Court No. III, Case No. 3.
the publication of this decree already signed by the Minister, could be prevented.
During his examination the defendant has been questioned whether the courts within his official control applied the 13th decree of the Reich citizenship law in their administration of justice, Relevant to this the following must be stated:
a) The decree was published during the summer of 1943.
Many months, often years elapsed until the courts and especially the courts of appeal or supreme court (the Reichsgericht) attended to this question. Cases of this kind could hardly occur. And even if they had occurred, defendant ALTSTOETTER, always advocating judicial independence, had no possibility of influencing the judges in any way; in that case he would have committed the very offense which, in this trial, is laid to the charge of the authorities in official control of the judges in criminal courts.
But he never issued any directive to the effect that the courts were to apply the decree dated 1 July 1943 and also never made any reference to this effect.
b) The right of succession could be established in lawsuits even after the decree of I July 1943 and as before prebate could be granted by Probate Courts.
b) Noelawsuit is known where a Jew pleaded the invalidity of the 13th provision for execution of the law, The defendant ALTSTOETTER certainly had no knowledge of such a lawsuit and therefore does not know whether and how a court passed judgment. It is unnecessary to discuss in this connection whether such a lawsuit could be held at all before a civil court, whether in this case the administrative courts would not have been the really competent authorities when property had been seized by the police. These questions of competency are so involved even for German jurists that, in most cases, only specially competent judicial experts could supply a satisfactory answer in this case.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
The defendant knows of one isolated case dealing with the 13th provision for execution of the law. Here the Supreme Court (the Reichsgericht) decided in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant approved of this decision. (Compare Al.-exhibit 1, Al-document 23, Al.-Document Book I, page 59).
To sum up, therefore, it must be kept in mind that section VI during the time spent by ALTSTOETTER in that service, did not participate in the legislation dealing with the confiscation of Jewish property and that also during this period, no legal provisions were made public with regard to the exclusion of Jewish rights of succession. But Section VI had nothing to do with the execution, of the laws concerning Jews.
2. The documents referring to racial matters have apparently been submitted in order to prove the defendant ALTSTOETTER's antisemitic attitude.
I am grateful to the Prosecution for submitting these documents; contrary to their interpretation these document, far from being evidence against ALTSTOETTER, are a proof in his favor. I need not state the facts of the case again. It has been stated in detail by a number of affidavits. In particular, Dr STAGEL, late officer in charge of these questions at the Ministry of Justice, has clarified in his explanations the essence of racial matters according to German law, He also arrived at the conclusion that the decrees, as they appear in the documents, should have a favorable effect for the Jews in this matter. It is sufficient to mention here that these questions of racial matters were no invention of the Third Reich and that here not purely Jewish matters were involved, but that proceedings involving racial problems had their foundation already in the civil code (Buergerliches Gesetzbuch) as well as in the code of civil procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) in force under the Kaiser as well as under the Weimar Republic. Proceedings involving racial problems were therefore not just "a procedure for the purpose of carrying out the Nuernberg-laws", but purely civil lawsuits with the right of action to establish "that the defendant Court No. III, Case No. 3.is not the legitimate or the Illegitimate father of the plaintiff". The question, whether the plaintiff had 50%, 25% or 12 1/2% of Jewish blood did not enter into the verdict of such lawsuits and had no bearing on the final judgment.
It is sufficient to stress here once more that ALTSTOETTER's orders, as demonstrated by exhibit 453, could only have a favorable effect for the Jews who might be involved, and that the decree, as can be seen from exhibit 457, referred only to part of the proceedings in racial matters, that is, to only those cases where the Public Prosecutor had to prefer a charge contesting the legitimacy of a marriage.
There is no inherent reason nor has evidence been produced that the decree was intended to place the Jews at a disadvantage. Placing somebody at such a disadvantage is logically inconceivable. For, either the intended lawsuit concerned a person who was really a Jew, then his legal status would not have been affected to his disadvantage, even if the procedure affecting him had not been approved. If, on the other hand, he was not a Jew, the charge preferred by the Prosecution is excluded from the start.
In particular I would like to point out that blood-group tests could not be prevented by the refusal of the police, to furnish Jews from Vienna who had been re-settled as witnesses for comparing purposes, because blood-tests could be made for this purpose. These witnesses were only required, where a heredo-biological opinion was needed. But this was only the case, if the blood-group test did not yield any result, or if father or mother were dead, as in this case of course, no bloodgroup test could be made. If the heredo-biological examination was not carried out, because the police refused, the court had to base its judgment generally on the evidence furnished by the plaintiff for the charge which were of course in favor of the plaintiff. Therefore, omission of the heredo-biological examination could in individual cases only be to the advantage of the plaintiff. This has become general knowledge and every German lawyer knows about it.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
There can be no question of a crime against humanity nor even participation in such a crime in connection with these orders issued by the defendant ALTSTOETTER.
In the following I shall now omit the statements on the position of the racial-political Department and I now continue on Page 32 under V.
"V.
"In connection with the charge brought against German administration of justice of having placed foreigners at a disadvantage as far as their legal status is concerned and, in doing so, violated universal legal principles and binding rules of International Law, the defendant ALTSTOETTER is charged with the decree of the Reich Minister of the Interior dated 5 June 1944 and his own circular decree dated 15 November 1944. These charges are also unfounded.
The decree of the Ministry of the Interior is no law, not even an order and concerns the care of illegitimate children of female workers of non-German nationality, who had come into the Reich following the mobilization of labor. This decree states that these workers in case of pregnancy should not be sent back to their country. From this provision it becomes evident, first of all, that until then such workers were sent back to their country. If, from the summer of 194, pregnant women were no longer sent back, it must in any case be considered as a humane action, no matter what internal reasons the Ministry of the Interior had for this measure; anyone having lived in Germany during these times knows that every journey was a tremendous hardship and exertion on account of the overcrowding of trains, the constant airattacks, and the impossibility of finding any sleeping accommodation. A solution had to be found for these questions and the settlement was found in this order by the Ministry of the Interior. No objection can be raised, legally or morally, against the preferential treatment provided for the children of foreign female workers by German fathers or by a father of a kindred race. It is here of importance that "official" Court No. III, Case No. 3.care for the children of these working women only was put into practice when the latter themselves had no possibility to care for the child.
In consideration of this circular order, mention must also be made of the fact that it did not originate with the defendant ALTSTOETTER but that the regulation of these matters was solely controlled by the Ministry of the Interior. The defendant ALTSTOETTER, only by his letter dated 15 November 1945, communicated to the guardianship courts the order of the Ministry of the Interior, published almost 6 months before, as the necessity of informing the guardianship courts had become evident.
In this connection I would still mention that the defendant ALTSTOETTER pointed out in his circular that the international agreements and provisions of International Law were to be observed. Could any other defendant have observed the tenets of International law more closely than has Herr ALTSTOETTER? Who, in the face of these facts, will seriously raise the charge that the stipulations of International Law were disregarded or that the principles of International Law were broken? This applies particularly in view of the expert examination which Professor RAAPE made, and which I have submitted to the Court in documentary form.
From this expert opinion it appears that the state of law which existed before ALTSTOETTER's decree, was not changed, especially not with regard to
a) the personal status of mother and child and
b) the submission of guardianship matters and the carrying through of measures laid down by the guardianship court.
Above all it appears to me of the first importance that according to the state of the law, even after the decree of the Minister of the Interior had been issued and particularly that of ALTSTOETTER, the mother always had the possibility of keeping her child, and if perhaps she herself had no parental rights because she did not have the right of custody, she could always appeal to the guardianship court.
Court No. III,Case No. 3.
Who, in the face of these legal guarantees, which were never rescinded, can be of the opinion that the interests of the mother of the child were prejudiced?
In questioning ALTSTOETTER on this point, the Prosecution asked a question, from which it can be concluded that they are of the opinion that ALTSTOETTER was in some way connected with children's homes or with child welfare. Such a view on the part of the Prosecution would be a mistake and in any case is only comprehensible in the case of one who is not familiar with the conditions prevailing in Germany in this respect. Herr ALTSTOETTER was only responsible for the guardianship courts, and their sole function was to appoint a guardian only if the law required it.
Child welfare as such, the placing of the children in children's homes or in families, intervention possibly necessary in the case of neglect in the care of of the children, all that was the concern of Youth Offices, who were responsible to the Ministry of Interior. Thus what ALTSTOETTER did was merely to give the guardianship courts formal instructions concerning a decree issued by the Reich Minister of the Interior.
As I have already pointed out, ALTSTOETTER gave these instructions in November 1944, thus at a time when there were no longer any incorpor-porated Eastern territories, because these had already been re-conquered by the Russians. For this reason alone therefore, the accusation of having instituted German law in the incorporated Eastern territories cannot be raised. Apart from the fact that in the case of the decree issued by the Reich Minister of the Interior it was not even a question of introducing new laws and regulations, the old German law regarding illegitimate children was still valid in the former Polish and later incorporated Eastern territories, both before and after 1933 and after the incorporation, as it had existed there before 1918. The incorporation of these territories did therefore not bring about any alternation in this respect; the decree concerned itself merely with the application of the laws already existing there.
VI.
1. If in conclusion, Your Honors, I am to consider and estimate the conduct of the defendant ALTSTORTTER as chief of Department VI of the Reich Ministry of Justice, the result can only be that ALTSTOETTER never committed a criminal act of any kind whatsoever, neither did he participate in one. Furthermore, in vindication of his honor and as compensation for his arrest, lasting now more than two years, it must be stated that he has fought like no other for real justice, and that he has courageously and with the force of his whole personality met every attempt to restrict the application of justice or in any way to deviate from it.
Even where the administration of justice had lost ground he sought to regain it. How impartial and matter of fact ALTSTORTTER was can he seen above all from his policy in dealing with his staff. It is significant that in many affidavits it has been stressed how he never concerned himself with the political attitude of his colleagues in Department VI. Ability alone mattered to him. Otherwise it could not be explained why he appointed as his deputy Ministerialdirigent HESSE, a nonOParty member and definite opponent of National Socialism; it could not be explained why, despite all difficulties, he supported the promotion of officials who were not in the Party; why, according to the affidavit of Director LINTZ, who now holds an important post in the legal administration of the Russian Zone, he protected him by taking him into his own department when he had difficulties in another one, because of his opposition to National Socialism, and above all it could not be explained why he so strongly supported the nomination of the present Bavarian Ministerpraesident EHARD, as Vice-President of the Hereditary Farm Court (Erbhofgericht). In my opinion, only a man who seeks allies in his fight for the freedom of justice would act as did ALTSTOETTER as regards his staff.
2. It would be easy for me to demonstrate by many examples the perpetual, even daily, fight for justice which ALTSTOETTER fought. Besides general facts, many separate instances have already been recorded in the affidavits which have been submitted. Time does not allow for all these separate instances to be mentioned here; nor is there time to further describe ALTSTOETTER's daily fight for justice.
In any case I would not like to do this, because there are no witnesses for many of the fights and struggles, above all ALTSTOETTER's closest colleague, Ministerialrat HESSE, who sharply opposed National Socialism and a further colleague, Ministerialrat REXROTH, who likewise was no Party member. If these two men were still alive, then their testimony alone would give a true picture of ALTSTOETTER's absolutely irreproachable conduct.
Now, however, it was necessary to collect affidavits from all surviving members of the department, and from other colleagues and acquaintances. However, these in their entirety, also show that Herr ALTSTOETTER can no more be accused of a criminal act, participation in it or agreement to it than he can be accused of being even remotely connected with it.
VII.
In count IV of the indictment the Frosecution demands that ALTSTOETTER by punished, because he belonged to the SS and thus to an organization which has been declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal. The Prosecution have emphasized this count particularly. I, too, must therefore deal with this accusation in detail.
1. First of all, the question must be examined, whether the defendant ALTSTOETTER belonged to any of those categories within the SS which have been declared criminal, thus, therefore, whether Ehrenfuehrer (honorary leaders) of the SS are to be regarded as members of the SS, and moreover, using the term employed by the Military Tribunal, as "official members". This question must be answered in the negative.
a) In the Document Book ALTSTOETTER No. II, I submitted, as document No. 57, an excerpt from the transcript of the IMT trial. During this trial, one of the judges asked the prosecutor which persons the Prosecution classed as members of the SS, and to this question, the prosecutor replied that they regarded as members of the SS those persons who had taken the SS oath and had been officially treated as members.
Therefore a prerequisite for membership of the SS is the taking of the SS oath. This does not apply in the case of ALTSTOETTER.
b) This view is also represented in the two decrees circulated by the Special Ministries (Sonderministerien) in the American Zone of Occupation, and which I have submitted an exhibit ALTSTOETTER.
These decrees also show that Ehrenfuehrer cannot be regarded as official members of the SS. Rather, the Ehrenfuehrer were the typical "unofficial" members of the SS.
c) Even if these two factors are ignored, it must be accepted that the honorary members of the SS, concerning whom the affidavit by WUNDER gives information, were not official members of the SS within the meaning of the judgment passed by the International Military Tribunal. In any case it would be absurd to regard persons as members of the SS who had never even seen one minute is service in the SS, who had never attended any parade or roll-call of the SS people who had no power to issue orders, who thus were in no way connected with the service and organizational affairs of the SS, nor with its political activities, and therefore also had no opportunity of gaining insight into what happened in the SS.
Added to this, ALTSTOETTER - differing perhaps from the other Ehrenfuehrer of the SS- never once wore uniform, not even on the occasion in spring 1943 when he went to see HIMMLER at the order of his Minister.
It cannot be seriously doubted that ALTSTOETTER held more than an honorary rank in the SS, and this has been admitted by the Prosecution itself in the indictment. He had neither any regular duties there nor any other tasks to fulfil. The most convincing evidence for this is the fact that it has been impossible to submit to the Court any documents proving such activities; although the Prosecution has brought forward ALTSTOETTER's correspondence with members of the SS from his own files. Would it not have become quite clear from this correspondence if ALTSTOETTER had taken any official part in the activities of the SS? The mere remark made in formal note, that this distinction would spur him on in his service for the SS, does not reveal anything. It is nothing more than a phrase to which no particular meaning can be attached, especially coming from a man who has only just returned from the front after three years of military service, I am convinced that the Tribunal itself realizes that Germany was at that time completely ruled by the categorical imperative, Duty.
This easily explains the use of this phrase.
2. For this reason alone Count 4 of the Indictment is inapplicable, and it is invalidated further by the fact that in the IMT proceedings knowledge of the SS crimes was a necessary condition for the judgment.
In my opening speech I have already pointed out that it rests with the prosecution to provide proof of this knowledge. General considerations are not sufficient, for these general considerations have already led to the condemnation of the SS as a whole, and cannot be used again to prove knowlege of the crimes in the case of individual members of the SS. Here it must be proved in every individual case that the defendant know of the crimes; in the ALTSTOETTER case the Prosecution has not done so.
In his Final Plea, my colleague, Dr. HAENSEL, has discussed in great detail what constitutes knowledge in the case of the individual defendant. I, therefore, need not repeat these legal elaborations, But is necessary for me to emphasize that to condemn a member of the SS it is of course necessary that this member had knowledge of crimes committed by the SS, and that knowledge of crimes committed by any other organization, for example, the Gestapo or the SD are not sufficient grounds for conviction.
And furthermore, may I now stats the following details with regard to ALTSTOETTER.
a) No matter how closely I have examined the documents submitted by the Prosecution, from not a single one can it be concluded the ALTSTOETTER was aware of crimes committed by the SS or that he himself committed such crimes.
Perhaps the Prosecution believed that by submitting ALTSTOETTER's decree regarding racial matters, they could prove their assertions in this respect.
From this decree alone or from the Reich. Security Main Offices letter submitted with this exhibit, it merely transpires that some Jews were moved out of Vienna by the police for security reasons. Therefore, it is not apparent from the letter that the majority of these Jews, much less Jews from outside Vienna, were deported to the East. It is not apparent that these Jews were moved without sound security reasons. It is not apparent that these Jews were killed by one means or another. On the contrary, from the fact that in urgent cases, the Reich Security Main Office declared itself ready to have these Jews interrogated as witnesses one is compelled to draw the conclusion that they were not killed. Such an idea never even occurred to ALTSTOETTER. However that may be, one thing is quite obvious from the letter, namely the fact that the state Security Main Office, that is the police, the Gestapo or the SD, removed the Jews from Vienna, and not the SS, especially not the General SS. Even the witnesses for the Prosecution, who reported on the evaucation of the Jews, according to the knowledge they had gained by looking through files of the Gestapo, could only prove that the Gestapo performed this operation and not the General SS.
In the speech made by the Prosecution the assertion was made that the German legal officials had undoubtedly gained knowledge of the criminal aims of the SS through HIMMLER's speech at Kochem. However, the Prosecution underestimates Herr HIMMLER. HIMMLER did not show his hand so openly. He knew how to conceal his crimes with almost diabolical mastery, and he did not speak of any criminal aims of the SS at that meeting. This is apparent from a number of affidavits from those who participated in this meeting, which are all the more credible, since the many interrogations in the IMT trial have proved that even high-ranking, active SS Fuehrer had no knowledge of these crimes committed by the SS.
b) The question arises, as to the source from which ALTSTOETTER could have obtained knowledge of these crimes, whereby, according to the judgment of the IMT these crimes are involved which were committed since 1 September 1939.
Until he was called to the Reich Ministry of Justice at the beginning of 1943, ALTSTOETTER had been, since the beginning of the war, with the army and not with the Waffen SS. No crimes of any sort occurred within his division, and none of his men, none of his officers or superiors heard of any such crimes. This was also quite natural in the case of a unit which was always in the front line of battle far in the East, for the crimes which have been disclosed after the war, were committed in the rear of the fighting forces; Witnesses have appeared here who have given information regarding the Jewish evacuations. They have reported that these deportations took place in 1942. At this time ALTSTOETTER was not in Germany. He could, therefore, not have got to know of them. However, even if this had been soo the more deportation of the Jews cannot be regarded as a crime or otherwise the deportation of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries would in like manner be such a crime. The dreadful crime lies rather in the fact that these Jews were then killed in the East. But indeed only a very few Germans had any knowledge of this. ALTSTOETTER was of course not of their number."
May I continue on page 46 with number five.
"5. There remains, in the opinion of the Prosecution, the submitted correspondence of ALTSTOETTER with SS leaders, which is considered incriminating. But also in this case we must first consider the question whether we can infer the knowledge and sanction of crimes from this material, or whether these letters are any proof that Altstootter himself committed crimes. No further proof is required to answer these questions in the negative, as these letters lack any facts which would help to form the conviction that ALTSTOETTER had any knowledge of the misuse of the SS for crimes. The fact that he made the acquaintance of several high ranking SS leaders is easily accounted for by his position as Ministerialdirektor, his capacity as Ehrenfuehrer, or more chance.
It is not correct, and judging from general experience it cannot be assumed, that this acquaintance with a few SS leaders which went as far as the quoted correspondence is proof that ALTSTOETTER received notification of crimes committed by the SS. ALTSTOETTER does not know even to this day whether these men themselves knew of the crimes of the SS. Likewise, it cannot be inferred from those letters that ALTSTOETTER supported the SS as such, in any way. It is quite natural that individual SS leaders, among many other people, turned to ALTSTOETTER with complaints about judges who were, after all, under his supervision, and this has nothing to do with the fact that ALTSTOETTER was Ehrenfuehrer of the SS. These letters would have been written also if ALTSTOETTER had not been a Party or SS member. Conerning ALTSTOETTER's letters expressing gratitude for promotions, and the like: who could seriously reproach him for complying with the usual courtesy? Above all, who could reproach an unsuspecting man who had not the slightest idea of the events which were later exposed?
If one wants to be just one must not pick out individual letters and consider them individually as done by the Prosecution. One must consider the entire personality and entire activity of the defendant; one must picture his struggle for justice and examine his convictions in order to arrive at a fair judgment. Thus, only after reviewing the entire personality, can it be decided if there is evidence that a defendant knew of the crimes of the SS, that he sanctioned those crimes or even himself committed such crimes.
Your Honors, in my opening speech I said I wanted to present a true picture of the defendant ALTSTOETTER in argumentation. In my statement, so far, I have only drawn a picture of the lawyer ALTSTOETTER. But that alone is not the complete picture of the defendant ALTSTOETTER. It lacks the color which will reveal the ture and entire portrait of ALTSTOETTER. To complete this picture all I have said about the activity and struggle of the lawyer ALTSTOETTER should form the background; let the activity of Reichsgerichtsrat ALTSTOETTER about whom a man like Senatspraesident HAGEMANN said that he was of the most distinguished men he had ever met in his life, become part of the scenery; lot the intercession for justice of Ministerialdirektor ALTSTOETTER recede; let his brave opposition to HITLER's and BORMANN's orders fade; also his refusal to comply with HIMMLER's requests.
Let us look at the man ALTSTOETTER, The man who particularly as a judge advocated the social interests of employees, the man who as an officer is an example of a truly ideal human being to his soldiers; whoo as stated by the divisional chaplain SCRIBA, was equally kind to friend and foe; who treated captured enemy soldiers like his own, who saw to it that these prisoners received food, that they were not subjected to inhumane marches and found a place at night to rest their weary bodies. Here the man ALTSTOETTER, the man who looked after the personal welfare of his subordinates, who was not only their superior, but also cared for his subordinates as a human being. Again, he is the father who on Sundays prays with his children before the altar of God, the man ALTSTOETTER who in moments of danger does not save his own property but takes sick children in his arms and protects them. This man ALTSTOETTER has been indicted in the name of humanity by the Prosecutor of the United States of America . The indictment was made in error. I therefore beg the Judges of the United States of America with all my conviction to acquit this man in the name of justice.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 16 October 1947).
......ACCORDING TO A PREVIOUS COURT RULING THE UNREAD PORTION OF THE CLOSING STATEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE A PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT....
.... .pages 50 - 81 inclusive ....
P a r t T w o.
In order to supplement and complete the explanations I have made so far I wish to submit the following:
I.
The following documents give information on the activity of ALTSTOETTER as Councillor of the Supreme Court:
Al. Exhibit 1, Ak, Doc. 13, page 9 (Affidavit WEINKAUFF):
"Herr ALTSTOETTER is a jurist of quite exceptional qualifications and, in addition, what is being called a strong personality .... A out 1934/35 what is the being called Criminal Division for Revisions ("Revisionsstrafsenat) of the Supreme Court of the Riech, to which ALTSTAETTER belonged at that time, was the decisive in the interpretation of the Habitual Criminals Law just issued. As the decisions in the official collection clearly show he interpreted the law by greatly restricting it and in such a sense that it actually could only be applied to the cases of the hopelessly associal elements."
Compare in this connection:
Al. Exh. 1, Al. Document 15, page 20 (Affidavit Dr. PULL) The following are also to be taken into account:
Al. Exh. 1, Al. doc. 14, page 18 (Affidavit SCHAEFER) Al. Exh.
1, Al, doc. 2, page 22 (Affidavit GENANDT) Al. Exh.
1, Al. doc. 1, page 12 (Affidavit HAGEMANN) In the last document the following sentence is to be emphasized:
"... I can only say that he belongs to the most outstanding men I ever met during my long official career. My opinion is not only based on his judicial faculties in which extensive knowledge was combined with (creative ideas. Beyond that he possessed to a particular high degree what only makes the true judge: a completely indpeendent way of thinking. He always firmly maintained what according to his conviction was required by the laweven more than by the law - by justice."
Finally the following documents should be referred to in this connection:
Al. Exh. 4A1 Doc. 86, page 1 (Affidavit SCHRADER) Al. Exh.
3, Al, Doc. 70, page 10 (Affidavit DOEBIG) II.
After the war had started in September 1939, ALTSTOETTER was with the Armed Forces. He was permanently at the front as line officer and finally commanding officer of a battalion. His force cannot be charged with any criminal acts whatever. His general, Wilhelm WETZEL, states in this respect that Herr ALTSTOETTER had been an exceptionally brave and circumspect officer both when he was in charge of a company and of a battalion. Because of his personal bearing and his outstanding military capabilities he and his force were usually placed at the center of the battle where he proved reliable in every respect. He had always possessed his full confidence.
Compare:
Al. Exh. 4, Al, Doc. 88, page 6 (Affidavit WETZEL) Furthermore the following are to be considered:
Al, Exh. 1, Al, Doc. 17, page 28 (Affidavit v. GLASEHAPP) Al, Exh.
2, Al. Doc. 59, page 86 (Affidavit KREUTZMAIN) In this document ALTSTOETTER's aide-de-camp declared:
"Major ALSTOETTER was generally known human for his capability as officer and for his justice and human approach. He never tolerate injustice, nor was he unjust himself... In the in battalion, the traitment of prisoner-of-war was, in accordance with his order beyond reproach; for example, in October 1941 in the neighboorhood of Wjasma, he ordered that the battalion's emergency rations, so drawn up in spite of extreme supply difficulties, so as to be able to feed the prisoners to a camp behind the lines, in order to adjust the marching distance day by day to normal human marching performance. He immediately released prisoners over 45 years of age, on his own responsibility. Some prisoners were also frequently fed at Battalion Headquarter. Herr ALTSTAETTER personally saw to it that no property belonging to prisoners was stolen."
Al, Exh. 3, Al. Doc. 69, page 6 (Affidavit SCRIBA):
"Herr ALTSTOETTER was just and helpful toward the enemy civilian population, and was so for humanitarian reasons and because he was a Christian and at the same time because it was his aim to preserve the honor of the German Armed Forces and of the German name."
III 1. Defendant ALSTOETTER did not like to join the Ministry of Justice.
He would have preferred to stay with his force.
Al. Exh. 1, Al. Doc. 16, page 26 (Affidavit SIEGLITZ) Al. Exh.
1, Al. Doc. 17, page 28 (Affidavit v. GLASSHAPP) Al. Exh.
1, Al. Doc. 18, page 31 - paragraph 5 - (Affidavit WILLERS):
"Actually I was called to the Minister soon after, it it might have been in November 1942, who than told me that ALTSTOETTER had soon him; the latter was supposed to be made head of a regiment and wanted to stay in the army."
2. The defendant ALSTOETTER was not called to the Reich Ministry of Justice at the request of HIMMLER.
Compare:
Statement of ALTSTOETTER of 15 September 1947, English transcript page 8848 and following.
Al, Exh. 1 , Al. Doc. 18, page 31 - paragraph 5 (Affidavit WILLERS) In this respect the following should also, be considered:
Al, Exh. 1, Al. Doc. 17, page 28 - paragraph last but one (Affidavit v. GLASENAPP) Al. Exh.
3, Al. Doc. 70, page 10 (Affidavit DOEBIG) Al. Exh.
3, Al, Doc. 71, page 14 (Affidavit BESTA) 3. The position of a ministerial director and the working methods of the department, especially also in relation to other departments, is apparent from the following:
Al, Exh. 1, Al. Doc. 10, page 1 (German Civil Service Law) Al. Exh.
1, Al. Doc. 11, page 4 (excerpt from FLEINER's "Institutions of German Administrative Law") Al,, Exh.
1, Al. Doc. 12; page 6 (excerpt from an article of the Reich Minister of the Interior Frick, in which he discusses the German Civil Service Law) Joel Exh.
30, Joel Doc. Book I, page 5 (article 52 of the common statute of Procedure of the Ministries).
Those documents show the dependent position of a department chief, who was subject to the orders of the minister as well as to the regulations of the German Civil Service Law. The Prosecution itself has declared that Ministerialdirektor does not belong to the policy making officials of the Reich Ministry of Justice who include no one below the state secretary. (Transcript page 2349)
a) The following document give information on the working methods of the individual departments of the Reich Ministry of Justice:
Al. Exh. 1, A1, Doc. 18, page 31 - paragraph 4 - (Affidavit WILLERS):
"The departments of the Reich Ministry of Justice were only loosely connected."
Reference is made in particular to paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of this affidavit.
Al. Exh. 3, Doc. 73, page 20 - paragraph 1 - (affidavit PRITSCH):
A department chief of the Reich Ministry of Justice just line the Referenten - did as not have a position of independence but had to obey, as administrative officers, the instructions of his superiors."
The testimony of the main witness for the prosecution, EEHL, also shows how limited was the independence of the ministerial councillors and the ministerial directors. On being interrogated by attorney HAENSEL this witness declared:
Q: I want to ask you now, witness, if a ministerial councillor was employed in Ministry of Justice, did he necessarily have in to be the contact of with the legislative task mentioned in the indictment, or could you image that by far the larger number of the several hundred councillors who were employed there did not have anything to do with this legislative task?
A: This may be true of ministerial councillors or ministerial directors, but not of a state secretary or of a state secretary charged with the work of the Reich Minister."
- Interrogation of 20 March 1947, page 724 English transcript.
The following are also of general importance:
Al, Exh. I, Al. Exh. I, Al. Doc. 19, page 40 - paragraph 1 (Affidavit SCHOETENSACK) Al. Exh.
I, Al. Doc. 7, page 74 - especially page 78, paragraph 11, page 80, paragraph 14 (Aff. FECHNER) Al. Exh.
I, Al. Doc. 23, page 56 and following - especially last paragraph of page 63 (Affidavit STAGEL) The secrecy regulations were strictly observed in the Ministry of Justice, especially the Fuehrer order was of importance, according to which every official was to learn no more about secret matters than was absolutely necessary for his work.
(See Barnickel exhibit 13, Barnickel Doc. Book I, page 13) Relevant are also:
Al. Exh. I, Al. Doc. 19, page 40 - paragraph 1 - (Affidavit SCBOETENSACK) Al. Exh.
I, Al. Doc. 23, page 56 (Affidavit STAGEL) Al. Exh.
I, Al, Doc. 18, page 31 - paragraph 4, page 33(Affidavit WILLERS) In the meetings of the department chiefs nothing was discussed concerning secret matters or matters which could, even in the least be considered criminal.
Al, Exh. 1, Al, Doc. 20. page 48 (Affidavit SUCHOMEL) Al. Exh.
3, Al, Doc. 42, page 17 (Affidavit KRIEGE) Al. Exh.
1, Al. Doc. 18, page 51 (Affidavit WILLERS) Al. Exh.
1, Al, Doc. 23, page 56 and following -- especially page 63. (Affidavit STAGEL) Al. Exh.
3, Al. Doc. 80.page 53 - paragraph 4 - (Affidavit SEGELKEN) IV Department VI of the Ministry of Justice had nothing at all to do with criminal matters, and during ALTSTOETTER's term of office at least, had no connection with the political aims of National Socialism, 1. In general reference should be made here to the interrogation of witness BEHL, He testified as follows: