THE PRESIDENT. M. Monneray, I think a good many loaders have already been examined on this document.
M. MONNERAY : Yes, Mr. President. In will also draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document D-902, already offered in evidence as Exhibit No. 542, on the same subject.
THE PRESIDENT : Does the witness know anything about this evidence?- - - because if it is already in evidence there is no use putting it to him unless he knows something about it.
M. MONNERAY. It has already been submitted in evidence and I understood, Mr. President, that you did not wish me to interrogate on that document.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, if there is any particular reason for asking this witness questions upon this document, you may ask them, but there is no use putting a document to him if he has never seen it before, if it is already in evidence. I don't know what the document is.
M. MONNERAY : I Wanted to ask this witness questions on both documents to show how little faith one can attach to those depositions which he made before the Commission; whereas, as a matter of fact, it seems that it was a general measure of the area which was general in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT : If you want to cross examine the witness as to the document, you can put questions from the document to him, but you can't -- at least the Tribunal doesn't want you to put the document to him.
BY M. MONNERAY : SD furnished also very objective reports without any political intentions behind them, is that right?
A Yes. Every week we sent in reports about the reception of radio progress the German population, as objective as possible.
M. MONNERAY : I offer to the Tribunal a document already produced as US -158, which established that in this domain also the SD had a mission which could not be described as a more reporting mission. BY M. MONNERAY :
Q Witness, what was the work of Department 3-D-3 ?
Q What was the work of Department 3-3-3? dual departments in my head; in any case, certainly not with radio as that was the task of Amt 3-C-4. race and health?
A I'll answer just now to the attack that I no longer remember in detail all the tasks of the Department. your colleagues about general situation reports in the matter of foreign work people in Germany; any foreign labor?
A No. I personally had nothing to do with these matters. The question was quite beyond the scope of my powers and tasks.
M. MONNERAY: I offer Document 1753-PS, which becomes RF 1542, which contains a report from one of the departments of the SD, and concerning the possibility given by the RSHA to German doctors to cause abortion among eastern female workers in the east of Germany if they requested it. This report establishes that the statements of the SD in this matter are in no way objective statements but are definitely linked by their official color to the official Nazi policy. cerning slave labor to be furnished by workers in Germany, In this document the person who wrote the report, who was an agent of the SD, after having mentioned the numerous desertions of foreign work people, proposes practical reprisals, such as reprisals for families of work people by withdrawals of rations, and so forth.
Q Witness, do you call that objective reports? And did you think that these reports would be of value to the police? under the Reichicherheitshauptamt in the country is reported to give opinions where, of course, the opinions of members of the party would also be given. In general I would like to contradict the opinion of the prosecutor because the AMT III was never concerned with this matter or had any agents for that task. I must again state that as far as the competence of these documents are concerned, I can only take a subjective attitude because they did not belong to my department.
I still consider my sentimental declaration concerning the task of the SD still to be thoroughly correct. to the central services; it was addressed to the labor office, to the manpower office. It is therefore a report in view of those measures which are suggested, isn't that so? what office it came. which office the document came.
Q Do you admit that the report is addressed to the Manpower Bureau?
A Yes; but I would at the same time like to point out that after the signatures, "Secretary" is mentioned; and SD, as far as I know, never had any secretaries. It should be a SD or a SS rank there instead. by organizations depending from AMT III and AMT VI, isn't that so?
A No. No, AMT III, I can say, had no organizations which were directly beneath. The only individuals were the agents who carried cut the tasks in the occupied territories.
Q AMT VI of the RSHA looked after their foreign countries, didn't it? operating abroad, didn't it? division.
M. MONNERAY: I offer to the Tribunal in evidence F-1973 and 1974. Those are information sheets addressed to Section 6-ST-2. The documents will become RF-1544 and 1545.
Those are information sheets and agents' reports addressed --
THE PRESIDENT: Go on. Have they been translated? Have the copies been given to the German counsel?
M. MONNERAY: The German copies have not been distributed because I did not have documents in their entirety. The original is in German; and it is a report made out on a printed information form, sent out by the SD agents to the competent services of the Gestapo, concerning the Jewish question; and thereby it can be established that there has been THE PRESIDENT:
Have these documents been translated into the various languages?
M. MONNERAY: They have been merely translated into French, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know the rule is that they must be translated into four languages. You must read it then, if that is so.
M. MONNERAY: With your permission, I shall read one of the documents, Section 6-N-1.
THE PRESIDENT: We have been a long time and we have now apparently got to the stage that we've got to read this document, all these documents, which are of very remote importance. We've got to read them through because they haven't been translated. It's taking up a long time; and it does not seem to be achieving any great result.
M. MONNERAY: In that case, Mr. President, I shall pass on to the last point, concerning the transplanting of population. in sending people into concentration camps?
A. From my personal knowledge, I can only say in general that AMT III had absolutely no executive powers. Also, therefore, it was not empowered to send any people into a concentration camp. which were those Poles who were fit to be Germanized and which were those, on the other hand, who could only be sent to concentration camps? factual knowledge.
M. MONNERAY: I would ask permission to read an extract of Document R-112.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this new?
M. MONNERAY: It is a document which has already been offered in evidence, USA-309.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you must refer to it because the witness says he does not know anything about it.
M. MONNERAY: I would like merely to read the passage from this document which establishes, contrary to the declaration of the witness, the SD did in fact collaborate with the Gestapo for the Germanization of the Poles.
2 Aug A LJG 18-1
THE PRESIDENT: If there is anything in the document which shows that the witness is not telling the truth you can put that part of the document to the witness.
M. MONNERAY: The document refers to Amt 3 B of the SD and does not indicate any direct element which affects the witness. Therefore, it appears only on the general question of the activity of the SD and does not affect the witness personally THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Monneray, the witness has just said that Amt III did not have anything to do with deportation of populations. If this document shows that he did then you can put that fact to him.
M. MONNERAY: That is why, Mr. President, I was asking permission to read a passage of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: You can put the document to him.
M. MONNERAY: It is a letter of the 1st of July, signed by Streckenback. This letter emanates from Amt III B (1) and it is addressed to the Gestapo, the SD, in the newly occupied territories of the cast. This document says, on page 2, first point:
"The Gesta po Services must ask the services of the DDL, the SD and the people therein for information sheets on persons belonging to Group 4.
"Third point: The office chiefs of the State Police and the permanent representatives of the SD also is the representatives of 3B and have to send in a report which reflects their personal opinion."
On page 3, fourth point:
"After an examination from the racial point of view the agents of the SD will verify the information concerning the people and will ask the RSHA for arrests and sending to concentration camps. In particular difficult cases the files will first of all have to be sent for information reasons to Amt 3B." Streckenbach:
2 Aug A LJG 18-2 "In execution of the current control of Germanization, the SD services - -"
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. As far as I understand the document it clearly applies to Amt III. Well, why don't you put it to him?
M. MONNERAY: I merely wanted to read out the sentences and ask him afterwards if Amt III had nothing to do with the Gestapo, or whether It had any authority to intervene in the matter of carrying out of arrests and sending people to concentration camps and might I please, sir, finish reading the passage in question?
"....SD services will proceed as to the Germanization of Polish workers."
M. MONNERAY: the RSHA, does it not? Prosecutor, because as far as I can see this document does not come from Amt III of the RSHA but from the Office for Germanization. After the date there is 3 B (1) but immediately after there is the Reich Commissar for the Establishment of Germanization and -to this order signed by Streckenbach, the services of the SD, in common with those of the Gestapo, were to verify their information on people and to request, if necessary, the arrest of people concerned and have them sent to concentration camps? Will you please answer yes or no? information but in any case it is clear that the Reich Commissar for Germanization could give no orders to the SD. Therefore, it is quite vague from this document as to what the SD could practically do in this matter and the specialist in charge of these matters should be questioned here.
2 Aug A LJG 318-3
Q You did not reply to my question. According to this document is it correct to state that the SD had to collaborate actively with the Gestapo in those matters, yes or no? I think I have answered correctly when I say that the Reich Commissar for Germanization could give no order to the SD and I cannot judge what the actually did, as those are two entirely different and separate offices. As far as I knew the group leader who is responsible was already heard before the Commission
Q You are still not answering. Is it yes or no? Did the SD collaborate with the Gestapo in examining people and, if necessary, to have them arrested and sent to concentration camps? second question. Since the Reich Commissar could give no direct orders to the SD I can give no answer yes or no, although the SD on the basis of this -
THE PRESIDENT: I think the document speaks for itself and not I think the Tribunal had better adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
BY M. MONNERAY:
Q. One last question concerning the document R-112. Who was the Reich Commissioner for the consolidation of Germanism
A. I apparently did not get the question through. You mean the chief office, the supreme office ?
Q. And which was under the authority of the chief of the SS and Police, isn't that true ?
A. Himmler.
Q. Do you maintain that this letter of July 1 which came from Himmler's offices and was addressed, at the same time, both to the Gestapo Offices, the SD Offices, to the SIPO, Criminal Police offices, does not refer to the real state of affairs ?
A. From my own knowledge I can only point out once more that there are two completely different agencies. To that extent, I cannot judge.
M. MONNERAY : I have no more questions to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik just a minute.
LT. CMDR. HARRIS: May it please the Tribunal, we would like to offer merely as a supplement, a new document which has just came in. It is document number 4054-PS and it becomes USA-921. The only significance of this document is that it shows that the 3D was running agencies in Los Angeles, California shortly before the outbreak of war between the United States and Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: You have got a copy of this Dr. Gawlik ? Have you got a copy of it ?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to re-examine ?
DR. GAWLIK: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire. And I think that finishes your evidence, Dr. Gawlik, that's all of your evidence, isn't it ? You have no more witnesses, have you.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no more witnesses, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: In what order does the counsel for the organizations wish to proceed now ?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: (Counsel for the Reich Government) : It is prescribed
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I call the witness Dr. Franz Schlegelberger to the
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name please ?
THE WITNESS: Franz Schlegelberger.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Witness, from what year on were you employed in the Justice Ministry ?
A. was judge in the first and degree, and from 1918 I was
Q. When did you become State Secretary ?
A. In 1931.
Q. At what time after the death of the Reich Justice Minister Guertner did you continue the business of the Justice Ministry ?
A. From January 1941 to August 1942.
Q. Were you a member of the Party ?
A. I was originally not a member of the Party. I never requested admission into the Party.
To my great surprise, on the 30th of January 1938, I received a letter from the chief of the Fuehrer's Chancellery that the Fuehrer had ordered my admission into the Party.
of course I could not reject this letter.
And I should like to call myself an involuntary
Q. Were you in very close personal contact with Minister Guertner so that the Justice ministry, but also of all general Government questions ?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Guertner's Ministry of Justice in the Papen cabinet ?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Guertner a Minister of Justice previously in the province of Bavaria ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the activity of the total Government which met for cabinet sessions in the first period of the Hitler cabinet -- I mean the time up to the decree of the Enabling Act -- different from previous practice ?
A. No, the business was stated and conflicting opinions were discussed.
Q. Did this change after the Enabling Act was passed ?
A. Yes. The March elections and the adoption of the Enablins Act by the Reichsstag had strengthened Hitler's position. At first Hitler was reserved modest, different from von Hindenburg, and perhaps even embarrassed, Now he the/ was filled with the fact that he was to execute popular will, Perhaps that can be explained as Hitler had extended all his activities to winning over the masses; that he now saw his successes; that he believed he had read the will of the people correctly; that he considered himself the incorporation of the will of the people; and that he wanted to execute its authority.
Q. Did the position of the Reichs Chancellor, with that of the Reichs President, in August 1934 -- in addition to the general legal effects -have any influence on the position and functions of the Cabinet ?
2 Aug A LJG 20**
A Yes; I see in this law the last step in the concentration of all power in the person of Witler and I judged this law as important, particularly because it was generally approved by the decision of the people. October 1934 -- was the duty of obedience towards the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor established for the Ministry? other officials, were now bound by instructions. on their own wish? A No.
Q. Did later laws further root the activity of the cabinet?
A Yes. I an thanking of the law on the Four Your Plan and on the Ministeria Council of the Defense of the Reich. decentralized and assigned to special offices? I am thinking of the appointments of Gauleiter, Reich Commissars, chiefs of civilian administration?
A Yes; he Gauleiters were appointed Reich Governors and the Reich *efense Com**ssars, the Deputy General or Administration was treated, the Deputy General for Economy and for Labor Commitment.
Q. Through the saw on the unity of the party and state, of the 1st of December 1933, did cooperation between party and state agencies arise in practice or how did conditions develop in fact? severely disappointed. From the very beginning severe contrasts were where between the state offices and the party offices and can say from my own experience that an extraordinarily large part of the work became necessary because state agencies had to overcome the influence of the party offices.
2 Aug A LJG 20-2 Enabling Act submitted to the *eichstag in March 1933?
A The Enabling Act which is called "the law to relieve the distress of people and Reich" was issued because the machinery of the Reich worked too slowly and laws had to be created speedily but it had been expected with the Enabling Act to find only a temporary solution and or that reason it was United to four years; later it was repeatedly extended. what especial circumstances were there in this procedure? cabinet in 1931, temporarily, and now they were created again because in this way things which needed special expedition had to be dealt with quickly. This could be achieved only with legal means eliminated, but in order to avoid unjust procedure and unjust sentences, a number of checks were established. The resumption of legal procedure in favor of the other was made easier; in the second place, the plea of invalidity to the Reich Court was approved which meant that the Reich Court could change the sentence and finally, a special appeal to the Reich Court was created, with the aid of which a completely now trial could be started. Finally, an official dissent was instituted. I may emphasize that the special courts and the legal aides, which I have mentioned, were as much in favor as against the defendants. This special court or regular judicial court were not exceptional courts and they consisted of professional judges. you have to say about this law through which the measures of Hitler on the 30th of June 1934, were justified?
AAfter Hitler's statement and according to the wording of the law, this concerned exclusively the SA men who, according to the statement of Hitler which was credible at the tire, had intended a revolt. To the were extent, the law was absolutely 2 Aug A LJG 20-3 justifiable because revolt meant a state of emergency in the sense of the term generally recognized in Germany.
It was different in the case of victims of the procedure who did not belong among the members of the revolt and Hitler stated that to that extent cases should be prosecuted by law but a number of trials were started that ended in severe sentences. In a number of cases, however, Hitler used his legal right of veto. with the result in these cases, no trial was possible. before the decision about the Nurnberg laws of the Reich Party rallies, did you know of them?
A No. I had left the Reich Party Rally and learned of these laws, on my journey through newspapers or radio. The Reich minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, as I know with certainty from him, meant he did not know beforehand the intention to issue these laws. Justice by the Reich? zation but in addition, the Reich Minister of Justice carried out this measure with great energy. The provincial ministers of justice had National Socialist ministers and probably State Secretaries and a number of causes arose. The taking over of the Department of Justice into the Reich had the effect that now it came into the hands of the Minister of Justice who was not a National Socialist and Minister of Justice and State Secretary who were not National Socialists. and the Ministry of Justice? Justice to the Reich, strong efforts on the side of the party to exert influence on the ministry of Justice made themselves felt. The situation was such that an order of the Fuehrer had 2 Aug A LJG 20-4 to be heard -- the party had to be heard before a judge or a high official was appointed.
If the party did not limit itself to commenting on the candidate at the Justice Ministry but emphatically recommended candidates of its own; later I came to the conviction that the party thought to have an unsuitable man in the position and we opposed and we kept the position open, when later we filled it with different non who were more suitable, in our opinion. Repeatedly, we observed that in civil trials party agencies approached the judges and tried to persuade then that in the public interests this or that decision was necessary -- and in order to avoid this, at the suggestion of the Minister of Justice, the law on the cooperation of the state prosecutor in several cases was issued according to which the judge to whom such an announcement was made, could tell the party agency, address the State Secretary, as competent to work for the public interest. I recall further a case in which Gauleiter Adolf Wagner in Munich told me that he was going to appear in a civil trial and make a speech in order to convince the court that party members had a right to a civil trial. On behalf of the Reich Minister of Justice, I visited the defendant Hess and asked him to prevent the appearance of Gauleiter Wagner and this wish was fulfilled.
Another means to influence Justice was done by the Schwarze Korps.
THE PRESIDENT: How does this evidence bear on the Reich Cabinet?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness knows conditions in the Ministry of Justice, and from his own activities. I am limiting myself to a few especial cases in one ministry. I have no more questions on this point. I believe the witness is almost finished with his answer. but did not keep their promises. The Ministry of Justice had occasion to hold conferences with the President of the Courts of Appears, but took advantage of these occasions to by that if they should point out to the Justices their intentions and any definite cases which they had to report to the Ministry. in cases of mistreatment in concentration camps? cases in which he was aware. In 1933 two lawyers, employed in the Ministry of Justice, were assigned the task of investigating all cases reported to this, and following them up with great emphasis. This was done, and in many cases, sentence was passed. Since 1939, the special jurisdiction of the SS was withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.
Q What were the personal relations of the Ministers to Hitler?
A I believe one must make a distinction between Hitler's relation to the party ministers and the non-party ministers. If they did not belong to the Party, they were distant, he didn't trust them. As to the Party Ministers, the relationship varied greatly. I believe, for example, that Ministers Rust and Darre were not as close to him as Goering and Goebbels. But the Party members, too, Hitler did not trust completely. This is shown by the fact that as far as I know, even Party members for years were not admitted to report to the Fuehrer. small?
A. Yes, very small. To my knowledge it was limited to a few person or personal contact among themselves?
A Hitler's point of view was that frequent meetings of the Cabinet Members was undesirable. From '38 on he emphatically rejected all attempts to form a Cabinet, even expressly prohibited unofficial meetings as a "beer evening." war, know anything about Hitler's plans?
A No. I may remark that I had the intention in the late summer of '39 to take a cure in Marienbad. For that reason, as the situation was tense, I asked the Minister of Justice what he thought about it, and he said, "Go right ahead. I consider it impossible that there will be any hostilities." Then I went to Marienbad, and at the beginning of September, when the war broke out, I returned.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have finished the examination. BY DR. KEMPNER:
Q Is it true, Dr. Schlegelberger, that the Reich Ministers, which means the members of the Reich Cabinet, had the highest rank, had the highest responsibility, and the highest pay of all German officials? the right to resign if he did not agree with Hitler's policies? who resigned?
Q What was his name?
Q Do you know a State Secretary who resigned?
A I don't remember.
Q Yourself, Dr. Schlegelberger, did you resign?
Q Then did you leave your office? you did not like the policies of the Fuehrer concerning the Judges?
Q Now, you remember that the Minister of Economics, Dr. Kurt Schmidt, resigned?
A I do not know that from my own knowledge, whether Dr. Schmidt resigned or whether he was dismissed. a new document, a short one, which I give to the Court. This document will become Exhibit 922.
DR. Schmidt: I should like to object to the admission of this affidavit. It deals with questions concerning the resignation of the witness which concerns him personally and in which he is greatly interested personally. This question, in my opinion, is not material at all. The witness should come here Himself, he lives near which, I believe that this affidavit is not sufficient to prove the credibility of the witness in any way. The witness seated he didn't knew anything about it. I believe the examination to question the credibility of this witness is not fulfilled by this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kempner, the Tribunal thinks you should submit the facts of the resignation to the witness.
DR. KEMPNER: You know that the Minister of Economics resigned ?
Do you remember now ?
WITNESS: Yes, I remember, but I do not know whether he resigned or whether he was dismissed. That I do not knew.
DR. KEMPNER: Do you know that the Minister Schmitt resigned because he knew that Hitler's policy would lead to war ?
WITNESS: That is unknown to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kempner, the Tribunal thinks you could put the first part of the affidavit to the witness.
DR. KEMPNER: I go back to the resignation of Minister Schmitt and ask you whether the following is true or not : "As minister of Economics I was a member of the Reich Cabinet from June 10 1933 until the beginning of January 1935. I resigned from the Cabinet, technically for reasons of ill health (June 29, 1934) but factually because of deep differences of opinion with the policy of the Hitler Cabinet." Are you informed about this Dr. Schlegelberger ?
WITNESS: I can only repeat, I only know that Mr. Schmitt was Reichs Minister of Economics and he then left the cabinet. In what way he left, whether he was dismissed, whether he wanted to be dismissed or whether he was dismissed for sickness or differences of opinion, I do not know. BY DR. KEMPNER:
Q. You know it is the truth that two ministers resigned and they were not put in concentration camps ?
A. That is certainly true.
Q. This answers my question. Is it true that the Reichs Cabinet did legislate its powers continuously ?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it true that the Reichs Cabinet had more than one hundred meetings and passed numerous laws. Is that correct ?
A. Yes.