MR. KING: Are there further questions from the bench? I would like to have identified at this time as Exhibit 536, the NG number will be assigned later -- the two letters on which Dr. Rothenberger was cross examined this morning. The first letter is dated May 27, 1942 and is from Alfons Broder Albrecht to Dr. Rothenberger. The other letter is dated June 3, 1942 and it is from Dr. Rothenberger to Mr. Albrecht.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification 536.
MR. KING: That is right. The Prosecution has nothing further at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the redirect examination be extensive?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, may I say something in regard to the document books for the defendant Klemm? I have made inquiries. The following document books have not yet been returned by the translation branch: 4, 6, 7 and 8.
THE PRESIDENT: We are merely attempting to arrive at the facts, of course. No were advised this noon that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and nine -- I beg your pardon. You are speaking of Schlegelberger documents?
Dr. SCHILF: No, about Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: We were advised that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 had been delivered by the Translation Department. Is that correct? Do you know?
DR. SCHILF: According to my information, which I received one hour ago in the Defense Information Center, according to that Document book 4 is not among those that were delivered. In addition, I may say that Document Book 6 was handed to the Translation Branch by me on the third of July. I made an inquiry and the handing over is noted down in a book submitted to me and I found out that I delivered Document Book 6 an the day I mentioned, that is, on the third of July.
Your Honor, the books which were returned by the Translation Branch have, however, not been mimeographed as yet. I heard today that they were sent to the mimeograph department, but they were not able to tell me when they would be returned to me.
THE PRESIDENT: We were informed that 3 and 9 would be ready this afternoon.
DR. SCHILF: I did not get any information about that at the defense information center this afternoon. The delivery by the translation branch, however, does not enable me yet to submit document books because they have to be mimeographed before I can submit them.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, we will not require you to use your document books until you receive them. That is obvious. Do we understand that there arc four more witnesses ready for examination?
DR. SCHILF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And as soon as these document books can be obtained it may facilitate matters to introduce them without longer delay.
DR. SCHILF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: There is hardly time to commence the redirect examination at this time. We will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(Whereupon, the Tribunal adjourned to 22 July 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al., defendants sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 22 July 1947, 0930-1630, Justice James T. Brand presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: Hay it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused. Let the notation be made. He have just been informed that the Klemm document books 1 and 2 are ready for use in court. Perhaps that will help out a little.
DR. WANDSCHEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, I request permission to begin the redirect examination of the Defendant Dr. Rothenberger.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:Q.- Dr. Rothenberger, yesterday with the aid of Exhibit 130 you were cross examined about the clemency case in the case Kalocki.
In the meantime you have had an opportunity to read over carefully the opinion. Will you please describe briefly again how you made your decision on the basis of the entire facts available.
A.- The open question that was addressed to me from what I had gathered that the condemned persons actually wanted to join a Polish Legion can be seen from the determination of the facts and the opinion. According to this Criminal secretary Schleicher who was examined as a wit ness, who was working on the German-Swiss border for some time testified that the way which the defendants chose had been used by tinny others before in order to get into Switzerland and there join the Polish Legion.
Furthermore, that as has been determined in other sentences pronounced by courts already in the area of Kempten since the spring of 1942 it was generally known that in Switzerland the consul of the Polish Government in exile was sitting who helped those Poles who had fled from Germany along. Furthermore it is stated that this Polish Legion was a unit which had the aim to bring about the reorganization of a Polish state by military means on the side of the enemy. Thus the Polish Legion itself apparently was not in Switzerland because Switzerland was a neutral country, but in Switzerland there was the mediating office according to the facts found out in the court, that is the mediating office for the Polish Legion.
Q.- Thank you very much. Dr. Rothenberger, yesterday on the basis of Exhibit 26, that is the report of the session of 1939 you were asked among other questions how one should behave if an arrest should be made and when there was a reason for arrest in connection with Jews.You have not made it sufficiently clear how -
MR. KING: I do not recall asking the question which defense counsel has said that I asked. I wonder if the translation has been bad or if defense counsel does not remember the question correctly. I did not ask the question in the form that he has just stated that I did.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, I want to ask nothing but to ask the defendant to explain the concept of arrest in this Exhibit 26, and I ask permission to ask this question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do that.
BY DR. WANDSCHEIDER:
Q.- Please, Dr. Rothenberger, explain the concept of arrest.
A.- During this conference I have explained the decisions of the Reich Ministry of Justice about civil cases and in these civil cases the question of the reason for arrest was also discussed.
This does not mean the personal arrest of a person, but we are concerned with a special civil case procedure on the basis such a person who is owed something by a debtor can, in a special civil proceeding bring a complaint against the debtor. In civil cases we call this impounding "arrest proceedings". Thus it does not bring about a personal arrest of the debtor.
Q.- Thank you very much. In exhibit 28 a further concept of the gangster decree was testified about and you could not make quite clear what was meant by this gangster decree or ordinance. I am asking you, is it possible that the kidnapping ordinance or the auto trap decree could be meant by this?
A.- I have in the meantime found out that that is the case. Yesterday already I emphasized that the gangster ordinance about which the general public prosecutor reported in February 1939 could not be identical with the ordinance against public enemies as the prosecutor thought, because the decree against public enemies dates only as of September or December 1939. By the gangster decree one understood two decrees from the year 1938, that is first a decree about kidnapping, and secondly a decree regarding auto traps, the robber by means of auto traps.
Q.- Dr. Rothenberger, you were questioned extensively yesterday about your memorandum and you were asked about the meaning of the directives that you laid down there. For example, the independence of the judiciary of the judges, that a political leader could not be a judge at the same time, that the administration of law should remain with the administration of justice, and so forth. In that connection you were asked whether with this program you wanted to reinforce the position of the Fuehrer, that is Hitler, and I now ask you when you wrote that memorandum did you regard the position of Hitler, did you find the position of Hitler as the highest judge already in existence, or did you want to cement it theoretically and create it? In other words, was the fact of the highest judge a fait accompli for you or not?
At.- Yes, of course. Since 1934 already not only in Hitler's speeches but in all of German legal literature it was a fait accompli that in an authoritarian state Hitler was also the highest judge. That was nothing new that I created in this memorandum, but it was a fact from which I had to start and I only had to discuss the difficult problem and consider it how it was possible in such a state to create a really independent strong corps of judges. I tried to do that by first freeing the judge from all party political influences which assailed him daily from the Party or the SS. Secondly, I tried to point out to Hitler himself the dangers which were inherent in the fact that he was the highest judge and did not observe the independence of the judge. I supported this by historical examples -
THE PRESIDENT: You're repeating what you told us before and that is quite unnecessary. We will give careful consideration to what you have already said.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q A further question, Dr. Rothenberger. At the beginning of the memorandum, you said in 17 lines -- the entire memorandum comprises 26 pages -- you said that your judicial program would be undertaken at the time of the development when National Socialism began to order Europe anew. First of all, it's clear to order and to organize is the same thing. Now I want to ask you, is it correct that this of course was a political aim which was expressed here and which you made a basis of your program as such?
A In answer to the question of the presiding judge, yesterday I already answered that with this memorandum I exclusively wanted to introduce judicial reforms, and my immediate aim was to convince Hitler, and my final aim was to create a corps of judges. I did not want to achieve a political aim with this memorandum.
Q Dr. Rothenberger, I only asked you whether this was a political aim, and in my opinion it is.
A Yes, it is a political aim.
Q All right. Now I want to ask you, did you ever concern yourself with politics or with foreign policy?
Q You didn't. All right. Thank you very much. I have no further questions in the redirect.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q Dr. Rothenberger, when with reference to the time you submitted your memorandum to Albrecht did this speech of Hitler declaring himself the supreme war lord of Germany occur? What is the relationship between the time you submitted your memorandum and his speech?
A The Hitler speech was delivered on the 26th of April. This statement as I already mentioned just now, he had already repeated in his speeches again and again since 1934. When my memorandum reached Hitler's hands, I can not say.
Q When did you submit it to Albrecht?
A I can gather that only from the date which is below the memorandum and that is the 31st of March; in other words, I probably gave the memorandum to Albrecht during the month of April without knowing exactly when it was and also without knowing when Albrecht succeeded in putting it in Hitler's hands. I don't know that.
Q It was submitted to Albrecht before you knew anything about this speech of April 26th.
A Yes, that is certain.
THE PRESIDENT: That appears to conclude the examination at this time, subject to the reserve rights with reference to documents. The witness may be excused for the tine being. You may call your next witness.
(The witness was excused.)
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, may I address the Tribunal before the next witness appears? Yesterday I submitted to the Tribunal a form of order to show cause in the matter of Dr. Hans Marx and Mrs. Huppertz. The Tribunal took that order under advisement and has not acted. I would like to submit to the Tribunal now a modified form of order for the Tribunal's consideration. I have it all in English and will have the German in here in 15 or 20 minutes. Since the Tribunal will want to read the English copy only, I now send to the desk a form of order. I will submit this to the Tribunal by delivering to the Secretary-General the German translation as soon as it is ready, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: We will give it consideration today. Call your next witness.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, nay I now examine the witness Dr. Lammers. I am calling the witness Dr. Banners on behalf of Dr. Rothenberger's case. Thank you very much.
HANS HEINRICH LAMMERS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: You will hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Dr. Lammers, please state your personal data; your name and the date of your birth.
A My first name is Hans Heinrich. I was born on the 27th of May 1897 in Luedelbeck.
Q Dr. Lammers, I intend to examine you in the name of the defendant Rothenberger about occurrences which led to the appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as Under-secretary and were connected with his dismissal. The first question I want to address to you is from where you know the defendant. Will you please answer.
A I met the defendant Rothenberger approximately at the beginning of August 1942 at the moment when his appointment as Under-Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice was being considered
Q In this trial, the memorandum that Dr. Rothenberger submitted was discussed extensively. Can you say anything about the question whether this memorandum was the reason for the appointment?
A In my opinion, it is without doubt that this memorandum was the reason for which the Fuehrer desired the appointment of Rothenberger into the office of Under-Secretary. I know this for the the following reasons:
Approximately in May 1942, the Fuehrer told me that he had. received a memorandum from a prominent jurist and that he liked it. Without wanting to draw any conclusions from this information, I thereupon asked the Adjutant's office of the Fuehrer, through which the Fuehrer received this memorandum, to show it to me. I then received this memorandum without at first knowing from whom it originated. I only found that out later. When in August 1942, however, the question arose that Rothenberger should be appointed Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, the Fuehrer came back to this memorandum, and this memorandum was the basis that Thierack, who was to be appointed Minister of Justice, was asked that Rothenberger be appointed Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Justice.
Q What was the purpose of the memorandum, in your opinion?
A The memorandum was concerned with the reform of the Administration of Justice. Of what nature this judicial reform was to be, I could no longer remember in the preliminary interrogations which I had about this question. But after the memorandum was submitted to me and I looked through it, I could remember that I had leafed through it, and that it mainly treated the problem of the creation of a high and independent, well-paid, well-situated judgeship and judiciary, and that Rothenberger hoped to achieve most of the judicial reform by this.
Q. Did Dr. Rothenberger raise any objections against his appointment as under secretary to you?
A. When Dr. Rothenberger first visited me at the time, and I told him that he was being considered for an appointment as under secretary, he immediately interrupted me and said--"but under Frank I shall on no account become under secretary." Thereupon I calmed him down and told him that Frank's becoming minister of justice is in my opinion absolutely out of the question. Whether I named him the person of Thierack at the time already, I don't know any. more but I consider it possible; I can only remember exactly that Rothenberger expressly stated that under Frank he would on no account become under secretary. However, I can also remember the second circumstance, namely, that he said whether all this entire reform which he intended could not be postponed until the end of the war. Thereupon I was, according to my instructions, obligated to toll aim that due to the situation this was out of the question, but that the new minister of justice would be appointed immediately.
Q. Dr. Lammers, do you know anything about the fact that the memorandum by Dr. Rothenberger did dot get to Hitler via the usual way, via Martin Bormann, that is the party chancery, or if it reached Hitler in an unofficial manner?
A. The memorandum according to the usual practice would have had to go via the minister of justice because at that time Rothenberger was Oberlandesgerishtspresident; and then from the minister of justice through me. But I know because I only found out about this memorandum later that it went through the adjutant's office of the Fuehrer whose name was Abrecht.
Q. Was Thierack very pleased about the program for reform which Rothenberger laid down in his memorandum? Did he follow them or not?
A. I cannot say that. Basically he was in favor of a certain idea of reform; to what extent he approved of Rothenberger's line of thought I cannot say, but I can testify as to one fact; That between Thierack and Rothenberger in my presence there were Conversations about the judicial reform, and these conversations became very excited. Rothenberger defended his opinions very throughly, and Thierack objected to this and interrupted Rothenberger and stated--"you are not the minister, but I am the minister."
Q. When was that? May I interrupt you, Dr. Lammers, so that we shall determine the time more exactly. Please tell me when these events occurred which you discussed.
A. That happened immediately after the appointment of Thierack and Rothenberger had been completed. They were with me in my quarters for dinner or supper, and I considered the place not suitable in front of my officials and other people who were present to go more into this conversation, and I made efforts to have this difference of opinion, which became apparent already between Rothenberger and Thierack, to smooth it out and make it appear trifling and to eliminate it from the conversation. I succeeded in this, but already at this time I gained the conviction that the two could never work together in harmony.
Q. Dr. Lammers, when Thierack interrupted Dr. Rothenberger brusquely with--"not you are the minister, but I am the minister," what in particular were they discussing at this time. What was the subject of this fight? Can you still remember that?
A. I cannot say that with certainty any more. In any case, they were discussing plans for a judicial reform.
Q. I did not want to ask you this in a suggestive question, and, since you. do not know any more, I want to refresh your recollection and ask you whether it was a question of the discus sion of the authority of power of attorney authorization?
A. The authorization was discussed on this occasion, and the phrasing of the authorization was also the subject of a difference of opinion between Thierack and Rothenberger. I believe that these differences referred to a so-called preamble.
Q. Do you still remember what preamble Dr. Rothenberger desired at the time?
A. Well, it was more strongly worded than the preamble which actually appeared in the decree of 20th of August,--in the preamble that was used; that is the actual preamble, it says "for the creation of a strong National Socialist administration of Justice," or something of that kind. And, if I am not mistaken, Rothenberger wanted to offer a more general formula which was not directed toward National. Socialism; it was something to the effect that the administration of Justice was one of the pillars of the state, and, therefore, in accordance with that was to be reformed. Rothenberger always especially was interested in raising the judiciary; that was his main interest.
Q. Yes. In this authorization it says that the Minister of Justice should be authorized to deviate from the laws that were in effect -- the valid laws. Would you please make some remarks about that clause; was that something unusual?
A. Well, this clause was absolutely obvious, but how can one make a judicial reform if one does not want to deviate from existing laws? But, on the other hand, nobody was thinking of having the Minister of Justice now undertake a judicial reform alone for himself; and, the decree provided that he could not do that because there were two reservations in the decree -- first, the reservation that this reform has to be carried out according to the closer instructions and directives which the Minister of Justice would receive from the Fuehrer.
And, secondly, there was stated that for all measures of the Minister of Justice the agreement of the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancery, that is myself, and the agreement of the Chief of the Party Chancery was necessary. With this provision it was assured that the Minister of Justice not alone by by-passing other offices could undertake some kind of judicial reform because he was obligated to obtain these two approvals, and I certainly would not have given him the approval if he had, for example, wanted to create a new code of criminal procedure, by way of decree, because I could not have given my approval for that -- I would have had to submit this draft to all of the ministers. In practice, for actual programs of reform for the Minister of Justice it was out of the question that he could act alone.
Q. Thank you; that is enough. Dr. Lammers, you were speaking of personal and technical differences of opinion between Thierack and Dr. Rothenberger which became apparent at the very beginning. Did you realize from the very beginning that the appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as under secretary was unpleasant to Thierack?
A. I didn't understand the last part of your question.
Q. Did you realize from the very beginning that Dr. Rothenberger's appointment asunder secretary was not pleasing to Thierack?
A. It was not obvious, but one could feel it. Rothenberger as under secretary was, I could say, the only case in which the Fuehrer forced a certain under secretary upon a minister, and Thierack accepted that at the time because it was requested; but I had the feeling that perhaps he would have preferred to select some one who was more to his liking from the very beginning. I don't know absolutely; and I don't believe that Rothenberger and Thierack knew each other before or had contact with each other.
Q. We are now coning to the events surrounding the dismissal of Dr. Rothenberger. Did you tell Dr. Rothenberger at the tine he was dismissed because Hamburg professors submitted a report concerning him?
A. Well, the minister of justice had told me that Rothenberger-no, I have to perhaps go into more detail. Rothenberger had written a book, and this book allegedly contained -- he was allegedly guilty of plagiarism. He took over word by work laws from the book of a Swiss professor by the name of Fehr. He only made certain modifications but used the sane words as Fehr, and this was regarded as plagiarism. Thierack told me that this is something which makes Rothenberger's position untenable; that complaints are already in existence on the part of the professors in Hamburg -- from the University of Hamburg where Rothenberger had formerly been president of the district court of appeal; and I have to require that he be removed from his position. These facts were reporter to the Fuehrer, and the Fuehrer, on request of Thierack, approved Rothenberger's dismissed.
Q. Thank you; all right. Later did it become apparent that actually a report or complaints were made by Hamburg professors on account of this plagiarism?
A. I discussed the matter of plagiarism with Dr. Rothenberger and Rothenberger doubted it. I again asked Thierack to come and see me, and on this occasion Thierack somewhat retracted his former statement as to the extent which he had formerly stated that complaint by the Hamburg professors had been submitted. He later said it had not yet been submitted, but one could expect it with certainty.
Q. In other words, he had anticipated more than he could assume responsibility for?
A. Yes, in my opinion he did. Especially later on it became apparent that this Professor Fehr considered this a natter entirely harmless, and this charge of plagiarism would have cone to nothing if Thierack had not started it.
Q. Thank you. Did Thierack in the spring of 1943 request you to establish a second position of under secretary in the Ministry of Justice?
A. Yes, Thierack urged a second under secretary.
Q. Can you make a statement why he did this? For what reason?
A. He told me that Rothenberger did not support him sufficiently in his work; and what, therefore, he was not sufficiently helped in his business as Minister, and that there was a necessity for a second under secretary to be appointed.
Q. Is it known to you that the form of the dismissal was made by Thierack in a very insulting manner?
A. Well, I would not go that far. It was like this, that after the dismissal documents had been completed I then handed them or forwarded them to the Reich Minister of Justice and it was his business now to put this dismissal document into an appropriate form; and as far as I know he refrained from dismiss -ing Dr. Rothenberger in a dignified manner, especially. However, he also refrained from -- and this could have been done -- offering Dr. Rothenberger another office in the administration of Justice. I had no occasion in this affair, which was an affair of the Administration of Justice, to interfere.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much. I have completed my examination of the witness.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I had an affidavit by the witness, Dr. Lammers, in my document book and in consideration of the decision of the Tribunal that witnesses who are present have to be examined, I shall now examine the witness.
BY DR. SCHILF FOR DEFENDANT KLEMM:
Q. Dr. Lammers, you had already made some statements about the events in August, 1942 and as far as they concerned the appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as under secretary. May I ask you to make some supplementary statements as to how the appointment of the Minister of Justice himself -- that was Dr. Thierack at the time -- came about? Dr. Thierack was appointed as Minister at the same time when Dr. Rothenberger became undersecretary.
A. Well, the development was as follows: After the death of the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, Under-secretary Schlegelberger was put in charge of the carrying out of the business of the Reich Minister of Justice and it was always my effort to maintain that condition, if possible, until the end of the war.
For the party, however, Herr Schlegelberger was not particularly pleasing. Between him and the party there was a certain tension and this tension, of course, increased at the moment when Schlegelberger became acting Minister of Justice and especially in April, 1942, when the famous Reichstag speech was delivered by the Fuehrer with strong attacks against the Administration of Justice contained therein, and thereupon the urging of the party to have a Minister of Justice appointed became stronger without at the time that is in the Spring of 1942, the person of a candidate like Thierack being mentioned. That happened for me at least quite suddenly, late in the Summer of 1942, that is, the end of July or beginning of August, and from the facts I gained the conviction that the driving force for Thierack's appointment was Reichsleiter and Reichminister Bormann who at the same time was the so-called led Secretary of the Fuehrer. He apparently suggested Thierack as Minister of Justice to Hitler and that very urgently.
Q. Dr. Lammers, do you know anything as to whether the defendant Klemm had any influence in regard to Thierack's appointment? First I want to ask you, did you know Herr Klemm before?
A. I knew Klemm slightly without having gotten into closer contact with him, and it is my conviction that he did not have any influence upon this appointment, and perhaps could not have any. That was in the Summer of 1942 when the Fuehrer's headquarters was in the Ukraine and Bormann was every day in Hitler's surroundings and had the possibility to gain access to him, see him daily, and Klemm was sitting in Munich in the party chancellory. At least I have not the slightest reason to think that Klemm had any influence on Bormann and Bormann never told me that either.
Q. Dr. Lammers, when Herr Wandschneider examined you, you were speaking about this decree of the 20 August 1942, that is this famous authorization?
Q. I now want to ask you, do you know whether, when this decree was drafted, or when other preparations were being made, the party chancellory could have participated?
A. As far as I know, not, because the draft for this decree of the 20 August 1942 originated, as far as I know, when Rothenberger was already there and was brought along by him when his appointment became effective at the time. I do not believe that it had anything to do with the party chancellory.
Q. Dr. Lammers, now I still have to request you to make a statement in regard to another point. In this trial it was determined that at the end of January, 1945, in the Sonnenburg Plenitentiary a Commando of the SS gathered hundreds of prisoners in the courtyard and shot them. Furthermore, it was shown during the trial here that one of the witnesses had a telephone conversation with General Public Prosecutor Hansen. From this the assumption was concluded that one of the gentlemen of the Ministry of the Justice had something to do with this shooting of hundreds of prisoners.
Is it known to you that before that time, that is, before the end of January, 1945, the territory in which the Sonnenburg Penitentiary was originated was under military power and if so, under what military authority?
A. The territory of the River Oder where Sonnenburg was at that time was under the power of Himmler who was supreme commander of the so-called Wistula Army.
Q. Can you approximately state the time when Himmler was given this authority?
A. It must have been toward the end of January. After the break-through of Baranow on the 12 of January the Russian front came up to the Oder and at that time Himmler was appointed. I can't tell you the exact date.
Q. The break-through of Baranow was on what date?
A. I know that was on the 12 of January because that was the critical day when, in Baranow, the front began to sway and made the Russian break-through possible, which immediately came up the Oder.
Q. Do you still recall instructions issued by Himmler now as Commander of the Wistula Army about evacuations in this army territory under him?
A. At that time Himmler forbade very strictly any evacuations on tho right or left bank of the Oder River. Whether he issued that order as supreme commander of the Vistula Army or in his capacity of one of his many offices as Reich Minister of the Interior as Minister Plenipotentiary of Economics, as Chief of the Police, that I don't know. In any case there was such a prohibition against evacuations at the time and the Reich Defense Commissars obeyed this strictly. And this provision referred not only to the evacuation of offices and files but also referred to the entire civilian population and it was very strictly enforced, at the time. I know that from remembering individual cases in which I was asked for help.
Q. Dr. Lammars, may I ask you to mention one of those cases to the Tribunal when you were asked for help?
A. At that tine there was a scientific institute which I supervised in my official capacity. It was an institute for cancer research.