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.
Q. Is it true that the Reichs Cabinet continues to pass and promulgate laws through the Enabling act without formal action by circulating the laws among the Reichs Cabinet members ?
A. It is true.
Q. many laws were passed by the Reichs Cabinet through this circulation provision in the year 1939 ?
A. No, I cannot answer that.
Q. In the year 1939 alone the Reichs Cabinet passed the following laws
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kempner, you can state what the fact is.
DR. KEMPNER: If I told you that they passed 67 laws, would you say that is the correct statement ?
WITNESS: I assume so, but if you say so, Dr. Kempner, it is true.
BY DR. KEMPNER:
Q. Do you know that the Reichs Cabinet had also the duty to approve the Reichs budget, because they had to approve the budgets of all ministires ?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you say that the members of the Reichs Cabinet were informed about the things which were going on in Germany because they had to approve the budget of all ministries ?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kempner, you are asking the next question a little too quickly. We did not hear the answer come through. The witness said there is very little to be derived from the budget or something of that sort.
DR. KEMPNER: Will you repeat the answer to the last question ?
WITNESS: I believe that very much can be determined from the Reichs BY Dr. KEMPNER:
Q. You know that the Reichs budget had special provisions for concentration camps ?
A. No, I did not know that.
Q. When you were the acting Minister of Justice, did you have anything to do with the anti-Jewish legislation ?
A. I believe that during the period in which I was active, one law or decree was issued in the year 1940 as far as I can recall, concerning conditions that effected Jews.
Q. Do you remember that you yourself made up legislation, together with the defendant, Dr. Frick, to sterilize all half Jews in Germany and the occupied territories ?
A. No, I do not recall that.
Q. I could show you a letter from the official files, which bears your signature and you might be able to refresh your memory by reading this letter. This will be my last question.
DR. KEMPNER: This will become US Exhibit No. 923.
BY DR. KEMPNER:
Q. Do you remember now that you put your signature under this terrible document ?
A. Yes, I remember; yes , I remember it.
Q. Do you remember that the Party and that the defendant Frick proposed to sterilize all half-Jews ?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remember that the various cabinet members, like the Defendant Interior, Dr. Frick (attention of his Secretary of State), that the Foreign Office (attention Under-Secretary Luther) got copies of this legislative proposal ?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remember, on Page 1 of this document, that this legislative proposal to sterilize all half-Jews should be submitted to Hitler ?
A. I did not quite understand the question ?
Q. Do you remember that your and Dr. Frick's proposal should be submitted to Hitler ?A. (No response)
Q. Yes or no ?
A. Dr. Kempner, I beg your pardon, I still have not quite understood your question.
Q. Was it not true that this proposal should be submitted to Hitler ?
A. I believe so.
Q. And you remember what Hitler said ?
A. No, I do not remember that.
Q. Is it a true statement that if your Secretary of State Freisler told you that if Hitler does not like this sharp measure of the Reich Cabinet at the present time, he will postpone it until after the war ?
A. I do not remember that. Q. You regret deeply your signature under this law ?
A. I can say yes. I should like to add only one thing. At that time, it was a serious struggle to obtain this limitation which was in the letter.
Q. But you regret deeply these crimes; is that correct ?
A. I regret greatly that I signed this.
DR. KEMPNER: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, D. Dix.
DR. DIX (Counsel for the defendant Schacht): Your Lordhsip, I ask the Tribunal to permit me to ask three questions of the witness. Of course, these questions arise from the cross-examination of Dr. Kempner, because the answers to these questions themselves concern the interests of the defendant Schacht directly, and because the charge against the Reich Cabinet is not being discussed, but in the period known to the Tribunal, Schacht was a member of the Reich Cabinet. For these reasons, I ask the Tribunal to make an exception and to permit me, after the cross-examination, although I am hot a defense counsel for an organization, to ask questions of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on. BY DR. DIX:
Q. Dr. Schlegelberger, for the dismissal of a minister, was Hitler's signature necessary ?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall that not immediately after 1933, but later, perhaps only during the war, Hitler expressly prohibited Reich Ministers from handing in their resignations ?
A. I may say the following : An order was issued changing the German Civil Servant's law. According to this law, every official had the right to be released from his office. This right was abolished during the war. It was decreed that the dismissal did not have to be given. And as I recall, Hitler actually did not accept resignations of ministers.
Q. Now, my third and last question : As State Secretary, you answered something on this question about the dismissal of the former minister, Elz von Ruebenach.
You said, yes, he resigned. To examine your memory, may I point out that we heard here from Goering on the witness stand a modified version of this event which agrees with the recollection of the defendant Schacht. Of course, I do not have the transcript of the Goering case before me. I can only give Goering's testimony from memory. But I believe that I shall present it essentially correctly. According to the testimony, this difficulty developed from the wearing of the Golden Party Emblem by the various ministers, including Elz von Ruebenach. When Hitler, with the idea of pleasing the ministers, had given him this Golden Party Emblem he made some remarks some to the effect of whether he was entering upon any confessional obligations. Hitler was annoyed at this, and then it came about that Elz von Ruebenach was dismissed. It was not exactly a resignation on von Ruebenach's own initiative.
I believe that I reproduced Goering's testimony correctly.
A. I know these events only from reports which I received from others. I myself was not present at the incident. I have no reason to believe that the defendant Goering, who was present, did not describe the things as they actually happened.
Q. You say you knew the story only from reports; that is, oral reports from Mr. Guertner, for example ?
A. (Nods head).
Q. Do you still recall these reports, more or less ? Or does what I have just said refresh your memory ?
A. No; I recall vaguely that according to Mr. Guertner's report, Elz von Ruebenach had said something about confessional obligations, and that the Fuhrer was annoyed at that, and the conflict had resulted from that incident. I can recall this matter now. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of an eye-witness.
DR. DIX: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now. (The Tribunal adjourned until Saturday, 3 August 1946 at 1000 hours).
3 Aug M LJG 1-1
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, you have an application, I think, to make. Haven't you been told about it?
DR. SIEMERS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: You wanted to apply for the witness Vice Admiral Buerkner; and also another request, that you should visit Vice Admiral Buerkner, and for three documents, a Pocket Book of the Fleet for the years 1908 to 1914 and a handbook of Seapower and Prestige at Sea for the years 1903, 1912, and 1914; and thirdly, a historical work on the German navy.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, your Lordship. That is correct, Mr. President. I made these applications for information purposes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that application is very late in the day and the Tribunal has already indicated that they propose only to hear or to grant applications for witnesses and document for very special reasons and therefore they would like to hear you as to what the special reasons are.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I cannot yet see how far anything in the course of the testimony of the General Staff will be necessary and some of these are documents which I would like to look over and that is why I made this application. I think and believe that I will not need to make any further applications to the Tribunal except in so far as I need to for myself in the course of the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: You are asking to go on a long journey to see Vice Admiral Buerkner before any evidence is called which makes it necessary.
DR. SIEMERS: As far as I know, Admiral Buerkner is in Ansbach.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't It a fact that Vice Admiral Buerkner was here when he was summoned as a witness for the defendant Jodl 5 Aug M LJG 2 and that then he was not called and therefore left Nurnberg?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I hoped, too, that it will not be necessary to have him for the testimony for the General Staff was just taken before the Commission and there are several questions which I would like to discuss because these are matters which in the earlier testimony for the individual defendants had not arisen.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the application.
DR. SIEMERS: Thank you, your Lordship. I would like to add one thing, Mr. President. I had previously asked and I had been told by the General Secretary that no difficulties would arise from this and if I wanted to speak to Admiral Buerkner again I could probably speak to him and so I did not think at the time that there would be such great difficulties and I request the Tribunal, as far as possible, to give no the possibility of doing so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel for the Reich Cabinet want to re-examine this witness ? BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Witness, a letter was shown to you yesterday, a letter which you had written to Reich Minister Dr. Lammers. How did you come to write that letter ?
A. From this letter to Dr. Lammers, I gathered the following : On the 6th of March, at the request of the racial officer of the S.S.,conversation took place concerning the handling and the treatment of half Jews. I no longer know where the conversation took place. In any case, it was not in the Ministry of Justice. In this conference, propositions were made which I found absolutely impossible -- the half Jews should, with out differentiation be handled as Jews and deported to working camps in Poland. In order to prevent decisions which I found absolutely unbearable, I turned to Reich Minister Lammers. I would like to stress, here, that the Ministry of Justice in this matter, so to speak, was only active on the perifery. These proposals included forced divorce which perhaps was very necessary, but only secondary when we consider the general problem.
Q. Yesterday, another letter from you was submitted to you. It was dated April 5, 1942. It was submitted to various party officers. The contents of this letter seems to be connected with the conversation of March 6.
A. When I consider both letters, I can only say the following: apparently, I had written to Reich Minister Lammers and not found the necessary support from him and I wanted, under all circumstances, to prevent the proposal from being achieved, I found that complete denial was not possible. I had to make a positive proposal in order to limit as far as possible the number of people to whom it would be applied; therefore, I proposed to exclude, completely, the following application of the rule, that is to say, the second class, mixed persons, these who had only one non-alien grandfather and those products of mixed marriages of the first degree who were not capable of being assimilated, and thirdly, the mixed ones of the first degree who had partners in marriage who were half Jews, There remains, therefore, only a limited class of mixed persons.
By virtue of sterilizing them, they could be prevented from further producing mixed persons. Therefore, I also oppose the compulsory divorce. I wish also to repeat, today, what I said yesterday at the conclusion, I regret deeply that on account of the circumstances of the time and the forces at work at the time, I could not make a better proposal.
Q. Yesterday, in the cross-examination, you asked about the retirement of Minister Dr. Schmidt. Is it correct that the retirement of Dr. Schmidt came as a result of health reasons; that he collapsed and fainted at a conference ?
A. That is what I was told.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is all. I am finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, with reference to your letters to Dr. Lammers, which I understand were of the 6th of March and the 6th of April, the about which you have just been asked -- you remember them ?
WITNESS: Yes. I remember them, I remember the letters.
THE PRESIDENT: The conditions in the working camps in Poland were, rilized ?
WITNESS: That is my opinion
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire.
THE PRESIDENT: I call, on Dr. Pelckmann, counsel for the SS.
MR. ELWYN JONES: If your Honor pleases, before Dr. Pelckmann calls his witnesses, I have an application to make to the Tribunal with, regard to the witness Sievers who gave evidence before the Commission. came to Nurnberg. They are from Himmler's files. Some of those documents are letters written by this man, Sievers, himself. All of them relate to the work of an important component part of the SS, namely the Ahnenerbe, the SS ancestry Heritage Research Organization of which Sievers was the head executive.
for War Purposes. My application is for leave to cross-examine Sievers before the Tribunal upon these documents. I make this application in view of the very great importance of these documents. In my submission their contents should go upon the record of this trial, I do submit that the documents should be put to Sievers personally, In my submission they wholly controvert the testimony he gave to the Commissioner, and I imagine the Tribunal itself may well want to question Sievers. It is in any event, my intention if you will allow me, to put these documents in. I do not think it will take much mere time if I put them to the witness himself.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness, of which you are speaking, has be called before the Commission, I understand ?
MR. ELWYN JONES: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: But he has not be called before the Tribunal nor applied for ?
MR. ELWYN JONES: No.
MR. PRESIDENT: He is still in Nurnberg ?
MR. ELWYN JONES: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: He is not one of the witnesses who has been granted to Dr. Pelckmann ?
MR: ELWYN JONES: No sir, he is an additional witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. ELWYN JONES: Dr. Pelckmann opposes my application
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well. We will hear you upon that now, Doctor.
DR. PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, I regret that I must oppose the request of the Prosecutor for permission to cross-examine. I would like first and foremost, to say, clearly, that I do not wish, in any way, to prevent the clarification of the case of the SS and the question of Sievers. My reasons are based upon the following : In no case can the cross-examination take place before the Tribunal, Sievers is not one of the witnesses I have asked to question before the Tribunal.