This document is a situation report to Dr. Schlegelberger from Bems who was a prosecutor before the District Court of Appeals in Nurnberg. This situation report is dated 11 August 1942, and is concerned with the matters being dealt with by the Nurnberg Courts, mid also contains a list of death sentences passed by the court for the period covered by the report. The list of death sentences begins on page 72 in both the English and German text and continues through to the end of the document.
In addition, I would like to point out to the Court the paragraph on page 71 in the English text immediately under the Roman Numberal V, in which Bems says:
"The police authorities hesitate to pass on to the Prosecuting Authorities cases against Poles because of sexual intercourse with Germans, because they are afraid to deviate from the orders given by the Reichsfuehrer-SS that these cases be handled by the police. It can therefore, hardly be expected that denunciations --"
Or perhaps, more properly, "indictments" -
"according to No. I par. 1 of the Decree against Poles will be made prior to the lifting of these orders.
"I have been informed that within my jurisdiction, too, executions of Poles by hanging have taken place. But I do not know with what these Poles were charged and how many were concerned."
Also, in the document NG 668, is another situation report from Bems to Schlegelberger. This one is dated 5 June 1942. Like the first situation report, this one also has a list of death sentences carried out during the period covered by the report. This list begins on page 79 of the English text and continues through to the end of the document. The report is also signed by Bems.
I would like to point out a sentence in the document on page 76, immediately under the Roman Numberal II, in which Bems says:
"The appeal of the Fuehrer to the administration of justice has strengthened the efforts of judges and prosecutors alike, to transform martial law into an effective weapon which can meet all requirements.
The active contact between the court and the prosecutor office which will develop immediately after the meeting of the presidents of the courts of appeal and the chief public prosecutors will have positive results."
We offer this document, NG 668 as exhibit 478.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document which appears in the document book is in there mistakenly, and it will not be offered, and in its place, document NG 679 will be offered. That will be distributed as a lose document and should replace the document now in the English text beginning on page 81. I think the time has not yet run in accordance with the 24 hour rule on the document, which will replace NG 678, and so, we are not, at the moment, able to make the substitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you expect to offer that now?
MR. KING: No, that cannot be offered now because we have not fulfilled requirements of the 24 hour rule.
The next document which we will offer is NG 680, beginning on page 86 in the English and 87 in the German text, and this document will be exhibit 479. The document is an affidavit by one Josef Baeumler. And, he was, for a period of time, an assistant judge on the Special Court in Nurnberg. In addition to a rather general and aggressive criticism in the manner in which Oeschey and Rothaug conducted trials before them in the Special Court, which appears throughout the document, we would like to call particular attention to the portion of the affidavit on page 88 of the English text, and probably on page 92 of the German, which begins with the fourth paragraph down from the top of the page, on page 88. It begins with:
"Oeschey was particularly strict where foreigners were concerned. He was of the opinion, that as 'guests' in the Reich they had increased duties and special cause for good behavior. He always preached this opinion to the judges, indicating amongst other things that this was the attitude of the Reich Security Main Office RSHA. Re was imbued with the idea of extermination and punished foreigners with doubled severity.
He had a special antipathy against Poles, and repeatedly voiced the racial points of view. To him a Pole was an inferior individual, whatever kind of offense he had committed. Even the sightest 'resistance', for instance complaints from Poles about bad treatment he described as sabotage. He said again and again that he had to protect the German people from 'encroachment' by foreign elements."
We do not call to the Court's attention specifically to any more of this document, but offer it as Exhibit 479.
The next exhibit will be 480, and is document NG 699, and it is found on page 91 of the English text, on page 96 of the German. This document consists of numerous letters and notes, all of which are concerned in one way or another with the extent to which certain members of t he Reich Ministry of Justice participated, willingly or otherwise, in the trial of the former president of the Czechoslovakia. Republic Elias.
The first letter in this document or rather the first letter in the series of documents here, is one dated, Prague 17 October 1941, addressed to Dr. Schlegelberger, in which the writer, an SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Police in Prague, complains to Dr. Schlegelberger that attempts have been made by the Reich Ministry of Justice to obstruct him in carrying out his work as Deputy Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, in so far as the trial of Elias and Klapka were concerned, the Reich Prosecutor, which is to say, Lautz, told him that it would require three or four weeks to prepare the indictment. And, he goes on to say that the delay in the proceedings of the trial of even a few days was politically impossible. He, the SS Obergruppeenfuehrer decided to write the indictment himself.
Then on page 92, the third paragraph from the bottom, this Obergruppenfuehrer says:
"If you now inform me in regard to these matters that the Reich Ministry of Justice had fully supported my activities I am at a loss to understand this. The only support I received - at my own request - from your direction in the Elias trial was from the Ministerialrat Dr. Joel and Landgerichtsrat Dr. Preussher; also, and, indeed, in am exemplary way, by the President Thierack, specially in the proceedings of the trial."
The next letter is one to Dr. Schlegelberger from Thierack, in which Schlegelberger reviews the history of the indictment, how it came about that it had to be prepared in so short a time, and the conversations that he, Thierack, had with Heydrich. The second paragraph from the end, of this letter from Thierack to Schlegelberger, Thierack says the following:
"Finally, during my visits to the Reich Ministry cf Justice I was under the impression that you, Under Secretary, yourself, were trying to establish the legal foundations in order to ensure correct proceedings. Unfortunately, I was not able to submit these to you as they became available to me only shortly after my arrival in Prague."
On page 96 in the English, 104 in the German, is a note dated, Prague, 3 October 1941, addressed to the Under Secretary- that is, presumably, Schlegelberger, in which the writer, the defendant Joel, says the following:
"Please note my further activity from the enclosed memo. As Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich informed me yesterday, a transfer of the proceedings from the Peoples Court to the Chief Public Prosecutor may be expected. Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich will, however, let me know his final attitude only after a discussion with the Fuehrer. I presume that I shall be able to report definitely on Saturday or Sunday."
And on page -- it is the page following 96 in my book -- it is not numbered. In any event, on that page we find a time table of the indictment and trial of Elias and Klapka. And on page 98 in the English, either 107 or 108 in the German, we find a letter from Lammers to Bormann, dated 4 October 1941.
Heydrich had complained to Bormann that the Ministry of Justice was obstructing the trial of Elias and Klapka, and in this letter Lammers is explaining to Bormann why, in his opinion, Heydrich was in error in making that charge. Dr. Lammers refers to Schlegelberger in the concluding sentences of the letter, as fellows:
"If Under Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger endeavored to clear up the legality of this procedure by approving this, I do not think that it can be regarded as an attempt of obstruction that only as support for the proceedings by Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich.
"I should be very grateful if you would inform the Fuehrer accordingly, so as to prevent a wrong impression of the ideas and the activities of the Reich Ministry of Justice and their chiefs in this matter."
The next document, the next letter, rather, in this document, appears on page 100 in the English, 109 in the German, and it is not clear -
THE PRESIDENT: You mean page 101, do you not? You just read from 100.
MR. KING: Perhaps your book is numbered differently than mine. According to my book the Lammers letter ends on page 99 in the English text... Well, there is that difference then, in the books. In any event, the note which is dated 1 October 1941, and extends over two pages -101 and 102 in your Honors' books -- it is net clear as to who the author of that note may be. It discusses the facts of the Elias and Klapka case and the part which Schlegelberger and others in the Ministry of Justice played in that trial.
On page 100 -- it must be 103 In your bock -- there is a letter from Dr. Schlegelberger to Dr. Lammers, in which Schlegelberger acknowledges receiving the letter from -- a copy of the letter from Lammers to Bormann -- and expresses his appreciation to Lammers for drawing the attention of the Fuehrer to the incorrectness of .. oh, pardon me, please.. Heydrich's attitude in the matter. Schlegelberger goes on to say in this letter to Lammers, in the middle of the page ... 103 it must be in your books.
.. the following:
"In the meantime I have been informed today that Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich on 2 October in an address to the chiefs cf the government, the Army and Party offices in Prague said that, 'thanks to the loyalty cf the President of the Peoples Court in spite of the Reichsministry' they had succeeded in dealing with the trials of Elias and Klapka in the shortest of time. Ministrialrat Joel, expert adviser to my office, who did not hear the address himself, told me officially that he had talked about it to Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich shortly afterwards, who had said that the President of the Peoples Court, Dr. Thierack, had told him that the Reich Ministry cf Justice had made difficulties for him as regards this matter.
"I must consider such a statement cf the President of the peoples Court as a direct attack, not based on any facts, on the Ministry cf Justice, to which he is subordinate, as well as on me personally, as I am in charge cf the affairs of the Reich Ministry cf Justice."
That note was signed by Schlegelberger.
On page 105 in your books, English version, 114 in the German, there appears at the beginning a note from Parrisius - also on the general subject of the Elias and Klapka trial. Parrisius refers to several conversations that took place between Dr. Joel and Reich Prosecutor Lautz, and Dr. Schelberger -- all in connection with this matter.
Then on page 107 in your books there appears a letter to Heydrich from Schlegelberger in which Schlegelberger attempts to refute charges which have been made apparently directly to him by Heydrich.
I would like to read a portion of this letter, which appears on the bottom of page 108 in your books, and it must be 119 in the German, in which Schlegelberger says:
"You say, my dear Herr Obergruppenfuehrer, that you could not understand how I could claim to have supported you actively in your tasks. That is because you do not happen to know that when I heard about the People's Court having been entrusted with the handling of the proceedings against Elias and Klapka, and about the special way of prosecution procedure neglecting all other work, tried in numerous discussions in this building and with the other authorities concerned to establish the legal basis the trial was to be given, always aiming at making certain that the validity of the verdicts could not be challenged. These discussions and the subsequent queries from the Reich Ministry of the Interior and the Reich Chancellery to which you object would not have been necessary if you had contacted me as the competent chief of office."
The letter is signed, "Schlegelberger."
That is a brief summary of all of the notes and letters in the document 699, which we now offer as the Exhibit 480.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, 702, will be Exhibit 481. The document begins on page 112 in Your Honors' books, and on page 121 in the German text. This document is a letter dated the 25th of May, 1944.
JUDGE BLAIR: That begins on 111 in our books.
MR. KING: No. 111. Well, apparently the confusion in pagination is now, beginning with this document, straightened out. It is also 111 in my book.
This letter, dated May 25th, 1944, is to Missener from Alstoetter. Alstoetter refers to a journey which he had just completed in the Adriatic Coastal Region, and we would like to read the last paragraph of the letter:
"As arranged I have told my Minister, among other matters, about the wish of your Gauleiter to secure the quickest possible summary conviction by a court of justice of partisan helpers. My Minister at once took the matter in hand, and has already given the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court certain instructions to got to the bottom of the delays you complain about. As requested by the Minister, I shall be grateful if you will submit to me as soon as possible a summary of those cases about which you have recently found cause for complaint on account of long delays in the proceedings, as promised me by your Gauleiter. As soon as these files are received, the Minister will instruct your Gauleiter what measures to adopt."
The letter is signed, "Alstoetter".
We offer the document NG-702 as Exhibit 481.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG-721, begins on page 112 in the English text, on 123 in the German. It is a sworn affidavit by Wilhelm Miethsam. Miethsam was an assistant prosecutor in the Public Prosecutor's Office in Nurnberg, and appeared on many occasions before the Special Court.
Beginning on the top of page 113 in the English text, the affiant Miethsam discusses his impressions of Rothaug's conduct in hearing cases before him, also Rothaug's connection with Party officials, and also the several matters with Doebig, concerning which testimony has been given by other witnesses before this Court. We do not wish to read extensively from this document, but offer it as Exhibit 482.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document is NG-730.
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug): May it please the Court, I would like to point out that the official position of ministerial Councillor Miethsam has just been incorrectly stated by the Prosecutor. Miethsam was not prosecutor at the Special Court during the activity of Rothaug at the Special Court.
MR. KING: I think it is probably clear from the affidavit that the statement made by me earlier that he appeared before Rothaug was an inadvertance, because I think it is clear from the affidavit that this probably is not the case.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit will speak for itself as to what the facts are.
MR. KING: Yes, in any event.
The document NG-730 will be Exhibit 483, and it is contained on page 115 the English, 126 of the German.
This is a Fuehrer Information Bulletin concerning the sentencing to death of the former Chairman of the German Association of Masons, one Max Sievers. The note is concerned with the activities of Sievers which presumably led to his conviction and execution. The note is initialed by Thierack and by Klemm.
I might say, in brief explanation, this is a Fuehrer Information Bulletin which normally was printed and distributed to various members of the Ministry of Justice. There is available a file of these Fuehrer Information Bulletins which bear the initials, in almost every case, of Thierack and others, generally Klemm. This present document is from that latter file.
The next document, NG-- I will delay offering the document NG-744for the moment.
The next document which we will offer is NG-783, beginning on page 119 in the English text, 129 in the German. This is a document dated 3 June 1944, addressed to Altstoetter from the Gau leader or Gau legal adviser for tho Gau Carinthia. The Gau legal adviser in Carinthia complains to tho defendant Atstoetter that the court system available in Carinthia is totally inadequate to handle the cases that are awaiting and have been awaiting trial for a considerable period of time. The plea is to set up a special People's Court, if possible, for the Carinthian Gau.
On page 121 tho letter is signed, but tho signature is not legible. On page 121, also a part of the document NG-783, is a note signed by Lutz of the Ministry of Justice. It is not clear to whom this note was sent, but it docs review the question posed in the letter from which I have just read. It states:
"When Ministerial Director Altstoetter visited the Carinthian Forelands, he received Gauleter Rainer's suggestion for the appointment of a Branch Chamber of the People's Court in those districts. In the form of a proposal by the Minister, Altstoetter wrote to the Gauleiter that first of all an envoy from the Public Prosecutors at the People's Court should investigate locally whether the business on hand would justify the settingup of a special Chamber. The Minister is more in favor of a technical arrangement whereby a Chamber would travel there at regular intervals and apss sentences on a number of cases at a time.
"Since this is a matter of organization which Ministerial Director Altstoetter intends to introduce only after personal discussion with the Gauleiter, please give him an occasional reminder if I myself should forget to do so."
We offer the document NG-783 as Exhibit 484.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document will be NG-805 and begins on page 123 in the English, 133 in the German text, It is the affidavit of one waiter Bren, a former senior judge of Schwabach, and prior to that associated with the Nurnberg court. I would like to road a portion of this affidavit, which begins on page 123, five lines down from the beginning of the second paragraph.
"During this appointment --" that is, during his appointment to the Nurnberg Court -- "I had of course the opportunity of observing the president Oeshey. On the whole, I took part in 25 eases under Oeschey's chairmanship. Oeschey even alarmed the defendants by his sinister expressions. Besides he treated the defendants very roughly and frequently he became insulting. His behavior took forms which degraded the honor of the profession of judge very seriously. It was shameful to be his associate. He showed a prejudice which practically had the effect that the participation of the associate judges became more or less a matter of form. Before a session began, he informed us of his point of view, and let us know his intentions regarding the award of punishment. I can not but mention that his preliminary discussions were more or less a roll-call, in which he gave us orders which he wanted to have carried out in the manner typical of a party leader. He did not like opposition and towards us assistant judges he would become very ironical and sarcastic. This he used to express if I wanted to influence him to mitigate a punishment. Oeschey was extremely conceited and autocratic. In his judgments he referred to analogy, mainly with regard to cases formerly before the Nurnberg Special Court, which he considered to be the leading Court in the country."
The affidavit goes on to discuss cases, some of which the care records have been presented to this Court. We offer the document NG-805 as Exhibit 485.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The document next to be offered is NG-817, which begins on page 126 in the English text and on page 136 in the German. It is a document which sets out the criteria for nominations of assistant judges to the People's Court. It is stated that in this connection importance is attached to the following and "the following" consists of four principal points. These are:
"1. Those proposed must be Party members; it is also desirable that they should be politically active.
"2. They must be absolutely suitable as regards their personalities and capabilities and, if possible, experienced in criminal law.
"3. They should have already hold a position of preferment such as District Court Director or Senior Judge of the District Court of Appeal;
"4. Belong to age groups not liable for Military Service."
The names of individuals proposed for assistant judges follow. The document is initialled by the defendant Rothenberger. In the German book I think those initials appear as "L.O." rather than as "R". However, as can be seen by referring to the original document, the initial is clearly that of Rothenberger. He offer the document 817 as Exhibit 486.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG-821, begins on page 129 of the English text, 138 of the German, and is a list of nominations of honorary members of the People's Court for the duration of the war. The nominations are those of three SA men, a Brigadefuehrer, an Oberfuehrer, and a Standartenfuehrer, and in addition the note states that three more fuehrers are still to be proposed to fill the six vacant posts.
The recommendations were made apparently as a result of a conference with Dr. Thierack. We offer the document NG-821 as Exhibit 487.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence and we will recess at this tine until 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 14 Hay 1947.)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Yesterday I read an order applying to all the military tribunals. I had copies of it made. I am now offering two copies to the prosecution and two to the defense counsel.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for the defendant Rothaug. May it please the Court, the defendant Rothaug today once again has very severe pains of the stomach. Therefore, I would ask you to be good enough to grant permission for the defendant Rothaug to be discharged to his cell this afternoon where he would be able to lie down. Then he lies down, his pains abate. My application only refers to this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The request will be granted.
MR. KING: It has been called to my attention that the Document NG-680 which was offered as Exhibit 479 was not in fact received into evidence by the Court. I remember that there were no objections, so apparently it was an oversight in failing to admit it.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be that the switch was off, as it usually is when I try to say anything; at any rate, we will now state that Document NG-680, Exhibit 479, is admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: Thank you. The next document to be presented from Document Book-Supplement III is the Document NG-823 found beginning on Page 131 of the English text and 139 of the German. This document will be, when admitted in evidence, Exhibit 488. The document is dated 28 Hay 1942 and is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice for the Attention of State Secretary Freisler or his Deputy. It is signed by the defendant Lautz, and is a report of a conference held in Vienna on 19 May 1942 with the General Prosecutors of Vienna, Graz and Linz, and with the Deputy Chief of the Public Prosecution at the District Court of Appeal at Innsbruck. The defendant Lautz participated in this conference, and the document is a report concerning discussions held and decisions reached in the conference. The general subject was the acceleration of proceedings within the competence of the defendant Lautz, the question of procuring additional space for detainees, and a discussion of the penalties to be handed down by the courts themselves.
We call particular attention to only one paragraph which appears on Page 134. of the English, 145 of the German, in which Lautz says in this report the following:
"The prisons in the area of the District Court of Appeal in Vienna could at present accommodate 300 more prisoners on remand, and if the supervising personnel is adequately increased, and the necessary equipment procured, another 600 prisoners on remand could be accommodated, if necessary by crowding them densely - up to 3 men in a oneman-cell. In the latter case, however, strict separation of the prisoners could not be guaranteed. The prisons in the area of the District Court of Appeal Graz could at present accommodate another 100 prisoners on remand or more, if crowded more densely; 50 more prisoners could be accommodated by prisons in the area of the District Court of Appeal Linz, and 15 more prisoners by prisons in the area of the District Court of Appeal Innsburck."
We do not wish to refer or to read any more from this document and will offer it as Exhibit 488.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next and last document in the Book III-A, is NG-829which begins on Page 135 in the English, 147 in the German, and will be, when introduced in evidence, Exhibit 489. This document consists of three separate documents, all in the case of one Charlotte Duepper, who was first indicted for seditious remarks by the Special Court in Nurnberg. From Pages 13$ through 137 the indictment sets out the conversation which formed the basis of the indictment. She was brought to trial before the Special Court in a proceeding presided over by Dr. Ferber, Dr. Baemler, and Dr. Hoffmann. The opinion of the Special Court begins on 138 and extends through 142.
The court found that the remarks which the defendant Duepper was alleged to have made did not constitute a crime for which a sentence could be given, and the Special Court, presided over by Ferber, acquitted her. The case then went up to the Supreme Court and a plea of nullification was returned against the defendant Duepper and retrial ordered before the Special Court in Bamberg. We do not, unfortunately, have a copy of the opinion verdict on the second trial before the Bamberg Special Court. I do know, however, what the sentence was, and if the Court is interested, I can supply that information. It would be entirely unofficial, since we do not have the document.
The prosecution offers the Document NG-829 as Exhibit 489.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that you do not have the official information of the sentence of the next trial?
MR. KING: No. I do not.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: There are two additional documents remaining in Document Book Supplement III-A which we will present as soon as we have complied with the 24-hour rule. Until such time, which should be tomorrow morning, that completes the presentation of documents from this book.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, we will ask to have called the witness Horst Schmitt. The witness will testify in the German language.
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LaFOLLETTE:
Q Doctor, you will state your name to the Court and your place of birth, please -- and the date of your birth.
A Dr. jur. Horst Schmitt; I was born on 26th October, 1900, at Erfurt.
Q How much of a family did your mother and father have; how many children?
A My parents had two children, one older brother who was born in 1898 and myself.
Q Are either of your parents living?
A Yes, my mother is still alive.
Q And about when did your father die, Doctor.
A My father died in September, 1925.
Q What was the cause of his death?
A He had a stroke of the heart.
Q When did you begin the study of law, Doctor?
A I began to study law in 1921 and continued until 1922; then, I interrupted and resumed again in 1927; it was about 1927-28.
Q After you resumed, when did you pass your first degree -your first examination?
A I passed my first state examination on 18 November, 1931 before the Oberlandesgericht for Thueringia in Jena.
Q And what was your grade there?
A I passed with satisfactory.
Q Did you pass another examination in November, 1933?
A No.
Q When did you pass the next examination, and what was the next examination you took?
A The next examination was the second state examination, the so-called assessor examination; I passed it before the Reich lawyers' Examination Officer, in Berlin, 2 November 1934.
Q Doctor, will you speak just a little slower so that the interpreter can get it all in? Now, what was your grade at that last examination?
A I passed my last examination with adequate; the President of the Examination Commission was President Pahland. During the oral opinion he gave on me, he said -
Q Slower, please,
A President Pahland declared when he gave his oral opinion on my result that I could not have been given a better note or grade because the so-called Nazi essay was unsatisfactory, and that I had failed that completely.
Q Now, what year was that?
A That was in 1937, in December, -
Q I didn't make it clear to you probably, but will you tell the Court the grade that you received on the examination that you took in 1934?
A In 1933 I had the note satisfactory.
Q Now, did you practice law then up until the spring of 1939 at various places?
A No. I was then a provisional assessor, and afterwards prosecution assessor, and only on 3 January 1940, I obtained permission to set up a practice as attorney at law; that was in 1941 rather.
Q I ask you whether or not you did the work necessary for a doctor's degree in law, where you did it, and when you received your degree.
A I began to write my doctor's thesis v/hen I was a referendar and I finished it in 1939. I passed the oral examination for doctor's degree at the Provincial University, Thueringia, Jena, in May, 1939, and the note was "good".
Q And the degree, I understand, you obtained sometime between the spring 1939 and August, 1939; is that right?
A That was the doctor's degree.
Q That is right; and how long did you work on your written paper -- on that matter, and on what subject did you write it?
A On my thesis of a doctor, I worked from 1935, with interruptions; the subject of my thesis was the legal nature of the duties of the private insurance.
Q Now, did you desire to or determine to be married in the spring of 1939?
A Yes.
Q At that time was an application made for a health certificate under the law as a condition precedent to marriage?
A No. If I may describe the course of events, I should like to say the following:
Q All right; tell it in your own words, please.
A In 1933, after I had passed my referendar examination I became engaged to be married. Because I always had to be afraid that a hereditary health report proceeding might be instituted against me, I tried to postpone my marriage. In 1939 my present wife expressed the desire that at last we might get married. Naturally, I complied with her wish, and through my wife, we had announcements published near State in Hannover, because on account of my experience with the hereditary health laws, I did not want to have anything to do with it, since in 1933 the lav/ for the prevention of hereditary diseases was published, and I always feared that, and I avoided all contact with official agen cies; as I knew that according to the executive order doctors were obligated to make an announcement to official doctors about my case, I no longer called on official doctors, and I was treated by a Jewish doctor who enjoyed my complete confidence; that doctor emigrated in 1936, and since that time I no longer went to see a doctor unless I could see a personal, good friend of my own, and on whom I could rely absolutely.
Q Now, doctor,there was an application or a preliminary statement that had to be made in order to obtain a certificate of health; is that right?
A Yes. As far as I remember, I did fill in some form and I did put down in writing on that form that I was in good health, because I was not foolish enough to hand myself over to the Nazi authorities by my own signature. I do not know where that certificate went. The further course of events was then as follows: In May, 1939 I was at Erfurt in a lawyer' s office where I deputized for a notary public attorney at law, and about nine o'clock I was called up on the telephone; the person asked me -- he spoke to me personally; the call was from the Municipal Health Office at Erfurt, and they asked me to go to see them immediately -- they put it. I already guessed what might happen and went to the Health Office. There I was brought before the Official doctor who first of all talked to me. In the course of the conversation he said: You have suffered from an ailment on your hand, and I immediately said no. He then asked me to show him my hand; then he said to me, well, you want to get married, and when I said yes, I do, he said to me, that naturally I could not marry. Naturally I then became very excited and I asked him whether I could go and see a doctor who was a specialist in this particular field. I then was told about a doctor whose name was Dr. Frensen; until 1933 his name was Dr. Friedlaender.