Simferopol case, was only sued for general inspections and not for executions as the prosecution asserts on page 10 of the Closing Brief. tional incriminating activity outside the bounds of a general adjutant's functions that Schubert, at intervals, had composed certain reports of the Einsatzgruppe. This is again on Page 15. They supported this claim by a statement of the co-defendant Seibert in his affidavit Document Book III-D, Exhibit 158. On the stand as witnesses, the co-defendants Seibert and Ohlendorf offered an explanation in regard to this assertion of the Prosecution which relieves this point of its incriminating quality. not an essential, but only a formal part of the report namely the reports about changes of personnel and locations, as they appeared regularly on the first page of every Operational Situation Report. In these points the two statements are in full accord, and I believe, since Schubert, too, when examined in his own behalf, said the same thing, neither the Court nor the Prosecution had any doubts as to the correctness of his exposition. increased by the finding that they not only do not contradict the Seibert affidavit, but rather are its explanation. Material contributions to these reports were never part of Schubert's work. One may add that Schubert's function, as elucidated in this point, was in full accord with the scope of tasks he could perform considering his training. ordinate activity consisting only of superficial acts of a technical or organizational nature, which had no material connection whatsoever with the subject matter of the tasks or the acts in themselves.
cleared and I see no possibility to consider Schubert as in any way whatsoever incriminated in regard to it. namely the charge of knowledge of the Fuehrer Order. The way in which he reacted to this knowledge is of import in considerations of judicial nature.
In this respect, Schubert's own testimony alone can elucidate this point, for in a military unit with its discipline demanding unconditional obedience, no superior will be able to testify as to a contrary reaction to an order, as it would surely mean certain destruction for any soldier if he showed even the least counter-reaction. the question of the consent with or the rejection of the Fuehrer Order, we are left to depend entirely on Schubert's testimony and encounter in proving the hereby expressed sentiments to be genuine, one of the main difficulties of this trial, namely, the question of the credibility of the statements of Schubert about himself. For this reason, I am forced to treat the credibility of my client in detail. the foundation for an answer to this question and I believe to be of one mind with the Tribunal if I make here and now the anticipatory assertion that the over-all impression gained from Schubert and his testimony is that he honestly endeavored to present all points, which he was confronted with and had to answer, truthfully.
Sometimes we did notice a slight hesitation on Schubert's part.
A mental inhibition of Schubert's, which characterizes his whole personality and which we encounter in a conspicuous manner again in his correction of his affidavit of 24 February 1947. There too, he placed, in the argument arising from the wording and the permission for correction, at first the greatest weight on having a wording altered that was apt to incriminate another man. Only in the second place he took care of the matters that concerned himself, even making with concessions, so that no other man might be incriminated by an incorrect statement. concerned, Schubert gave the answers without hesitation and without any omission, only there striving for details, where he was certain that truth had not been reached to the full extent. And let us not deceive ourselves by asking why Schubert has struggled so tenaciously for the wording in the Wartenberg case, of all things. This he certainly did not do for reasons of his own safety, but rather out of a fanatical zeal for the truth. explain the seeming contradiction between his affidavit of 24 February 1947, where in sub-section 7 the wording is to be found that the reports contained the number of the villages destroyed and the persons killed, and his deposition that he was in ignorance of the number of the persons executed. In this point too we have seen how carefully Schubert stuck to the truth, explaining that in sub-section 7 of his affidavit it was not a question of execution within the meaning of the Fuehrer Order, but of statements as to the casualties incurred on the occasion of military operations. seeming contradiction between his statement that Seibert had not been Ohlendorf's deputy for the entire sphere of duties of the Einsatzgruppe, on the one hand, and some wordings in his affidavit which curtly called Seibert Ohlendorf's deputy, on the other hand.
For this elucidation too Schubert fought with genuine zeal for the truth even with a sort of petty effort for veracity. The more it had been tried to discover a vagueness or a false judgment in the wording of his affidavits, the more punctiliously did he keep fighting for an elucidation. Yet, this doubt about the question of the capacity of Seibert as a deputy, between the verbal and written statements of Schubert has finally been decided by the Prosecution in favor of the facts stated by Schubert verbally by submitting the doc. No. NO-5111, Doc. Book V D p. 5. I am thinking of the document that shows an organization scheme of Einsatzgruppe D, worked out by Schubert himself, and where Seibert appears as permanent deputy under the section "Staff of the Einsatzgruppe". I think in the English translation the date, December 1945, is missing. This was it what Schubert meant then and in all his later statements, always protesting whenever different statements of facts were to be read into wordings which were not even made by himself. Here the trustworthiness of Schubert could, at the end of long arguments in the course of direct and cross-examinations, finally be proved even through a Prosecution document. Schubert was able to rely on his good memory, apart from his zeal for the truth, in all the statements he made.
There is no need, I believe, to prove Schubert's trsutworthiness, From this starting point, I should suggest that his own statements referring to his knowledge of the Fuehrer Order and the executions be judged, so that later a total evaluation of his conduct may be gathered from his later working methods.
He learned about the Fuehrer Order from Ohlendorf. From his statement also a mental reaction emerges. We saw him arriving, as a final result of his mental struggle, at the conclusion that he was facing the situation completely helplessly. Was that helplessness, that incapability to find a way out, really the utmost left to do for a person who had done something to prevent these crimes, as the Prosecution demands?
Should he to have withdrawn from these things? Russia, to take any action against the goings-on which are under discussion today? Nobody will consider this seriously, in view of the picture we have received of his subordinate activities, of the way he was tied by orders and his complete lack of independence. It must be added that Ohlendorf himself had told him, that he had nothing to do with these things. By that Schubert had been shown his proper place by his chief, and this in a manner so as not to leave him any possibility of supporting an application for transfer or a refusal to carry out orders by pointing to the executions, for with those he had nothing to do and he would only incur the risk of having "his nose rubbed in" even more, as Heydrich had once threatened the defendant Blobel. Moreover, it is remarkable that Schubert, in whose soul the internal struggle about those things had not come to an end by that, learned on the occasion of the Simferopol executions in December 1941 that not the Einsatzgruppe alone was in possession of this Fuehrer Order, but that even the supreme command authority, the 11th Army itself, was giving orders for execution contrary to Ohlendorf's protests, supplying the personal and material assistance required for carrying out the executions. This state of affairs could not but convey to this little lieutenant the conviction that no way out was left to him even through the Wehrmacht.
Coming back to the words used by the Prosecution that "it" was a legal and moral obligation to prevent the slaughter of innocents, to limit, to repudiate it, an obligation which all the defendants have obviously neglected, we arrive first of all at the conclusion that Schubert has not neglected his obligation to repudiate those acts. In the German transcript p. 4656 /57 Schubert has shown us his feelings and he broached this subject again in the course of the cross examination.
Everybody will have to recognize, in just evaluation of these statements that Schubert has not neglected this obligation which the Prosecution stressed as a generally legal and moral one, but rather has fulfilled it. of ordering executions, so he was not in a position to prevent executions. Nor could Schubert be expected to refuse to obey the order to go on an inspection trip, since his refusal would have neither prevented nor limited the execution, the more so since his inspection was in no way causally converted with the chain of events. Thus, Schubert was unable to realize any noticeable personal implication in the crime. Ohlendorf himself has explained to the Tribunal what consequences would have been drawn by him from a refusal to obey orders. office because in the reports which he had to register and to file in the books, statements were contained with regard to executions? this question, because that knowledge of the events was one gained in the routine work in an office, and the events had in each case already been concluded, and, besides, Schubert, was, as an officer in the orderly room placed outside of any power of authority and command with regard to those events and the reports made thereof. The notion of being in connection with crimes within the meaning of the Control Council Law may surely not be extended as far as that. And listening to the words of the Prosecution that "the rank and the position of the defendants comprised the authority and obligation on the part of the defendants to exercise control over their subordinates and that that authority in conjunction with their knowledge renders them unequivocally responsible from the penal point of view", we conclusively exclude those from criminal responsibility who did not possess such an authority and obligation.
Nobody will attribute such an authority over subordinates to Schubert in view of the results of the investigations of this trial. No penal responsibility can, thus, be invoked against Schubert in this respect.
The Prosecution sees a signifiance in Schubert's position within the staff of Einsatzgruppe D. It would be a completely wrong opinion to consider the staff of the Einsatzgruppe as a leadership agency in which every officer would be partly originator, or even only participant in, or accessory to, the acts which were being done in the Einsatzgruppe. If we admitted this as right, we should have left the ground of individual guilt, the basic principle of any criminal responsibility.
Schubert's position regarded in itself is illuminated enough, it was not tied in with any authority. With any other activity of the Einsatzgruppe it had closer relationship than just with the executions, which in no way were promoted by the adjutants. It was a position that always goes with any military unit, but in itself it was neither typical for the tasks of Einsatzgruppe D, nor was the holder of the position charged with any special tasks of the Einsatzgruppe. Schubert as the first lieutenant at the side of a Chief, who is Colonel, 5 officers of the rank of Colonel and Lt. Colonel, who were CommandoLeaders and about 5 other officers of the Staff, superior to him in rank, could not possibly have attained any significant leadershipor Commando position.
DR. KOESSL: Schubert did not even pass on orders. The Prosecution's questions to this effect rare merely hypothetical ones. Not a single case was proved why page 8 of the closing brief is unjustified in referring to page 4657 of the English transcript. On the same page of the closing brief the Prosecution goes too far in explaining the passage in the English record page 4710 by deducing from Schubert's quoted statement that he knew all the missions of the kommando chiefs, although only the general tasks of the members of the staff were mentioned at that point. Schubert was not informed about all missions with which Ohlendorf entrusted the kommando chiefs.
Apart from that the question comesup: Does SCHUBERT's knowledge of the executions have the effect of knowing criminal aims of the SS, here specifically of the SD, and was it SCHUBERT's obligation to withdraw from the SD? To answer this last important question it must be examined of what kind his professional development and activity was before and after the Russian assignment.
He has given us his professional curriculum. The submitted documents SCHUBERT- Exh. 1 and SCHUBERT - Exh. 3show that until his Einsatz in 1941 he had been employed all the time and exclusively as an administrative employee. Of what minor category this position was is disclosed by SCHUBERT -- Exh. 6. A look at the graphic description of the organizational build-up of Office I of the RSHA attached to this document, shows that at first until 1940 SCHUBERT as an assistant clerk belonged with the clerks to the lowest rank among the employees and beginning 1940 as a specialist to the lowest rank within the leadership organizational chart. At first an aide to the Registrar and the Postoffice. SCHUBERT in the course of his career finally becomes a specialist in personnel matters. How his position was during the Russian-Assignment, I have already explained and I only wish to add here that it was a direct continuation of the pure administrative activity, as exercised in Berlin.
Also after his return from the Russian assignment, SCHUBERT at first becomes Adjutant to the Chief of Office III, not an SDspecialist in Office III, but he remains an employee of Office I. This also corresponds to his tasks as Adjutant, which OHLENDORF declared were the same as in Russia. Chief of the waiting-room he calls it. Here too purely clerical work without any participation in the material decisions of Office III. by abolition of the adjutant position, SCHUBERT becomes Assistant Specialist in the Personnel Dep. of Office III and is reinstated as an administrative employee. Schubert-Exh. 3.
The witness EHLICH in the SCHUBERT-Exh. 5 explained in detail that also in Gruppe B of Office III SCHUBERT attended at first only to administrative technical and organizational tasks and throughout the time up to 1 Dec. 1944 he was involved in material tasks only as far as information is concerned, but by no means as an SD-Specialist. official whose road was prescribed by his education. I also refer to the fact that during his 2 years of military service he was also used as a clerk for one year. (SCHUBERT-Exh.7). We get the picture of an official whose assignments up to 1 Dec. 1944 never went beyond the limits of pure administration and in addition kept themselves within a rank, which beginning at the lowest went up only 3 grades to the position of Assistant Specialist and never permitted any independent work or much less material decisions of his own. An average official as it is called in the German language. Augsburg and there he takes charge of the SD-Dep. health) (SCHUBERTExh. 5). For the first time in his life. SCHUBERT enters the service of the SD in its specialized field as an independent worker beginning at the lowest rank. It will be important now, for the judgment of the case as a whole, how SCHUBERT is going to conduct himself in an independent position.
The 2 documents SCHUBBRT-Exh. 2 and 4 cast a significant light upon this. The affidavit KONONOFF, a now stateless Russian, who since the First World War lived in Germany and was during the Second World War degraded by the Nazis to an East-worker, is more than a testimony to his decent character. KONONOFF, who lived in daily terror of the Nazi authorities, put confidencesin SCHUBERT and to the SD-men of Schubert and what he has to report on SCHUBERT's, intervention in the cases referred to, are moving testimonials of SCHUBERT's, the SDmember's, aid to the suppressed and mistreated workers of foreign nationality, above all how he helped Russian male and female workers and prisoners of war to obtain humane treatment, the punishment of their oppressors and deceivers, in short to be given their rights and how he thereby disregarded the danger to his official position. The testimonials speak for themselves and what SCHUBERT's secretary, the then student of medicine LACKER, a military service draftee, reports about this time in the SCHUBERT-Document 4 is one more proof for the absolute truthfulness and love for justice that was glowing so much within SCHUBERT, that I cannot but refer to it as the most eminent quality of his whole personality. much as a possibility for a decision of his own, was commandeered into the Einsatzgruppe D, after he had on his own initiative expressed a desire to be released for service with the Army, following the death of his first wife and child during the terror of the bombings.He had just as little chance to determine the end of this assignment and the way he was employed. He wasunder military law and had no choice as to his activity or much less any possibility of leaving the SD. In addition SCHUBERT could not see the acts committed by Einsatzgruppe D in connection with criminal activities of the whole SD or the SS, revealed to us today by the IMT.
The Einsatzgruppen are neither SS- nor SDunits, but mobile organizations of a special type and the execution of the Fuehrer-Order was assigned to them as a Security Police security missions. The English translation contains the expression Security Police task instead of Security Police Security missions. The knowledge of this activity of the Einsatzgruppe cannot therefore establish membership in the criminal circle of persons of the SD or the SS. SCHUBERT during his following activity in Berlin and Augsburg considered himself entirely free and without further connection with any injustice perhaps committed by Einsatzgruppe D in Russia. His interrogation also reveals that he did not know of other crimes committed by the SD and SS, which has give to the organization as a whole the criminal character as pronounced in the IMT - judgment. criminal penal law SCHUBERT is to be held accountable, it must not be overlooked that Control Council Law No. 10 represents on extremely disputed legal basis, since international law cannot be ordered to the vanquished by any authority whatever and national criminal laws, could not be applied retroactively. However since the given situation cannot be altered at present, I ask the High Tribunal to interpret the forms of participation of the Control Council Law No. 10 restrictively. Only such persons should be held accountable as "perpetrator" and "participant" in war crimes and crimes against humanity, to whom own initiative and a causal activity can be proven. Whoever was as an insignificant figure, pressed into a mechanism of tools by, governmental coercion, should at any case be freed of responsibility to international law. If today in practise toward the vanquished the old principle has been abandoned that individuals are not responsible according to international law then the criminal responsibility for governmental measures must by no means be extended to include the broad mass of those, who neither could overlook the cause nor the purpose, neither the tenability in international law, nor the actual necessity of those measures by the state leadership and who by no means could dodge them.
His position as adjutant and director of the office with the staff of Einsatsgruppe D did not connect SCHUBERT with the planning or carrying out of executions; the acknowledgment of reports on executions carried out, does not include consenting participation in the meaning Art. II. fig. 2c of Law No. 10, since this consent always must be given prior to the completion of the act and must be causally connected with it. Also his presence at the execution in Siferopol did not bring SCHUBERT in such a causal relationship to the main act since any promoting action remained absent. His presence to which he was ordered cannot even be regarded as a consent, just as little as his presence in the theater of operation implied consent to the war. The mere presence does not prove any affirmative mental or intellectual attitude toward the events taking place. If one would now want to close the gap in the chain of evidence by referring to the membership in the SD, declared as criminal, then a circulus vitiosus would be formed that way, from which no innocent man could find escape. Such reasoning would adopt the same kind of logic to which HITLER obviously fell fictim, when he issued the unfortunate order under discussion here. Whoever under martial law is commanded to join a mobile unit, to whom the highest state leadership has assigned criminal tasks, does not by virtue of this governmental act enter into a criminal connection with the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, since he was coerced into an emergency that was inescapable. To him also the comprehensive specifications of 2d and 2c of Art. II of the Law No. 10 cannot be applied without violating the fundamental principlesof all national codes and even moreof international law.
Art. 347 of the American Rules of Land Warfare of 1940 declares individual members of Armed Forces to be exempt from punishment, if they have committed crimes upon order of their government.
The same stand was taken by the British "Manual of Military Law" of 1944. This principle dominated the common law of warfare throughout both World Wars and could not be made ineffective out of force by legislation of any group of powers. of the soldier by at the same time accusing him of crimes against humanity. So far no satisfying definition of the notion" crimes against humanity" has become known, At any rate the war crime seems to be distinguished from the crime against humanity only by being in causal or only timely connection with the war. Accordingly facts which under the aspect of common law of warfare remain impunitive cannot become punishable as crimes against humanity. in dealing with the question of membership of SD-persons in criminal organizations. An SD-member in a wider sense also belonged to the SS, since the SD was part of the SS. SCHUBERT came to the SD directly from the HITLER YOUTH so that he belonged only indirectly to SS via the SD. He never belonged to any SS-unit. Therefore the High Tribunal will bear with me, if I do not put forth any further arguments in the support of my request that this indirect SS-membership of SCHUBERT may be disregarded. his private and official life such a clean and truthful character, who has chosen the principle of truthfulness, one might say, as his life maxime, that a man of this kind would have become such an honest and valiant fighter for the rights of the oppressed nations, as we have seen him from the affidavit, if he had not been of a clear conscience. It is just this clear conscience which makes SCHUBERT states all his actions and thoughts so precisely and without circumlocation, as we have seen here at the trial. Pure conscience speaks from all of SCHUBERT's words.
And this is proof for me that there is no consciousness of criminal action here. And when the High Tribunal after Counts 1 and 2 will also have to decide on Count 3, then I know that the Tribunal in its endeavour to find the truth and serve justice will not pass over the fact that it came from the innermost, honest conviction, when SCHUBERT, upon questioning at the start of the Trial replied that he considers himself not guilty. my client. During the interrogation through some kind of unclear translation the impression was given that he wanted to express some suspicion that something was being put into his mouth unjustly. This was during the discussion whether he had signed several pages of his affidavit, pages 4614-4616 of the English transcript. My client only wants me to make the statement that he did not have any suspicion of any kind. He did not mean to express any suspicion in this respect so that it is only an assumption which is not based on any kind of premeditation.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The record will show that explanation, Dr. Koessl.
Dr. Schwarz for the defendant Jost: Before I begin with my presentation I would like to point out, especially to the interpreters, that I shall not mention the quotations, especially those that are in parenthesis.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court Reporter will be directed to include these quotations in the transcript even though not read by counsel.
DR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, Your Honor. little shorter I shall skip the introduction, that is on pages 1 to 7. In view of the time allotted me I must also disregard the general legal questions, or leave them out. They are pages 8 to 21, that is II. Thus I shall begin with III which concerns the personality of the defendant. That is on page 22. I consider this an appropriate moment for a description of the defendant's personality. In doing so, I refer to my statements in the trial-brief for the defendant Jost, pages 50 - 66. from a respectable, honest and upright bourgeois-family, may be made from the depositions of a variety of personalities, former SS leaders or subordinates, National Socialists and non-National Socialists, political persecutees and others, the truest picture being evolved from this very multiplicity and diversity. thanks to a subsidy granted by Jost, considers the latter as a reliable and upright man , resembling the type of a respectable official who endeavored to hide his natural sensitiveness and soft-heartedness behind external self control and reserve. His bearing was clearly indicative of the discord which, in the case of National Socialists, so often resulted from disagreement of ideals with party-reality or disparity between imposed duties and personal feelings. Thomashausen was impressed by Jost's modest standard of living and the simplicity of his bearing, very much in opposition to the habits of others during that time (Affidavit Thomashausen Doc.
Book Jost I, Doc. No. 3, exh. pages 8-9*.
Dr. Best, the former Ministerialdirektor and Chief of Office I of the RSHA (Reich Security Main Office), who has known the defendant since 1930, brings into prominence Jost's almost exaggerated modesty, his calm, reasonable views and his strict sense of justice. With Heydrich and Heydrich's right hand man Mueller, Jost passed for "a lawyer burdened with inhibitions and not prepared to comply with everyone of Heydrich's wishes." first adjutant and Chief of Himmler's personal staff who knew Jost officially, the latter was described, by various high-ranking SSleaders as an upright, calm and conscientious character. The general's personal, official and special contacts with Jost confirmed this impression. Jost was known to defend his personal convictions in a calm, and decisive manner even before his superiors. Wolff had never been able to discover in Jost a leaning towards unbridled excesses or cruelty. On the contrary, Jost was recognized as a man whose actions were ruled by a sense of fairness. General Wolff did not have the impression that Jost was a careerist.
The Latvian Prior Sanders testifies to Jost's readiness to help and his kindliness when he addressed himself to Jost for aid to prisoners. ary for the Eastern Territories at Riga, had the humanly best impression of Jost. He has never heard anything to his disadvantage. On account of his calmness and serenity, Jest enjoyed the best possible reputation and great popularity both with his subordinates and with the population (Affidavit Jedicke Doc. Book Jost I, Doc. No. 15, exh. 15, pages 52-54).
industrious man of open, calm and honest character. Jost had no leaning to excesses (Affidavit Deeken Doc. Book I, Jost Doc. No. 1, Exh. 1 pages 1 - 3). Worms Police Station, Jost was trusted implicitly by the non-National Socialist circles among the people and also by the Jews, while on the other hand, the Party was not satisfied with his activity at the Worms Police Station, because he rejected the Party's attempts to interfere, and saw to it that the Jews were treated justly. All those who applied to Jost officially, were treated equally and received advice and assistance irrespective of their political views. Jost was popular with the Police officials on account of his just behavior. He took under his protection even those who were not Nazis in the event of their being attacked by the Party, and in many instances preserved their posts for them. Seitz confirms Jost's intervention on behalf of Pastor Dogen. Jost freed Rahn, the former Oberguergermeister of Worms from a mass demonstration in which he was in danger of losing his life. straight forward human personality who treated his subordinates in a correct and decent manner. a reserved, quiet and gentle p erson whose reserve bordered on indifference. Jost could only be induced to drop his reserve for the strongest reasons; then, however, he stubbornly defended the point of view which he held to be right.
Dr. Wohlgemuth, surgeon and medical practitioner in Berlin, regarded Jost as being tolerant, and in no way harsh or ruthless. He was modest in his way of living and in the conduct of his household affairs. Wohlgemuth was repeatedly surprised by Jost's humane and just attitude which he combined with objective criticism.
Jost also proved his readiness to help this witness inasmuch as he put him in a position which enabled him to reject the Gestapo's demand that he (Dr. Wohlgemuth) should spy on Prof. Sauerbruch. korn which I shall skip. I shall continue on page 28. the main point. The salient qualities of his character which are repeatedly confirmed are his strong sense of right, his justice, decency humaneness , goodness and integrity, his modesty and tolerance and the lack of every ambition. by nature, and not a militarist. He did not receive the Prussian military type of officers training. He always endeavored to find employment in civil administration, and in any case, his peacetime occupation in the SD was also of a more administrative character.
It should now be easy to illustrate the defendant's political attitude, based on this clear and fine foundation of his character, in order to gain greater understanding of his personality. with regard to the contents of the documents submitted by the Defense and I request the High Court to take into consideration these documents which only give the right picture if read in this connection. fanatic nor a bigot, that he not only rejected excesses, but wherever he had the chance to do so he opposed them sharply, that he had helped people in their political emergency without thought of his own advantages or disadvantages and that for this very reason he also experienced serious difficulties in his official life. Thus as a political entity he also tred the way of decency, tolerance and helpfulness.
Jost's attitude in the Jewish question can be gathered from the affidavits: Deeken, Eisfeller, Thomashausen, Sanders, Klingemann, Everwien, Waneck, Pfarrer Degen, Annemarie Jost, Seitz, Dr. Wohlgemuth, Dr. Spohr. the Jewish question which ran counter to that which was demanded of him. The affidavit by Thomashausen also gives exhaustive information in this instance, as to how the defendant exposed himself without regard to his person and position, and indeed risked his position and got into difficulties with his superior. I would like to refer to the evidence given by the defendant Jost, page 1158, English page 1141 in the transcript, in which he described how Heydrich reproached him for his conduct which was not, sufficiently National Socialist in character, and that in this instance he saw himself obliged to give up his office. The affidavits of Thomashausen and Waneck confirm these statements. Further information concerning the irreproachable conduct of the defendant with regard to the Jewish question is given in the affidavits by Eisfeller, Everwien, Seitz, Spohr and A. Jost. treated the Jews in a just manner, that the Jews regarded him as a man who acted justly, and his indignant repudiation of the measures taken on 8/9 November 1938, are mentioned several times. picture of the character of the defendant and have shown how, in politics, he conducted himself decently, how his relationship stood with regard to opponents of the Nazi system, how he assisted them out of his sense of right and justice, and also how his attitude towards the Jewish question was dictated by motives of absolute justice and finally how he was not afraid to face official and personal disadvantages.
