QDo you want to suggest to this Court, professor, that this was murder in legal form, is this right?
AThis was legalized and sanctioned murder. The murder happened first and now it should have been prosecuted as an offense but what they did, thereupon, was describe the act as not being illegal - not an amnesty was granted - simply the legal form was given.
DR. KEMPNER:That is all, professor, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Any cross examination?
DR.BECKER (For Weizsaecker): We are so near the recess, your Honors, may I therefore take the liberty of suggesting that I be allowed to start after the recess with my cross examination?
THE PRESIDENT:One member of the Court wishes to ask two or three questions, after which we will recess. You may take up your cross examination after the recess.
EXAMINATION BY JUDGE MAGUIRE:
QDr. Peters, was there any clause in the Weimar Constitution which provided for the issuance of such a decree as that of February 28, 1933, which suspended civil and personal rights of people?
AYes, Article 48, paragraph II of the Weimar Constitution made in possible for the Reich President, in exceptional cases, that is to say, if and when in the German Reich public safety or law and order were considerably endangered, to take measures. The later interpretation given to t is as early as 1922 was to the effect that the Reich President was in a position to issue emergency degrees. The Weimar Constitution provided in that case that seven basic rights be suspended - individual liberty, liberty of property, free speech, and so on. The rights which may be suspended are enumerated in detail in Article 48, paragraph II of the Weimar Constitution. The decree mentioned by your Honor, the one of 28 February 1933, was issued on that basis but was extended later on, to an extent far beyond the normal measure of such an emergency decree.
In its initial paragraph it says that it is issued to fight Communists but for practical purposes it was used against all circles of the population.
QThe next question, Dr. Peters, is, what, if any, provision existed in the Weimar Constitution, to grant to either the Reichstag or any other branch of the government, legislative.....Withdraw that question.
Is there anything in the Weimar Constitution which would authorize the Reichstag to confer general legislative powers or decretal powers upon any other branch of the government, or was it the only law-making branch under that constitution?
AAccording to the wording of the constitution, it was the Reichstag alone. However, Article 76, which deals with changes in the constitution, was interpreted to the effect that the constitution might be suspended, on occasion. That means that in actual fact the Reichstag, in 1925, at the end of the inflation, for a time passed an Enabling Law, which, however, was still subject to certain parliamentary controls. This was not provided for, in other words, by the constitution itself; but it was based on what was known as a law changing the constitution.
QWas the law changing the constitution adopted by the Reichstag or was it adopted by the people of Germany?
ANo, this law was accepted by the Reichstag, which is connected with the fact that under German Law the constitutional power is vested in parliament.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will now recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Seidl, do you wish to cross examine?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for Lammers)
QProfessor, during your examination you said that the Weimar consitution of 1919 was dominated by the principle of the separation of powers, and then, in answer to a question from the Court, you further referred to an enabling act of 1923. May I ask you, do you mean the enabling act of 13 October 1923 by which the Reich Government was enabled, among other things, to igonore the basis principles of the constitution?
AI mean the enabling act of that fall of 1923, but we must stress this here that this did not exclude parliament entirely. According to this, the Government could only make its laws with the approval of a Reichstag committee, and furthermore, this enabling act was concerned with the currect possibilities of control by parliament, so this entire enabling act served only the purpose of shortening proceedings in the time of the inflation, that is, the time of emergency when money was being devaluated every day, and at this time the Government had this right controlled by parliament.
In other words, it is not a fundamental change concerning the principle of the separation of powers. The principal itself was maintained.
QBut is it correct, what I said, that the Government was enabled to diverge from the basic principles of the constitution?
AIn my opinion this was not contained in the law, but I will just look it up and see, but in my opinion it was not possible to diverge from fundamental laws. Unfortunately it isn't in here.
QThen you further mentioned Article 48 of the Weimar constitution. In this connection may I first of all ask you who the first president of the Weimar Republic was?
AEbert.
QIs it correct that even under Ebert's presidency, who was a Social Democrat no less than 136 emergency decrees were issued on the basis of Article 48; that is, without reference can you remember that?
AYes, under President Ebert a fairly large number of emergency decrees were issued.
QBefore I come to the time after 1933, I would like to hear your opinion about the development of constitutional, legal conditions in 1930-31-32, in particular with reference to the position of the Reichstag in this time. In what way almost without exception during these years, were the most important Reich Laws issued?
AAt this time Reich laws were promulgated and also emergency decrees, on the basis of Article 48, Paragraph 2, but I would ask you to take into consideration that in the case of Article 48, Paragraph 2, there was continuous parliamentary control.
Under Article 48, paragraph 2, parliament can at any time demand the cancellation of the emergency decrees.
QBut it is a fact that in particular in 1931 and 1932 Bruening almost exclusively, and later on Papen and Schleicher too, by issuing emergency decrees, governed on the basis of this emergency paragraph?
ANot almost exclusively, but to a large extent.
QWhat was the reason for this, Professor? Would you quite briefly tell the Court what circumstances were decisive for the fact that one organ within the sphere of the separation of powers was no longer able to exercise the lights to which it was entitled under the constitution.
AIn the Reichstag there were every difficult majority conditions, because the political wing parties had been unable to join the former common government, but they were strong enough to make the legislative machinery difficult.
QAnd the result of the Reich Government had no choice but -
AWith the consequence that the Reich Government could only promulgate important laws by way of emergency decrees which said that through these conditions in the German Reich Public security and order are to a considerable extent endangered.
This played a part, for instance after the so-called bank crash in 1930 or '31, I think it was.
QI now come to another decree mentioned by you. That is the decree of the 28th of February 1933, which you mentioned just now in answer to a question from the Court. Is it correct that this decree too, exactly like the decrees of Hindenburg or I mean Ebert -- I beg your pardon, and the Reich President Hindenburg, were also issued on the basis of Article 48, Paragraph 2, not by Hitler or the Reich Government but by the Reich President himself?
AThe decree of the 28th of February, 1933, was formally issued on the basis of article 48, Paragraph 2. The decisive constitutional error being in the further handling of this decree, because it lies in the nature of such a decree that for the duration of the issuance public order is endangered, but it does not constitute a permanent state which is maintained for years to come, which is afterwards applied under points of view which are completely different from these under which this decree was issued.
The practical application of this decree, in fact, is just a form of camouflage conditions for cancelling rights the individual of the under National Socialism.
Under Article 148, Paragraph 2, this could never have been intended.
QBut you agree with me when I say that this decree, under the constitution at any rate, came into being in an absolutely manner?
AYes, in an absolutely legal manner on the basis of Article 48, Paragraph 2/
QYou then further mentioned the so-called enabling act of the 24th of March, 1933 and referred to Article 76 of the Weimar constitution. Is it correct, Professor, if I say that under the almost unanimous opinion of all constitutional legal experts, the Reichstag by this Article in particular, was in no way restricted in changing the constitution in cancelling out the Federal State or in any other way diverging from the constitution?
AUnder the Weimar constitution there was some dispute about the extent to which changes in the constitution could affect the consitution itself. The enabling act of the 24th of March, 1933 was by the large majority of teachers of constitutional law, considered a formal law and recognized to be admissible. The illegality in actual fact lay in quite another point; that is, in the preceding change in the total picture of the Reichstag by the banning of the Communist Party.
QWitness, you haven't quite answered my question. I wanted to ask you whether it is correct, according to the almost unanimous opinion and especially the opinion of Professor Anschuetz, that the power of the Reichstag to change the consitution was quite unlimited?
AAcccording to Anschuetz's view, in fact, on the basis of Article 76, with the majority there provided for changing the consitution, the Reichstag could change any article of the Weimar constitution or eliminate it altogether.
QYou mentioned just now that the Communist Party was banned. I don't want to quarrel with you about the time of this ban. I just want to submit to you whether it is not correct that, according to the results of the vote, this law would have been passed, even if the Communist Partys deputies had been present in the Reichstag?
AThis question cannot be answered because the presence of a large party in the Reichstag possibly might not only by its number, but also by the very weight of its existence, have caused other parties to vote differently from the way they actually did vote.
QBut you agree with me when I say that numerically the absence of the Communists could not have changed the actual result?
AThen we would have to find out what numbers actually were. I have no idea what the number of banned Communist deputies were which were removed from the Reichstag at that time.
QI now come to something else. Witness, you testified, among other things, that the power of the various ministries was increased. Are you in a position to substantiate that and give more details? In what do you see the extension of their power and in particular how does this coincide with your further statement that further new legislation ve organs were created, for instance, the delegate for the Four Year Plan, the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense, and the unrestricted legislative power of the Fuehrer himself?
AWe can see quite a large number of extensions of purely formal law for issuing further laws.
For instance, I remember a decree by which in 1934 the power of the Reich Minister for Economy was extensively increased. He was given the means of creating the whole sub-appara tus of sub-agencies.
Furthermore, the Reich Food Minister and the Reich Fodd Estate were affected in newly creating such agencies. The minsiters themselves could be called in. The Reich Food Minister, for instance, was at the same time Reich Peasant Leader and with that the head of the Reich Food Estate. The then Reich Marshal Goering was at the same time Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan and Reich Councillor of Ministers for Reich Defense. There were several ministers, but what is decisive is that through the general equalization and bringing into line the whole internal difficulties which existed towards the lower levels, that is, towards the population were to all intends and purposes removed.
I often talked to administrative officials of the time who boasted how much simpler it was in the early years of National Socialism to administrate than under the Weimar constitution, because all internal restrictions had been removed.
The other question which you touched upon, counsel, by mentioning the large number of special agencies, this means indeed in part a weakening perhaps of one particular minister in one instance who was not able to make his power felt sifficiently.
But the decisive thing is that the total power of this state increased more and more. These new agencies, for a large part, were created in order to take over new tasks which only arose in the total National Socialist state in this way and only in this way were drawn into the sphere of government at all. We must clearly realize that in relationship to the Weimar state, National Socialist boasted of being a total state, that is, a state which in principle covered all spheres of life and claimed for itself all spheres of life of every human being.
And if it stopped short of any sphere at all, this was not because it respected any other right or law but simply because it did not seem purposeful to it to organize this sphere too.
Look at the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan. He got an enormous increase of power. He didn't just take something away from the other ministries or the General Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration. He was to set up all sorts of new organizations in the Reich administration.
Of course, this also affected other ministries but for the larger part these were increases in power which at any rate affected the executive, the Reich Minsiters, and in some cases special Plenipotentiaries. They benefites by it.
Q.I gather from your remarks, witness, that you considered there was a possibility of extending the departments of these minis ters, but I assume, for instance, that you know the Judgment of the IMT which shows, for instance, that from 1933 onwards no meetings at all of the Reich cabinet took place any longer, and which further shows that the actual Apolitical and especially military decisions concerning foreign policy were made by the Fuehrer himself or by a small circle which did not necessarily have to consist of the Reich ministers.
MR. KEMPNER:May I object to this question. The IMT made a statement which was entirely different.
THE PRESIDENT:You may proceed. BY DR. SEIFL:
Q.I think you understood my question.
A.Yes, I understood the question. The situation was quite different. On the contrary, I would deduce from the fact that no more cabinet meetings took place anymore that the actual body of ministers lost power, which is certainly true, but each individual minister in his own department, in that which he had to do had become a lot more independent. The competency of the ministry, as such did not change on the whole. Something or other might be taken away here and there by the Plenipotentiaries, but the large ministries, on the whole kept their competencies, and by the departure of the body of the ministers they gained on the one side what they had lost on the other.
Q.I agree with you, Professor, if it is a matter of looking at the administration of the various departments, but I don't agree if it is a matter of answering the question who made the political and military decisions, and I am asking you is it correct that insofar there was a complete shifting of power compared with the time of the Weimar Constitution?
A.It is a matter of course that in the Fuehrer-State Hitler had more right of decision than President von Hindenburg, but the decisive point lies in quite a different place. We cannot lower the position of a minister to such an extent that we can say that the minister is no longer responsible for policy as a whole. If you want to take the standpoint that the ministers were not independent sub-leaders, that means every minister in his capacity as minister, then you would come into conflict with the whole Constitutional law under the Weimar Republic.
Q.Professor, did you yourself in the tiie of 1933 ever work in a ministry of the German Reich, or do you gather your own knowledge from information given or from discussions which you had with high officials of the Reich?
A.I have not worked in any ministry since 1933. I gathered my information firstly from many discussions which I had in Berlin at this time. I further garthered my information from the authoritative literature concerning Constitutional law, authoritative literature concerning international law, too, and I think all the gentlemen in this room who have dealt with such questions will agree with me that the book on Constitutional law by von Huber was the leading work in this period.
There we will find remarks which show quite clearly that the minister at that time had quite an outstanding position. I want to quote a few sentences from it as an example. In the second edition of this book, Ernst Rudolf Huber, Constitutional Law of the Greater German Reich, it says on page 227:
"The Fuehrer does not use the Reich Ministries as subsidiary executive organs. The Reich Government is not a technical aperatus The Fuehrer in the Reich Government has created independent and responsible co-workers who not only technically manage the various agencies or offices but who in their sphere of tasks are able to work creatively.
The Reich Ministers, therefore, are not only advisors but at the same time responsible fellow creators of the Fuehrer who exercises their office independently under the Fuehrer's leadership."
Or on another point it says:
"In the Fuehrer State it is decisive that the collaborators should be sub-leaders so that they themselves should have a power of leadership and creation, and eagerness to take responsibility."
I would like to limit myself to this quotation which the Court can check up and read in order to show that this is not only my own personal view but that this is also the view of National Socialist teachers of Constitutional law, whom you, too, Counsellor, will hardly be able to deny as having had considerable weight under National Socialism.
Q.Witness, I come to something else now. You have mentioned the Night and Fog Decree, Can you tell me who signed this?
A.Keitel.
Q.Keitel. Keitel was the chief of the OKW? Is that correct?
A.Yes.
Q.You further mention so-called secret laws. Isn't it correct that these secret laws only took effect when they were announced and that before they were only service instructions to definite subordinate agancies, too? That is the name of "secret law" is wrongly applied here?
A.The difficulty of secret laws is just that they served to confuse matters all the more. It was just one of the tactics of National Socialism, always through changing the meaning of words, to coin concepts and terms so that afterwards one person could read one thing into it and another person something else. Many words were misused in this way, and this is the same thing. One talked officially of secret laws, but whether they were really laws nobody knew afterwards. If one wanted them to be laws, they were laws, and if one didn't want to use them, one said they weren't, but the whole question of secret laws is exactly the same as in the case of the Night and Fog Decree.
Decrees were only mentioned by the way in order to show that there were innumerable instances where the executive was extended to spheres where formerly a regular legal control would have been possible. From this point of view these things were mentioned which otherwise would not be of particular importance for Constitutional law.
Q.One final question. You mentioned that during the National Socialist regime, too, you were professor of public law.
A.Yes.
Q.Is it correct that at the same time you also gave lectures at the Administrative Academy in Berlin?
A.Yes, I held lectures at the Administrative Academy in Berlin, also at the University of Berlin and at the Technical University of Berlin.
Q.Do you happen to remember that the President of the Reich Association of the Administrative Academies was the defendant Lammers there?
A.Yes, Dr, Lammers was the leading personality of the Reich Association of German Administrative Academies.
DR. SEIDL:I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
Dr. Becker.
DR. BECKER:Becker for the defendant von Weizsaecker.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. BECKER:
Q.Professor, you said by way of introduction today that the Weimar State had been a parliamentary democratic parliamentary republic?
A.Yes, I would also describe it as a parliamentary democratic republic.
The events which you have in mind at this time did n indeed shift the center of gravity of the State to a larger extent to the executive, but, nevertheless, not only the formal text of the Weimar Constitution was adhered to but the Weimar Constitution was often enough at this period exercised in a pratical way, and the right to issue emergency decrees, which has been discussed before only regulated one part of the State as a whole.
Q.I suppose I need hardly submit to you that if I remember right you yourself as representative of the center Party in the trial before the Constitutional Court swore yourself forced to appear against the anti-parliament democratic tendency of this time.
A.Yes, Counsellor. On the 20th of July, 1932, in fact, the then Reich Chancellor, von Papen, carried out the so-called coup d'etat against the Prussian State Government in which the then Reich Chancellor, by abusing the emergency legislative power, Article 48, paragraph 2, deposed the Prussian Government. In this trial I appared before the Constitutional Court for the center Party which was one of the plaintiffs I represented. In this case it was afterwards decided that in their measures the Reich Government had gone too far, that under no circumstances was it possible on the basis of Article 48 entirely to depose the Government of a State, but that it was only possible through commissioners to take away from it part of its powers. But the mere fact that it was still possible at that time for the State Government and political parties to appear before an independent court and that their legal questions concerning the Constitution could be discussed is sufficient to show that the administration in principle was still functioning, and that the parties whose intention it was to remove democracy in Germany had not yet reached their aims. That is why I am perfectly ready to recognize that up to the 30th of January, 1933, that is, for another half a year or so, it was possible to talk of a democratic parliament ary republican form of government in Germany.
Q.I don't want to enter into the details of this law in order to save time. Now, of course, you know that many teachers of Constitutional law in Germany and particularly representatives, those of the Weimar time, draw a certain line under 1933 and state that then an authoritarian regime started with a number of democratic and Constitutional rights which, as you yourself stated were considerably undermined. This regime was accepted, and after 1933 the authoritarian regeme was completely carried out.
A.Yes. You can draw a line there, but as you might say it is only a subdivision in the period of the Weimar Constitution.
Q.The question which interests me particularly in this connection is how do you consider the position in Constitutional law of the professional civil servants as under the Weimar State? Did the professional civil servants in the Weimar State have a definite position and task under Constitutional law?
A.Civil servants in the Weimar State were supposed to be a non-party factor in the State as a whole. The civil servant was not not to be in any contact with the political parties except that he was allowed to be a member of a party and could also be a deputy. Occasionally membership in one or another party would be forbidden to civil servants, at one time membership in the Nazi Party, at another time membership in the Communist Party. The legality of these bans caused a number of disputes, but the thing is that in principle civil servants under the Weimar Constitution had to stand on the democratic basis of the Constitution. That was the wording of the Constitutional oath which the civil servants had to affirm that they would adhere to, and for the rest, they were objectively supposed to administrate the office.
Q.Is it correct that the civil servant in connection with the principal separation of powers was the actual bearer of the executive and was only subject to a certain control by democratic factors, as you mentioned just now?
AThe ministers were at the head of the cabinet. Under them was the whole body of agencies of civil servants which to all intents and purposes were the bearers of the executive.
QIn the, shall we say, more authoritative period between 1931 and 1933 did anything change in this State?
AIn principle nothing changed. The civil service law remained the same. There was an emergency decree which dealt with matters concerning civil servants, especially matters of certain reductions in civil servants' salaries, but the same principle as under the Weimar Constitution generally remained.
QI think perhaps my question was a little ambiguous. I am not so much concerned with the details of the civil service law which, of course, also played a large part at the time, but with the position of the civil servants in the Constitution in actual fact.
AYou can perhaps say that as a result of the emergency decree law, by punishing parliament more into the background bureaucracy was strengthened.
QAnd what happened after 1933?
AAfter 1933 there was, first of all, a so-called purge of the civil servants by the lawof 7 April 1933, a law which was described as being intended to restore professional civil service, but which in actual fact was attacking the very basis of the principles of German civil service. From this moment on civil servants could be dismissed from their jobs without the old procedures, sometimes because they were Jews, sometimes they were alleged officials who did not have the necessary educational background or because they were enemies of National Socialism. These civil servants were for the major part as was intended of course eliminated. These were removed independent of the fact whether they were political officials or not, I had already said before that for political servants, that is, officials with special political responsibility, there were also provisions for removing these people from office.
QMay I just ask this: did this difference between political and non-political civil servants have any significance anymore in the Third Reich at all? Is this concept not one arising specifically out of the ideas of the Weimar State?
AOf course, this differentiation originated at another time, when the German Civil Service Law was issued under National Socialism on 26 January 1938. This German Civil Servants Law expressly differentiates still between these concepts and, as far as I know, it extended the concept of political officials to a larger extent than formerly, but this does not alter the fact that it was demanded by the text of the law that all civil servants should approve National Socialism, but of course, it was easier for other officials to slip through the loopholes than it was for the mass of political civil servants. The socalled political civil servants were always in the center of interest and therefore, had much more difficulty to remain in power., and, of course, we saw the consequences of this.
QBut it is right, isn't it, that after 1938 all civil servants were more or less regarded as political civil servants and that even though this differentiation appears in this law, it lost the meaning it had under the Weimar State?
AThe meaning of this differentiation, of course, was lessened because formerly with very few exceptions the civil servants could belong to various political parties, but the difference was still made and it still had legal significance.
QWhen I asked just now about the position of civil servants after 1933, I was really mainly concerned with the position under Constitutional law of the civil servants. You said just now that the significance of bureaucracy increased in the authoritarian period because control was decreased. Would you say that after 1933 when parliamentary control decreased even further the position of the civil servants became even more powerful?
AIn part it actually was strengthened further just by the fact that the individual civil servant was no longer controlled by any bodies which were elected by the people and had the right to issue orders, as for instance the position of the Landrat in Prussia.
The Landrat is the local official who in rural districts heads the administration. The Landrat was up to 1933 concerned in many decisions, and he was tied by the decisions of a committee elected by the people, the so-called Kreisausschuss or district committee, as it was called in Northern Germany, and this district committee was eliminated as a consultative body in the same way as many other agencies and bodies which were to limit the official in his power. The civil servant got vast independence in his position, concerning his position the departmental chief could now much more than before in accordance with the Fuehrer Principle give the civil servant orders, and if in Germany today the difficulties in building up the State are so great, this is in part due to the disinclination which the Germans have against the centralized system of administration in Germany caused by National Socialism.
QIn your examination by Dr. Kempner you mentioned the three pillars, State, Party and Wehrmacht. Do you think that there was any district committee which would have exercised anything like stronger control on the Landrat as a Kreisleiter of the district concerned?
AYes, that is absolutely possible, because here it depends on the strength of the political position of the Landrat. These are no longer questions of law and of Constitutional law, but these are problems of the dispute and the parallelism of individual persons. Undoubtedly under the National Socialist State there was a strong conflict between persons in the State in administration and within the Party itself, but these possibilities of control were not extended so much to the orderly course of administration. I never heard that a Kreisleiter, for instance, would have made the Landrat responsible because he didn't consider the rights of the population sufficiently. I once heard that a Kreisleiter took measures against a Landrat because he didn't consider him sufficiently National Socialist, but from the standpoint of preserving the rights of the individual, the position of the Landrat with reference to the individual was considerably strengthened, and this held up to the highest instances.
QSo that we don't misunderstand each other, Professor, in clearing up the position of the civil servants here we are concerned with the position as a whole of the civil servants, and you mentioned just now that these were, as you might say, personnel questions. I think that it was you who introduced the three pillars here, not I. If the building up of a State is determined by such matters in Constitutional law, then in judging the position of the of an essential body like the civil servants, one cannot pass this by, and that is why I put the question of the Kreisleiter in reply to your legislation of the Landrat. May I perhaps repeat the question in a more general form. In the State there was the well-known principle that the Party gave orders to the State. Are you of the opinion that this principle of the Constitution of the National Socialist State -- if I may use the word "Constitution" with all reservations in this instance -- affected actual competencies?
AThe principle that the Party issues orders to the State was one of those principles in National Socialism which was called upon usually just when one needed it for some breach of law. It came into being at some Party rally in Nurnberg or was expressed there for the first time. Originally under the law of 1 December 1933 Party and State stood side by side. We had a dual principle of State which is not customary in other modern States. One part of the executive authority was exercised by the Party, but at the moment when the party found it inconvenient, it pushed off its authority on the State and the second and normal aparatus is that the State with its three parts which are now united in one hand.
It is not true that as a result of this the State has always got a minus in power. There were cases where this was true, and I am sure you can find them, but on the other side for those people who were completely convinced of National Socialism within the State, they were considerably strengthened. There are certain dynamics at the basis of this which cannot just be described as valid Constitutional law but which was perhaps illustrated by the workings of the State.
Q.In your examination by Dr. Kempner just now you mentioned the Foreign Office. What American or British agency does this compare with?
A.Well, the English Foreign Office, of course, but the position isn't exactly the same.
Q.And in what did the position of the Foreign Office in the Reich differ from that of the Foreign Office in England or the State Department in America?
A.First of all, it is different insofar as it is under National Socialism. There were in actuality a large number of agencies dealing with foreign affairs, agencies which themselves exercised public functions, and there was as a result a certain amount of confusion in this sphere, but, nevertheless, the Foreign Office was in the first place administrative for foreign affairs. There was a second further function, of course, arising out of the whole buildup of the State. The foreign office in an authoritarian Fuehrer State is not the same as a foreign office in a democratic republic or in a parliamentary monarchy such as England. That is based on the dynamics of each of these State systems.
Q.Do you consider it possible, for instance, that in the National Socialist State important foreign policy decisions could be made without the participation of the Foreign Office?
A.That decisions were made is certainly possible.
In each of these other pillars the pillar Party could make political decisions, but this alters nothing in the fact that the Foreign Office could also make its decisions.
Q.My question I think was very precise whether it was possible for decisions to be taken in the field of foreign politics without the participation of the Foreign Office, and you realize that under the Weimar Constitution the Foreign Office by Constitutional law had to be concerned in decisions concerning foreign affairs.
A.Yes.
Q.And it is an actual fact -
A.It is possible that Party agencies could make decisions concerning foreign affairs.
Q.I have a further question concerning the functioning of decisions within the Foreign Office. Under the Weimar Constitution there was within the various ministries the principle of adhering to various competencies. In handling this principle in the National Socialist State did any change take place?
A.De jure I suppose not. De facto undoubtedly certain confusion existed in the Foreign Office as in every ministry, and sometimes people assumed rights which in actual fact they did not have, but this changes nothing in the fact that de jure in each ministry the minister is the person responsible for the decisions and that his permanent deputy, the State Secretary, is the next person, and that they can issue orders to other persons, to ministerial directors, who for their part on behalf of the minister or the State Secretary can make decisions. I think legally that is perfectly clear.
Q.I put the question whether it was possible -what was not possible under the Weimar State -- that the competency of intermediary agencies could be circumvented.