A. The staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer had that name until the middle of May 1941, until the time when Reich Minister Hess-that is, the Deputy of the Fuehrer--secretly flew to England, At that time the staff was transformed into the Party Chancellery, and for the sake of simplicity I shall only use the name "Party Chancellery" from now on.
The Party Chancellery was an organization with, in my estimation, from 750 to 1,000 persons; there was one office in Munich and one and one in Berlin. The Party Chancellery was divided into three divisions, and these divisions were again subdivided into groups:
Division I, which is of no interest here, was in charge of management, building, and maintenance; and in that division the personnel of the Party Chancellery itself was administered. Furthermore, the registry was there, and the telegraph and teletype system.
The nucleus of the Party Chancellery as a Party office was Division II, the Party Political Division. Here was the actual leadership of the Party, that is, the NSDAP, and here was the direct channel to the Gaue, the Kreise (Districts) and the local groups. A certain Friedrichs was in charge of this Division.
Division III was the state or constitutional division, as it was called; the later Undersecretary, Dr. Klopfer, was in charge of it. Here everything was dealt with which had to do with the State and the State functions of the Party Chancellery, while, as I have already stated, purely Party matters were dealt with in Division II.
Q. Would you please explain to the Tribunal the contrast between this office, the Party Chancellery, and the purely Party offices of the NSDAP?
A. In addition to the Party Chancellery, the Party had different offices on the level of the Reich Leadership, for instance, to cite an example, the Reich Legal Office, the Office for Agricultural Policy, and the Office for Public Welfare. Thus, there were a number of different agencies.
Party jurisdiction went through up to the supreme Party court. It also was divided into Gau and Kreis courts. In addition to that, there were also, of course, some other Reich offices, such as the office for Reich Propaganda Matters and Reich Organizational direction, and so on.
Within the Party Chancellery, in addition to these three divisions, there was also the so-called Reichsleiter Bureau, Reich Leader Office, That was so to speak, the staff closest formerly around Reich Minister Hess and, later on, around Reichsleiter Bormann. This Reich Leader Office Bureau, which at times had up to three jurists on its staff, met partly in Munich and partly in Berlin, in the office there, and partly at the Fuehrer Headquarters immediately with Bormann.
Q. You spoke of Division III as the state or constitutional division. I ask you whether it was anchored on a legal basis.
A. If I speak of a state or constitutional division, I give it this designation because of the nature of the work of that Division. Division III was, so to speak, the counterpart of the state organization in the Party sector. Division III was divided into seven groups. I shall describe this organization somewhat later.
In accordance with the law for the securing of unity of Party and State, the Deputy of the Fuehrer had been made a Reich Minister. Supplementary decrees and orders laid down that the Deputy of the Fuehrer, in the case of national laws and ordinances, had to participate, by having to approve the drafts of such decrees. This right was then transferred to the leader of the Party Chancellery, and, in a more stringent form--as the witness Schlegelberger has already testified-quite clearly in a circular, or perhaps in an ordinance it was repeatedly stated that the leader of the Party Chancellory always had the position of a participating minister. In the same way as in the purely legislative field, the Deputy of the Fuehrer entered into state personnel matters. No higher official could be employed or promoted if this measure in the state sector was not approved by the Deputy of the Fuehrer and later by the leader of the Party Chancellery.
In order to fulfil these state and constitutional functions, Division III had been formed in the Party Chancellery, or rather earlier, in the staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer. As I have already stated, it consisted of seven groups:
Group III-A, above all, dealt with the sphere of the Reich Ministry of tho Interior and questions of nationality (Voekstum). During the last period of my time in Munich, the witness Anker was in charge of Group III, who was examined here as a witness for the prosecution.
In Group III-B, all economic matters were dealt with: economics, food, traffic, mails, and armaments.
Group III-C, the group of which I was in charge, dealt with laws and orders as far as they had been issued by the Ministry of Justice, and Party legal questions.
Group III-D worked on educational and ecclesiastical questions, as well as matters of the Foreign Office.
Group III-E dealt with financial questions, and Group III-P (Paula) dealt with personnel matters; that is, all state personnel matters, without consideration of the fact as to whether they originated from the Indiciary, the Administration, Finance, or anywhere else.
Then there was a group, III-S, which had special tasks in the cultural field.
Q. You mentioned Group III-P, which dealt with all of the state personnel matters. The prosecution has submitted documents in which, in the case of promotion of three defendants who are present here, the Party Chancellery was mentioned in the files. This is Exhibit 408, NG-599, document book IX-A, page 46 in the German book; and Exhibit 410, NG-587, in the same document book, IX-A, at page 84 and following pages in the German book.
In order to explain to the Court the position of your own legal group -- that is, III-C--it seems necessary to me to clarify, by means of these two exhibits whether your legal group participated in these personnel matters.
May I ask you, do you have Exhibit 408 before you?
Q. Exhibit 498 on Page 11 contains a letter of 18 December 1940, current nr.6; at that time Deputy of the Fuehrer Stab. It concerns Landgerichtsrat Rudolph Oeschey in Numberg. On he letterhead one can see what department composed this letter. Munich, Brown House, and now comes the decisive file note, 3-P. In Exhibit 410 there is also a remark on Page 13 at the bottom current nr. 96 NG 587, a letter this time by the leader of the Party Chancellery because it was written at a layer time, namely 12 May 1943. It concerns the appointment of Ministerial Councillor Dr. Joel in the Reich ministry of Justice as General Public Prosecutor. Here, too, you can see from the letter hear that the file note 3-P is mentioned. Mr. Klemm, by means of these two documents would you please tell the Tribunal which were introduced in connection with your case, as to how personnel matters were handled, in respect of employees of the Ministry of Justice?
A. From this file note 3-P it is appaent, even though in both cases Justice officials are concerned, that these matters were not handled in 3-C. Such questions and such approvals or refusals were not even submitted to the legal division for information. The individual groups were not asked about these personnel questions. The personnel division in the Party Chancellery 3-P worked entirely independently. It was pure coincidence when by chance one spoke with one of the experts of 3-P during lunch that one happened to hear that the general public prosecutor's office at such and such a place, would be filled, but this was only on the occasion of a luncheon conversation without finding out details.
Q. Witness, you have now listed the individual groups, seven, as you stated. I now ask you to make a statement as to how the individual groups of the Party Chancellery were in contact with each other or how they worked together.
A. In my description I omit Division I, because it only dealt with technical matters of the management of the office, administrative details within the Party Chancellery. I can limit myself to the relationship of Division 2, that is the purely Party political division, and Division 3. These two divisions worked not with each other but against each other. Already this structure was quite arbitrary and unorganized. For example there were fields of work which had the same name in both divisions. In the course of time Division 2 arrogated this to itself. This battle between the two divisions was not based only on purely factual reasons in the fields of work but also had other, deeper reasons. In Division 3 officials were working who had almost exclusively been detainled by their ministries for such work. In Division 2 only political leaders were working whole-time who, for the most part, looked down upon the jurists with contempt. The word "jurist" was a kind of epithet, and they saw in the people of Division 3 only civil servants and deputies of the ministries. They did not concede that we did any political work at all, and especially not work of a party political nature. They did not acknowledge us a political leaders at all. We in Division 3 were only a necessary evil in the Party Chancellery; that is how they saw things, because without the experts they could not get along. This disrespoct--I cannot call it anything else -this disrespect on the part of Division 2 was especially strengthened by the attitude of Bormann toward Division 3. He had approximately the same attitude. The result was that between Division 2 and 3 there was a constant malicious fight for competency. Division 2 constantly tried to arrogate to itself matters which could have something remotely to do with Party matters. These attempts took place also when state matters were predominantly or exclusively concerned. That is, if the effects would take place in the state sector.
This situation was favored by the unbelievable conditions that existed in the registry. This registry had been built up by laymen. In 1933 Germany had several million unemployed and an effort was made to find a place for these people and again give them an opportunity to make a living. The result was that people were put in such positions only to find a place for then, people, who had no idea about an organizational structure. In this registry former street car conductors and violinists were employed, only not people who knew anything about it. Therefore the entries were constantly directed to wrong places and then the other division did not let them go out. Whether a letter went to Division 2 or Division 3 or directly to Borman was in many cases just a question of luck.
Q. I wanted to ask you also, in Division 3 was there also a financially worse position compared with the people in Division 2?
A. We were paid the same way as we were paid when we were in the employ of the state, while the political leaders, the Main Office political leaders had their own salary scale and I do not want to repeat here, I can refer to what the witness Anker stated who explained that a political leader of Division 2 in the same position as Anker got about double the amount of salary than an official.
Q. I want to demonstrate to the Tribunal the borderline of competency between Divisions 2 and 3. I have here a document which the Prosecution believed they could bring into some kind of connection with your case. It is Ext. 108, NG 364, Document Book 1-E, Page 51, in the German Document Book. This is the infamous letter about the lynching of Allied Airmen who had baled out. The letterhead is the NSDAP, Party Chancellery. Further, the leader of the Party Chancellery and the place from which it was sent is the Fuehrer Headquarters. The date is 30 May 1944.
A.- Even though this is a circular from the Party Chancellery at a time at which I had been out of the Party Chancellery already for five months, I do know that such circular letters in principle were not submitted by Division II to Division III when they were in a draft form or *** cooperation, even if the police, the Wehrmacht and the Administration of Justice and their spheres of work were discussed in it.
Q.- The letter is signed by Bormann. In the same document, that is Exhibit 108, there is contained another letter which also has the date 30 May 1944. It is addressed to all Gau Leaders and Kreis Leaders, and refers to Bormann's circular letter. It is signed by Friedrichs. Is Friedrichs the Chief?
A.- Friedrichs is the Chief of Department II.
Q.- Before, when you were speaking about the registry and the delivery of letters, you mentioned that many letters went directly to Bormann, to the Fuehrer Headquarters. Thus these letters did not go to Munich to the divisions that had been established there. Was there any standard in regard to the distribution of these letters, to whom they were to be sent?
A.- If personal letters to Bormann in his position as Reichsleiter or as Secretary of the Fuehrer were received by a Minister or a Reichsleiter or a Gauleiter or any other prominent person in the service of the State or the Party, these letters went always first to Bormann in the Fuehrer Headquarters. Other letters went quite frequently first to Bormann. It depended entirely on who of the people I described before who did not have the requisite training, at the registry and the mail got such a letter into his hands and how he forwarded it. Of course, efforts were made to make as few mistakes as possible which would arouse Bormann's. The result was that as much as possible was sent to Bormann so that the reproach could not be made that he had been skipped.
Q.- Perhaps we can clarify this by means of an example. The prosecution introduced Exhibit 143, that is NG-558, Document Book 1-B. This is a personal letter which Thierack wrote to Bormann, dated 13 October 1942.
In this letter the information is passed on that in the extermination of Jews and Poles the Administration of Justice wanted to give a helping hand, In the form in which it is submitted, this letter is addressed personally by Thierack to Bormann. I am asking you whether this letter went via your Department III-C, that is the legal division, or whether Bormann later sent it to your legal division and thus informed you about it?
A.- Whether this letter was sent to Bormann too by Thierack, I don't know. It did not come to Munich to Group III-C. I personally saw this letter for the first time here when the document was submitted.
Q.- We have another document here, that is Exhibit 70, NG-280, Document Book I-C, page 19 in the German book. It is a letter which Lammers, who was then Chief of the Reich Chancellery, sent to Bormann. It is a complaint about an inadequate sentence regarding a Pole. This document contains several letters. We are here concerned with the third letter with the address: To Reichsleiter Bormann. I ask you to also make a statement in regard to this whether the legal group or you personally had this letter, as shown to you, put at your disposal.
A.- This letter came to Bormann personally, and in the same way as the preceding letter from Lammers to Bormann which was written by him personally. Department III-C was not informed about this correspondence: Bormann-Lammers. I have to add something here. Bormann had, after all, two functions. He was leader of the Party Chancellery and he was Secretary to the Fuehrer. He stayed almost exclusively in the Fuehrer Headquarters. It was often difficult to find out whether Bormann acted as Leader of the Party Chancellery or as Secretary of the Fuehrer. In a case like the one here, Exhibit 70, certainly the Fuehrer exercized critism and to that extent Bormann then acted as the Fuehrer's secretary. He then referred the matter to the State sector via Lammers. In addition an exterior circumstance must be considered between the Fuehrer Head quarters and the Party Chancellery in Munich, there were thousands of kilometers.
For some time the Fuehrer Headquarters was in Winnitsa in the Ukraine. In the immediate proximity of the Fuehrer Headquarters were the Field Headquarters of Lammers, that is, of the Reich Chancellory. For purely technical reasons the mail went immediately back and forth between the Fuehrer Headquarters and Lammers' Field Headquarters.
Q.- Another interim question, Mr. Klemm. You characterized Bormann in two capacities; one, as Leader of the Party Chancellery; and secondly, as Secretary of the Fuehrer. This letter which I am just showing to you however contains the designation: Reichsleiter Bormann. Was that a third capacity in which Bormann worked?
A.- In contrast to other Reichsleiters, as far as I know, Bormann became Reichsleiter more in title only. Goebbels, for example, was a Reichsleiter too because he was in charge of the Reich Propaganda Office. In spite of that, he was also Reichsleiter Goebbels, the Gauleader of Berlin. At the very moment in which Bormann became Leader of the Party Chancellery and in addition Secretary of the Fuehrer, the concept Reichsleiter did not signify a special office or a special function any more.
Q. That is enough. Since you have described the geographical and technical conditions in which the correspondence went as a rule, I now want to ask you in principle did you at all receive information about that correspondence which went to Bormann to the Fuehrer Headquarters or which went from Bormann from the Fuehrer Headquarters or which went from Bormann from the Fuehrer Headquarters to other State offices or Party functionaries?
A.- That depended. There were several possibilities. Either Bormann answered such letters immediately himself, or those parts of the Reich Leader's Office which were also in the Fuehrer Headquarters dealt with them. I have already mentioned that sometimes up to three jurists belonged to the Reich Leader office who advised Bormann.
A certain proof of the fact that Bormann dealt with a matter himself is the initial "B.O." Very frequently we were not informed about such matters, because often they were put in the files of the secretary of the Fuehrer which did not concern us in the Party Chancery after all.
Q. Among the documents submitted by the prosecution there are several letters which have this initial "B.O." which you mentioned. I would like to ask you whether Exhibit 243, NG-199, Document Book 1-E, page 136 of the German book, has this file sign which you mentioned. I assume that you know the contents of this document well. This is a personnel measure where Bormann agrees to a suggestion made by Thierack. Did this statement with the initials B.O. become known to your legal division?
A. This is a letter which Bormann himself dictated in the Fuehrer's headquarters. The local designation in such letters changed quite frequently. Usually he used a double address, Munich of that and that date; and below that, Fuehrer's Headquarters, with that and that date. From the location one can thus not conclude where Bormann happened to be, but the sign B.O., the initial B.O., means without doubt this letter was dictated by Bormann. In this case it is all the more interesting, since this was not a simple personnel measure but a legal regulation which Thierack wanted to carry out. In spite of that III-C did not participate in this matter.
Q. We have a further document; it is Exhibit 387, NG-1524-PS, Document Book VIII-A; it is the famous euthanasia letter to the Gau Leadership, Franconia. Would you tell the Tribunal here too, with the aid of the signs on the letterhead, and the letter itself, whether Bormann wrote the letter himself or whether your legal group was responsible. Do you have the letter before you?
A. I have notes here. From this dictation sign it is apparent again that Bormann dictated this letter personally; also, from the second part of the dictation sign one sees plainly that it was a stenographer who belonged to the office of the Reichsleiter. Concerning this document it is interesting also that on page 2, it is apparently from a note made by the Gau Leadership, that the document is from the files of the Gau Leadership; on this page there is a note - for party member Hummel; he was a member of the Reichsleiter office, the Reichsleiter Bureau.
From these circumstances it is apparent that this matter was handled exclusively by Bormann in the Reich leader's office.
Q. And that in spite of the fact that under Dr. Hummel - you read PG Hummel - there is the word "Justice"?
Q. The letterhead contains the following: Deputy of the Fuehrer, Munich, Brown House, at present in Berlin. Would you please explain this letterhead to the Tribunal, too - what it says here - "at present Berlin"? You said that as a rule Bormann was at Hitler's headquarters.
A. As I already stated, the Party Chancery also had an office in Berlin, and the general, stationery was used, but often the Berlin office was added, so that the answer would be directed to Berlin because the possibility existed that between Berlin and the Fuehrer's headquarters the daily courier plane could be used for this Reich Leader mail. If the Gau Leadership of Franconia thus wrote to Berlin, it could happen that the mail reached Bormann at the Fuehrer's headquarters already the very next day; otherwise, it would have to be sent by field post and that would have taken more than one or two weeks.
Q. Herr Klemm, you spoke about several possibilities concerning Bormann receiving letters or sending letters. You said it all depended on the circumstances. I now ask you to explain to the Tribunal further what additional possibilities existed in order to clarify whether you were informed about any measures taken by Bormann or not.
A. The second possibility was that Bormann wrote his decision or his opinion on the margin of the letter and then gave it to the Referent in the Party Chancery and left it up to him to draft the answer in accordance with the decision he had written in the margin. Whether the answer to the letter then formulated was signed by Bormann himself, or whether the Referent, his group leader or the division chief signed it, depended in each case on who signed the first letter.
Q. The documents which I just mentioned were all brought into close connection with your person by the prosecution, apparently solely because the Party Chancery is mentioned on these documents. I now come to Exhibit 77, that is NG-412, Book 1-C, page 92. On this there is your name; the connection with your person is very clear here. It concerns an approval that you gave to a draft of a law which the Reich Ministry of Justice had drafted on order of the Party Chancellery. The contents were retroactive application of regulations concerning treason. I would like to ask you on the basis of what you have explained - was this approval given on your own decision or on Bormann's instructions?
A. I did not give this approval by my own decision. In the case of drafts of laws in particular, Bormann always reserved the right to make the decision for himself. In this case the letter concerned, which the Ministry of Justice had among others, probably also addressed to the Leader of the Party Chancery, was returned from the Fuehrer's headquarters; probably on the margin it said "approved" or "yes" or "in accordance" - those were the words which Bormann used; and since in this letter of the Ministry of Justice a wish of the Fuehrer was referred to which he had expressed already before in discussions, it was quite clear for Bormann that he would agree, and in such a case I could then sign.
Q. This letter of the Party Chancellery is dated 18 June 1942 and also has the file number III-C; that evidently was issued by the legal group. I would like to ask you now to describe somewhat more in detail the sphere of the task of the legal group.
DR. SCHILF: Just a moment, Herr Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: We will continue with the direct examination at 1:30. One very brief announcement - which perhaps should have been made at the opening of the session. The procedure which we outlined this morning obviously requires for the convenience of the defense counsel, and also for the convenience of the prosecution, that defendants' counsel should as early as possible advise their associate counsel when they propose to call a witness so that an associate counsel may be prepared to continue with the examination of the witness.
I think both the associate defense counsel and prosecution should receive as early notice as possible. We overlooked saying that this morning.
We will recess now until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 8 July 1947)
MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
ROBERT KLEMM - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. We discussed Exhibit 77, that was the approval of the Party Chancellery to a draft or law which was prepared by tho Ministry of Justice. I had asked you what matters in the Justice Group of the Party Chancellory were dealt with by you in addition?
A. I want to summarize the tasks of the justice group briefly. First it had to deal with laws and drafts and decrees of the Reich Ministry of Justice, unless for reasons of their subject, they were dealt with by another group, because that group appeared to be competent. Secondly, penal matters based on the law against malicious acts, himtuecke gesetz, as far as on the basis of legal provisions tho approval of the Chief of the Party Chancellory was required for the prosecution. Thirdly, compalints from party offices or individuals against decisions by the Courts. Fourth, complaints from the administration of justice against interference by party offices into pending trials. Fifth, to observe especially civil and penal cases which concerned the party. Sixth, matters of legal reform, and, seventh, expert opinions in the field of the party law.
Q. As for the first group, approval of laws and drafts, was that approval of tho Party Chancellory for drafts of law based on a legal foundation?
A. I have already made statements concerning that question when I explained why there was a department III, the so-called state law and constitutional law department in the Party Chancellory. The chief of the Party Chancellory, on the basis of certain legal provisions in the case of any law or draft or any decree was a minister who had to participate in it's drafting, that is to say, he had the same position as a minister participating in legislation.
Q. In discussing the first part of your activities you made the reservation that the justice group in the party chancellory dealt only with those drafts which for reasons of their subject did not belong within tho competency of another group. Would you please elucidate to the Tribunal what you mean by that?
A. First I have to make a more general reservation. It was not the task of individual groups of department III or of department III itself to, display any political activity. The party political elements connected with a problem were to be dealt with by the political offices of the party. I had listed before the Reich Legal Office, the Office for Agrarian Policy, the Office for Public Health and others. These offices within the party developed their policies through the Reichleiters who were in charge of these offices, and did that directly with the Fuehrer. The groups of department III and above all, not the justice group, could not deal with the individually specialized matters to the extent that it would have been necessary. I have already explained that group 3-C comprised four to six officers. That group was balanced in tho ministry of justive by well over 200 experts. Our tasks - and above all because each individual in that group considered himself a representative of the thought of the ministry of justice, -were to, prevent difficulties which might arise by some legal arrangement between the party and the offices of tho administration of justice. For instance, in group 3-C, we always were very skeptical to any general, clauses which were contained in a draft and laws because such general clauses are the pets of the layman, and he sticks to them because that affords him the opportunity to criticize. That arrangement which was as such provided by law that the Chief of the Party Secretariat always had the capacity of a participating minister, was not agreed to, by various sectors of the administration of the state, and thus, for instance, Goering in his various positions which he held at the same time, as minister for aviation, as plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan and as chairman of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich, never stuck to it, and never submitted any drafts.
Likewise, the High Command of the Armed Forces never submitted the drafts of laws as far as they concerned the administration of justice, penal regulations, et cetera, to the Party Chancellory. The individual group, however, the group justice could not independently deal with a draft, if problems were dealt with in that draft which did not immediately concern the group justice but in their essence concerned other ministries, for instance, all questions of "Volkstum", nationality were dealt within group 3-A. For instance questions of Poles, and Jews, Group 3-C, to cite another example, in the field of law concerning hereditary estates, could not decide independently. That was claimed by group 3-B, which was in charge of questions of food, the food ministry, to which the Hereditary Estate Court belonged also. I believe these examples should be sufficient.
Q. You had set forth that the various sub-groups of 3 were offices corresponding to the institutions of the State, that you would consider the ministry of the interior as analogous to group 3-A. I ask you now since you mention Poles and Jews, the problems of which were to be dealt with by 3-A, whether the purpose for that was that as far as the organization of the State was concerned, the Ministry of the Interior took a loading part in dealing with these questions?
A. Croup 3-A had dealt with these problems because it was the equivalent of the ministry of the interior. It was dealt with there only and if on the one side the Ministry of the Interior took the leading part, then group 3-C had nothing to do with these matters at all.
Q The Prosecution has submitted a number of documents which concerned, particularly Poles and Jews, and the Prosecution has said that you can be brought in connection with these matters. I should like to mention exhibit 338, NG 229, in document book V-A; would you please explain exhibit 338 to the Tribunal and also state whether your Justice Group was connected with it? Maybe I can briefly explain that it is the introduction of German civil law in the so-called incorporated Eastern territories.
A In exhibit 338, we are concerned with a period from 18 September until 17 December 1944. At that time I was in Holland and could not know anything about it.
Q Therefore, in contrast to the assumption of the Prosecution, you had nothing to do with that matter at all?
Q I ask you now how about the introduction of penal law in the so-called incorporated Eastern territories? Did you have anything to do with that?
A The fundamental decrees which could be called the preliminary bills of the penal laws concerning Poles which contained all fundamental thoughts; for instance, the decrees about the introduction of German penal law in the incorporated Eastern territories of 6 June 1940, that is exhibit 459, had been decreed before June 1940.
Q Mr. Klemm, I should like to interrupt you here; for the purpose of the record, I want to state that 459 is NG 880, in document book V, supplement. Will you please continue now?
AAt that time, as I just stated, I was still a soldier.
Q Vie come now to another subject that was handled in the Party Chancellory. It is the so-called penal law decree concerning Poles. A penal law which was issued particularly for the Poles. Here again the Prosectuion puts you in a position as a person connected with it. There are the following exhibits: No. 199, that is NG 144, in document book III-H, page 59; exhibit 200, NG 130, also in III-H, on page 66 in the German text; then, exhibit 341, that is NG 227, document book V-A, page 39; exhibit 342, that is NG 127, also in document book V-A; and, finally exhibit 343, that is NG 144, also in document book V-A. What can you tell us about your participation in the development of these problems of Penal Law for Poles?
A The idea of the earlier years concern the special penal law decrees for Poles and eminated from the Chief of the Security Police of 9 October 1940. Then, the Reich Ministry of Justice invites to a conference of 12 December 1940 -- that can be seen from document 342 in the meantime the exhaustive opinion of the Deputy of the Fuehrer of 20 November 1940 is received; that can be seen from exhibit 200, and also from 341. Furthermore, we see from 'exhibit 341, that the Reich Chancellory asks the Reich Ministry of Justice to state its opinion concerning these subjects, and that on 26 November 1940, and I assume also that all these instructions were discussed on the occasion of the conference on 10 December 1940. I had nothing to do with either the point of view or the opinion of the Staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, nor did I attend the conference in the department because until March 1941, I was in Holland. The draft for the law prepared by the Reich Ministry of Justice is found in exhibit 199, and there, as well as in the note of the Reich Chancellory, in exhibit 200, it is explicitely emphasized that the suggestions of the Deputy of the Fuehrer of 20 November 1940 have to a far reaching extent been taken into account. And as can be seen from the notes contained in exhibit 200, subsequently, the party chancellory had no longer anything to do with it, that seems to conclude the whole matter.
Q Did the Party Chancellory, at the time when you were there, get a final draft of that penal law against Poles, submitted, or in other words, did Group III-C hear anything about it?
A That I would not know. Bormann, himself, was the one who had to give the approval according to his own directives about submitting matters to him, and his approval; maybe he handled it himself, but it is also possible that since the return of Volkstum, nationality was emphasized so much in this decree, it was handled by the Department Chief together with III-A.
Q I think that concludes that question. Now, III-C, that is the Justice Group, is also brought into connection with the Standgerichte, civil courts martial, and that at the time when you worked there, the Standgerichte which were to be established for the Poles. The Prosecution submitted exhibit 345, that is NG 136, in document Book V-A; and, exhibit 349, that is, 1249-PS, in document book V-B; would you please comment on that?
AAlso about these matters I do not know anything nor can I imagine that the Party Chancellory, the Party Secretariat, had anything to do with it because that was only concerned with putting into effect of a decree which was part of the penal law decree concerning Poles, and these Standgerichte, civil courts martial had more the character of police courts.
Q Now, I come to some more documents submitted by the Prosecution, that is exhibit 350, which is NG 360, in document book V-B; and exhibit 356, that is NG 126, also in book V-B; they are concerned with the execution of sentences which had been pronounced against Poles -death sentences against Poles from the so-called incorporated Eastern territories. There are lists which were compiled every month by the Reich Governors and Chief Presidents from the incorporated Eastern territories, and these lists were sent in and contained information on death sentences and executions in the Eastern territories. Did you have anything to do with that matter?
AAgain I do not know anything about that. As far as I know the Party, Secretariat was not concerned with it. That is shown by the covering letter to Lammers in Exhibit 356, where it expressly states that the right of pardons was transferred in agreement with the Minister and the Chief of the Praesidial Kanzlei, but no mention is made of an agreement with the Chief of the Party Chancellory, the Party Secretariat.