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:
(English transcript page 797):
"Q: Is it correct that the Special Courts and the People's Courts did not have anything to do with Civil matters?
"A: Yes. They had nothing to do with civil matters.
"Q: Is it correct that the civil proceedings, since 1933, were not at all changed in any direction which could be described as typically National Socialistic or contrary to the National Socialist World Order or ideology?
"A: That is correct in as far as the institution of hereditary health courts is not considered.
"Q: Did you determine whether the civil jurisdiction was used for the establishment of the National Socialist regime?
"A: No. I did not have any particular experiences in that respect. I did not make any experiments."
This opinion of the witness for the prosecution BEHL is confirmed by Al. Exh. 3, Al. Doc. 73, page 20 - paragraph 3 - (Affidavit PRITSCH).
Documents exhibit 481 NG-702 and exhibit 484 NG-783 submitted by the Prosecution, do not indicate any activity of defendant ALTSTOETTER in the field of criminal law. In this case he only acted as messenger for transmitting the wishes of the chief commissioner for the Triest area to the Ministry.
This is apparent from:
l) Interrogation of the defendant ALTSTOETTER as witness on 16 September 1947 (English Transcript page 8909)
2) Al. Exh. 1, Al, Doc. 23, page 56 - here page 62 (Affidavit STAGEL) Statement LAUTZ on 28 July 1947 (English transcript page 5975).5. The People's Court and the Special Courts were not concerned with cases of civil law.
ALTSTOETTER had only to deal with these courts as far as organization and planning within the frame-work of the Office for Reformation of the Constitution of German Courts was concerned. He advocated the abolition of these courts and was successful in achieving that this should come into effect after the war. Al, Exh. 3, Al, Doc. 77, page 42 (Affidavit BERGMANN II) Al, Exh. 1, Al. Doc. 7, page 74 - especially page 75 paragraph 3 (Affidavit FECHNER) V Defendant ALSTOESTER did not commit criminal actions of any kind nor did he participate in any such actions.
1. Department VI was on principle not concerned with Nacht & Nebel matters. It was the criminal department that dealt with these matters. In paragraph 2 of the decree of 6 March 1943 - prosecution exhibit 319, document NG-269 - the civil department merely took care that, in accordance with the law regarding vital statistics, information on cases of death and birth were given to the registry offices, also in regard to these prisoners; and in paragraph 3 safegruaded the drawing up of legally valid wills by NN prisoners. Then dealing with those questions the department was neither informed of the Fuehrer decree nor of the nature of NN matters. Neither before nor afterwards did it ever have anything to do with NN matters.
Dr. VOGEL declares in Al, Exh. 3, Al. Doc. 76, page 39:
"As I in any case had not learned anything about the nature of NN -prisoners, I deem it possible that I reported on it to Herr ALTSTOETTER, As department VI was only competent for the items of the directive that appertained to civil law, the officials concerned in that department had, in my opinion, no cause to pry into the principals which caused the criminal department which alone was authorized to communicate with the outside on the subject, to propose such a directive. The general ruling that an agency cooperating on a secret matter should only be informed on it as far as unavoidably necessary for the handling of theri special subject, even prohibited such investigation."
The witness for the prosecution SUCHOMEL, who himself was employed in the departmen dealing with NN matters, stated in his reply to a question of the prosecution when being interrogated on 27 August 1947 (English transcript page 7776):"Q: Did you know about the Nacht and Nebal-decree in 1943 and '44'?"A: About that decree I heard only quite by chance when once for a few days I had to be deputy for the Ministeriall Director.
The designation "Nacht und Nobel" decree, I did hear, but what it was all about I did not know to that very day.
"Q: But had it excited any curiosity - the tern "Nacht ana Nubel" in you, you would have felt free to ask any other member of the Ministry of Justice just what they meant, wouldn't you?
"A: To interfere with secret matters, I avoided most carefully. I have already emphasized once that in every office, including mine, there were posters to the effect that secret matters should be told only to those officials who had to deal with those matters, and it all pointed out expressly that violations would be tried u* the regulations regarding treason and would be punished accordingly. Therefore, it was understandable that I avoided interfering in any matters that did not concern me."
If, according to this statement, even the witness SUCHOMEL as member of the department for penal cases was not informed of the nature of NN mattters, although the term "Nacht und Nobel" had struck him, how much less then could the defendant ALTSTOETTER be informed who had nothing to do with penal matters.
The supposition of the prosecution that LTSTOETTER was informed on the nature of NN matters by dealing with the circular decree, is by no means well founded.
In this connection witness SUCHOMEL declares on 27 August 1947 (English transcript page 7779):
"A: I could answer that question only with an assumption, and I must say it is difficult for me when I am testifying here under oath to utter mere assumptions for which I have no real basis; for I, myself, as I have stated before, heard about it, read theNacht and Nebel Decree once superficially and read about NN prisoners being transferred somewhere else from the Rhine or from somewhere, I read this NN decree only briefly.
I don't recall its full contents any more, and therefore I must say, I can also not answer whether the contents of this decree was necessary in order to make any regulations about matters of wills. I don't know that."
From the contents of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the ordinance of 6 March 1943 it is apparent that for its uniform wording a knowledge of the NN decree was not essential and it follows from the statement of Referent Dr. Vogel, quoted above, that the department actually had no knowledge, The same also follows from the statements:
a) of the defendant Mettgenberg in the witness box (statement of 1 August 1947, English transcript page 6361):
"A. May I correct you counsel? It is not a letter but a circular decree, a circular decree which treats a number of questions. Within the Ministry the procedure is as follows: Every department examines only those questions and is responsible only for those which concern its sphere of business, questions which are at the same tine dealt with in such a decree and belong within the sphere of activity of another department are not covered by that signature."
Furthermore (Transcript of 1 August 1947, English trasc. page 6316):
"Q. Witness, did you ever officially or unofficially speak about NN cases with the defendant Altstoetter?
A. No, I do not recall any conversation with Altstoetter about NN cases, neither during the course of my official duties nor outside of it.
Q. Did you ever inform Altstoetter about NN cases officially in writing?
A. In writing I did not give Altstoetter any information either."
b) of defendant Ammon in the witness box (statement of 4 August 1947, English transcript page 6434):"Q. Witness, did you ever officially or unofficially discuss with the defendant Altstoetter the Fuehrer decree or the NN case?
A. Not before the surrender.
Q. Did you, in writing, inform Altstoetter about the nature of NN cases?
A. No."
and in his affidavit of 17 December 1946 - Exh. 337 - NG 486 - Document Book VI - page 164:
"All leading officials of Departments III, IV and V in the Ministry of Justice should have been familiar with the NN complex."
From this it is to be concluded that von Ammon was also convinced that the chief of the Department VI was not familiar with the NN complex.
Al. Exh. 1, Al. Doc. 18, page 32 (Affidavit Willers) Al. Exh.
1, Al. Doc, 19, page 40 (Affidavit Schoetensack) Al. Exh.
1, Al. Doc. 23, page 56 (Affidavit Stagel) Al. Exh.
3, Al. Doc. 73, page 20 (Affidavit Pritsch) Al. Exh, 4, Al. Doc.
21 - paragraph 3 - (Affidavit Hinrichs) In addition to these it is stated in a number of further affidavits that, to the best of the writers' knowledge, nothing was known about NN matters in Department VI.
2. The prosecution cannot rightly accuse Altstoetter on the basis of Exh. 460 - NG-891 - Doc. Book V Supplement. Altstoetter has stated - and this is confirmed by the expert opinion of Professor Dr. Leo Raape of Hamburg whose affidavit is available as exhibit 3, Al, Doc. 82, page 60 and who is a recognized expert in this field - that the decree of the Minister for the Interior of 15 June 1944 and especially the circular decree of 15 November 1944 signed by Altstoetter on behalf of the Reich Minister of Justice are fully in accordance with German law and in particular with International Civil Law and that these decrees did not alter the legal position in any way, especially not to the detriment of either the unmarried mother nor her illegitimate children. Therefore, after the decrees were issued, the legal position remained the same as before.
For details I refer to the following:
a) Altstoetter cannot be made responsible for the decree of the Minister for the Interior of 15 June 1944. The directives given in it are addressed exclusively to the authorities subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior which have nothing to do with the Reich Ministry of Justice.
For the instructions contained in it only the Reich Minister for the Interior was competent. In as far as the Reich Ministry of Justice was asked to cooperate, it was the Department for Juvenile Law (Department III) which was competent. This dealt with Juvenile welfare matters (its chief was witness Suchomel).
Compare the plan for the distribution of work of department III, Prosecution Exhibit 510, NG-988, document book supplement I, page 6.
b) As far as the scope of the decrees is concerned, the Protectorate is to be excluded, since it was not subordinated at all to the Reich Ministry of Justice, In the socalled annexed Eastern territories however, it was the German and Austrian civil codes respectively, which in accordance with Polish Law were applicable to illegitimate children up to 1939. After the incorporation of these territories into the German Reich these same codes remained in force in accordance with German Law.
Compare Bergmann, International Law of Marriage and Filliation (1939-1940) in Exh. Law 4, Al.Doc.97.page 45) Compare Boschan, E uropean Family Law (1937) in Exh.
4, Al. Doc. 98, page 47.
Compare Tomforde - Diefenbach - Webler, "The rights of the illegitimate child and its mother, at home and abroad (1935) in Exh. 4, Al. Doc. 99, page 48
c) Whether anyone did or did not possess, or had lost the citizenship of a foreign nation, or whether anyone had acquired German citizenship, were problems outside the scope of Altstoetter's work.
d) Finally it should definitely be emphasized that Altstoet ter did nothing else but to draw the attention of the guardianship courts to the existing law as enforced by the decree He did not create a new law nor did he enlarge the scope of German law.
The right of unmarried mothers to put their case before the guardianship court remained quite unimparied. The accommodation and care of the children was no business at all of the Reich Ministry of Justice or the guardianship courts.
3. In matters concerning Jews there are no grounds whatsoever for even the slightest supervision that ALTSTOETTFR acted unjustly.
Neither did ho commit such actions nor take part in any. a) The interrogation of the defendant ROTHENBERGER on 17 July 1947, English transcript page 5446, as well as the interrogation of ALT STOETTER proved that Department VI did not participate in the drawing up of the 13th Ordinance to the Reich Citizenship Law - prosecution Exh. 112 - NG-715 - Doc. Book II.
If Department VI would have had the least to do with the ruling contained therein regarding the sequestration of Jewish property, Ministerialrat REXROTH and Ministerialdirigent STAGEL would have dealt with this matter.
In regard to Ministerialrat REXROTH Dr. BREITHAUPT states (A1. Exh. 1, Al, Doc. 22, page 54):
"I remember having discussed this after the promulgation of the order, with Ministerialrat REXROTH.....He pointed out to me, that Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the decree contained an error in editing since it mentioned dependency claiments, i.e. persons who were entitled to alimony from a deceased Jew. This is legally impossible since in accordance with the Civil Code the obligation to support ceases with the death of the benefactor. This fault was attributed by REXROTH to the fact that he was not consulted as the authoritative referent of Division VI in formulating the draft for the decree."
The declaration of Ministerialdirigent Dr. STAGEL is along similar lines - Al. Exh. 1, Al. Doc. 23, page 59.
The sequestration of Jewish property ordered by the 13th Ordinance to the Reich Citizenship law was solely a police-measure for which the Ministry for the Interior is responsible.
The law of inheritance and the eligibility of the Jews to inherit were impaired neither by the Reich Citizenship Law nor by the 13th Ordinance. In the civil law procedure for the establishment of heirs neither the relevant provisions contained in article 2353 and following of the German Civil Code, nor the rulings concerning probate matters were altered in any way by the 13th ordinance.
The courts therefore could, as before, establish Jews as heirs and issue the so-called inheritance certifificates.
If the material extent of the inheritance was restricted by administrative rules, this has nothing to do with the civil side of the law relating to inheritance as is clearly shown by the above affidavit STAGEL Al. Exh. 1. Al. Doc. 23, page 59 in the case of ColloradoMansfeld. The reversion would no longer have been legally possible if the previous Jewish heir had not been heir by law.
In actual fact the courts could therefore enforce the existing law of inheritance whenever such cases were brought before the court.
Accordingly, ALTSTOETTER cannot be made responsible for the 13th ordinance because he had nothing to do with this legislation nor with its execution. Nor did the courts operating under him take any part in putting this legislation into practise.
In this connection reference is made to Al. Exh. 3, Al. Dec. 73, page 20 - paragraph 9 - (affidavit FRITSCH) Al. exh.
3, Al. Doc. 79, page 49,- paragraph II - (affidavit RUEHL).
In 1944 Department VI was requested to prepare a carrying-out ordinance to the 13th ordinance concerning the Reich Citizenship Law.
It was because of the opposition shewn by Department VI, and in particular because of the negotiations which the Ministerialdirigent Dr. HESSE, the person dealing with the matter conducted on the order of defendant ALTSTOETTER behind the back of the Reich Minister of Justice THIERACK, with the Referent of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, who was personally known to Dr. HESSE, that this carrying-out ordinance did not become law; on the contrary the ministry of the Interior issued a carrying-out ordinance on its own, without contacting the Reich Ministry of Justice. This ordinance did not, however, affect the laws concerning inheritance.