On page 7 there is an announcement of changes that were effected in the Ministry of Justice, concerning the retirement of Dr. Schlegelberger. We find that opposite the "a" under "2", and also under "b".
The balance of the letter is concerned with the retirements, transfers, and appointments which we have already discussed. There is, in addition, on pages 13 and 14, a press release which announced the retirement of Schlegelberger, the appointment of Rothenberger, and the transfer of Freisler.
We offer the document NG-1243 as Exhibit 506.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
Where will you place this document in the book? Oh, I think you have already stated that.
MR. KING: We call at this time the witness Muench, who will testify in the German language.
ANNI MUENCH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Will you please raise your right hand and repeat after me the following:
I swear by God, the Almight 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. KING:
Q. Witness, would you please state for the court your name and you present place of residence.
A. The name is Anni Muench, nee Hoehne, residence Celle near Hannover, Schackstrasse No. 9.
Q. You are appearing before this Court to testify, are you not, to the facts concerning your involuntary sterilization pursuant to the order of the Health Court in Neuruppin?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you first please tell the Court something about your family background. May I suggest questions as the following: Are your parents still living? How large a family do you have, and are all of your family, that is your brothers and sisters, healthy so far as you know and have no mental defects? I would like you to develop your family background along the lines of those questions.
A. My father is 73 years old. My parents live in Wittenberge. My mother died on 23 March 1946 on account of a gall bladder disease. My parents were always healthy. I have four brothers and two sisters. All my brothers and sisters are married. All of them have healthy children. I have never noticed that any mental deficiency existed with my brothers and sisters.
Q. Will you please tell the Court the extent of your formal education and some of the jobs and positions which you have held.
A. At the age of seven I went to school, one year later than the others because I had been ill. I rent to Grundschule for four years and three years high school, Buergerschule. Because I was very weak I was one year behind. I left school in 1931 at Easter. 1931 to 1932 I went as a domestic servant in order to learn household work. From 1932 on I went out into the country to work as a farm helper, but half a year later I had to stop because that kind of work was too hard for me. In the fall of 1932 I started at the Singer Sewing Machine Factory, at Wittenberge, as an apprentice. In 1934, no, 1933, rather, as an apprentice worker I worked on these machines. In 1934, I was working as a worker in the Singer Sewing Machine factory. At the end of 1933 I met my husband. That is just about all.
Q. You are at present married?
A. I am married at Celle.
Q. Will you tell us, if you will, the circumstances surrounding your first marriage?
A. In 1933, toward the end of 1933 I met my first husband. I became pregnant February 1934. We had no means to get married because my father could not give me the money, and we asked for a loan, a martial loan. In order to make that application I had to submit proof of the health of my parents. I could do so. In August or September 1934, we were summoned by the Health Office. I had to go there, together with my husband. I entered and saw a certain Dr. Knappe at the Health Office. I had to undress and Dr. Knappe examined me. At that time Dr. Knappe put some questions to me, namely political questions when and where Hitler was born; whether I was for Hitler. I was somewhat surprised about the tone in which he put the questions, and I asked the doctor what that had to do with my application for a martial loan. Thereupon he shouted at me and told me to keep quiet. I started to cry and he sent me out of the room. One moment. Before that he put other questions. I didn't answer these questions any more because he had shouted at me already and I became rather obstinate.
Q. May I refer to the circumstances under which these questions were asked? You first applied for a marital loan. You were then summoned before the Health Court to answer questions. You were asked to undress, and while you were undressed these questions were put to you; is that right?
A. I had to bare the upper part of the body and Dr. Knappe examined me and put the questions at the same time, the political questions, that is to say, whether I was for Hitler, and when and where Hitler was born. I gave the answer and asked what that had to do with a marital loan, and that was when he told me to keep quiet and shouted at me, and when I started to cry he sent me out of the room.
Q. Now, after the birth of your child were you again summoned before the Health Court for further interrogation?
A. One week later, we received the information the application for marital loan had not been granted. I want to state that my pregnancy was rather far advanced at that time, and my child was born on the 4th of October, 1934. When I left the hospital six weeks later I was brought before a Eugenics Court at Neuruppin.
Q. That was approximately the middle of December, 1934?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you explain briefly what procedure was followed by the examining official at this Health Court in Neuruppin?
A. At the end of November, 1934, I received a summons to appear before the Eugenics at Neuruppin. I went there with my father. My father, however, cased me a lot of grief before by telling me that I didn't want to answer these questions at the Health Office. We came to the Court building. We entered it, and there were three gentlemen in that court room. The one man in the center asked me the same questions again which had been put to me at the Health Office where I had been questioned before.
Thereupon, I asked whether I had to answer these questions. I was told, "Yes." I did not answer the questions because the same questions were put to me again. When the three men there, or at least one of them, asked my father what his opinion was concerning that matter of sterilization, my father, who was a little afraid--he was afraid of the police-said in the end, "Do whatever you care to". That is all.
Q May I ask you, was your father or any other members of his family including yourself, at any time ever members of the Party or any of its affiliated organizations?
A My father and I and my brothers and sisters were in no Party. However, my father was in the Stahlhelm--the steel helmet organization--in order to meet comrades from the First World War. But otherwise, he hated the whole nazi government.
Q Can you tell me whether or not the Health Court at Neuruppin finally ordered your sterilization to take place?
A No. I have said that the questions were put to me and also to my father, then we were permitted to go home. I wasn't told anything.
Q When did the sterilization actually take place, and who, so far as you know, made the order?
A In December 1934, I received a slip of paper from the City. There it said -
Q Excuse me. What city? You say you received a slip of paper from the City. What city? What organization of the city?
A From the Health Office. It was a slip of paper stating that within eight days I had to appear in the hospital for the purpose of an operation. I did not want to go there, but my mother made me. I went there and it was carried out there--that is, the operation. On that slip of paper, however, it said that if I would not appear, they would send the police after me to bring me in.
Q Can you tell me what your physical condition has been since the sterilization operation was performed?
AAfter the operation, I was in the hospital for four weeks.
Altogether, I am physically weak, with continuous pain; at any rate, I became melancholy because I love children and cannot have any more.
Q Just one final word to clarify your present family status. Your married your first husband in what year, please?
A I married my first husband on the 15th of June 1935 at Celle. As I have said before, after we had no success in Wittenberge, we went to Celle and tried to get married there. We had the announcements made and from the Registrar we received a certificate for the Health Office. I went to the Health Office and received the permission to marry immediately without any examination. On the basis of that, we could get married. During the first year of my marriage, I worked at the Schocolade factory, Teidke. Since I did not make enough money I worked at the Spinnhuette in Celle for three and one-half years, a textile firm. But I got difficulties--heart trouble--from the work that I had to do there, and then I stopped working and devoted myself entirely to my child. Then the war broke out. My husband went into the Army. For three and one-half years I worked at the gas precaution school at Celle as a clerk. In 1943, my husband was killed in Russia, and since that time I did not work any more.
Q You're at present remarried?
A Yes. On the 20th of October 1945, I married for the second time in Stuttgart. We also received the permission from the Registrar and were also examined, and there were no difficulties made.
Q You said a moment ago that you stopped working outside of the home and devoted your time to your children. That is the way the translation came through. You meant you devoted your time to your child, did you not?
A Yes, my child.
Q You had one child?
A Yes.
Q That is all of the direct examination. The witness may now be subjected to cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of defense counsel desire to cross examine this witness? (No answer) Apparently, there is no cross examination. (Dr. Kuboschok nods) It's now so near the usual recess time that we will take up the cross examination upon reconvening.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING: With the Court's permission, I would like to ask the witness one more question before cross examination by Dr. Kubuschok.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY MR. KING:
Q Witness, you have referred to your child who was born in 1934; the child is now 12 - 13 years of age. Is the child physically and mentally well; are there any deficiencies whatsoever in the condition of this child that you have noticed -- as of the present time?
A My child, from the time of its birth, is physically and mentally healthy. However, he had the childrens' diseases -- scarlet fever and measles; nothing else.
MR. KING: Thank you. That is all, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBOSCHOK:
Q. Witness, you told us about your visit to Dr. Knappe. You described it in detail. You were also asked whether this examination took place also in the Heriditary Health Court. Is it true that Dr. Knappe undertook to examine you, as a member of the Heriditary Health Court. In this capacity, did Dr. Knappe examine you?
A. Dr. Knappe did it on the basis of the marital loan, and on that basis he put the political questions.
Q. What office was it to which you went and where Dr. Knappe questioned you?
A. It was the Health Office, Wittenberge.
Q. You said further that Dr. Knappe had given you a physical examination, and then he put two political questions, and further questions to you -
A. (Interposing) I -
Q. Just moment. I would like to ask you what you have written down there on that piece of paper which you look at all the time when I ask you questions -- before you answer.
A. I have written down the individual points. I discussed the individual points with my husband and he wrote down the individual points for me because it is already 12 years ago that it happened, so that I should know approximately what the dates were.
Q. Tell me, can your husband whom you met only about ten years -after your examination, that is, your second husband, can he help you refresh your memory in any way?
A. I met my husband -
Q. (Interposing) The second one?
A. The second one, and I told him the entire story because I had no one.
Q. Let us go back to my question. After the physical examination, what was the mental examination at Dr. Knappe's office. What was the first question?
A. Dr. Knappe put the first question; he put political questions.
Q. I am asking you what was the first question?
A. Where Hitler was born.
Q. Before, you said that the first question was, "What is your attitude toward Hitler?"
A. Yes, he put that question to me too. He asked me that.
A. I am asking you what was the first question?
A. What I am thinking about Hitler.
Q. What was your answer?
A. Nothing at all.
Q. Before, in your examination, you said you gave an answer.
A. I asked what the political question had to do with the marital loan.
Q. Before, you said furthermore, you started to cry?
A. Yes.
Q. Bood. What did Dr. Knappe say?
A. Why I cried?
Q. No, what did he say, after you had answered -- what the marital loan had to do with your question?
A. I was supposed to keep quite, in fact, shut up.
Q. What did he ask you after that?
A. Then, he put more political questions to me; where Hitler was born, and when he was born. I did not answer those either out of spite.
Q. You mentioned further questions?
A. I cannot remember those any more.
Q. But, before you said he had still put more questions?
A. Yes, those other questions -- the political questions which I told you here.
Q. Before, I understood you to say that he asked further questions, in addition to political questions?
A. Outside of political questions he did not put any questions to me; only the political questions which I have already stated here.
Q. And, question two and three he put to you after you had given him the answer, and after you were already crying?
A. The questions came up. I started to cry when he yelled at me and told me I should shup up. --when I asked what political questions had to do with the marital loan.
Q. Then, you came to the Heriditary Health Court after that? How old were you at the time?
A. I was 18 years old.
Q. Your father was your legal representative?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he also summoned to the trial as such?
A. No, I was summoned alone, but my father went along because my mother asked him to go along.
Q. Now, tell me some details about the questions which were put to you at the Heriditary Health Court?
A. I came to the Heriditary Health Court with my father. There the same questions were put to me as by Dr. Knappe in Wittenberg, at the Health Office. I asked him whether I had to answer them and I was told, yes. I did not answer the questions either. Then, my father was asked what was his attitude in the matter. My father was also somewhat scared and excited and said at the end, "Do what you want to." That is all.
Q. Before, you said that on the way to the Heriditary Health Court your father made reproaches to you because you had not answered the questions that Dr. Knappe asked you.
A. My father did not like me already when I was a child because I was on the whole physically a weak person. He was a little bit angry about the whole affair, and, therefore, he made reproaches to me.
Q. When your father made these reproaches to you, did you decide at that time to answer when you were asked or did you decide already at that time not to answer?
A. No, I did not want to give the answers. I did not give the answers at the Health Office, and I did not want to do it at the Heriditary Health Court either.
Q. For what reason did you put the question to the judges -whether you have to answer or not?
A. I know that if a person request a marital loan, no political questions are put to the person, and in my case, especially in this connection, they put these questions; therefore, I asked whether I must answer these questions before the court.
Q. What was the Court's answer to your question?
A. They did not give me any further answer. They only said, "Yes, you have to answer."
Q. And, you put this question to the court already when they asked you the first question?
A. Yes, when they put the political questions to me, I merely asked.
Q. We have to divide the political questions into three questions. Into the question -- what is your attitude toward Hitler; when was Hitler born; and, whore was he born. In reply to what question of the court did you put your question?
MR. KING: I remind the witness that if she does not remember or does not know the answer to these questions, that she has the privilege as a witness to so state.
A. I do not remember the question any more
Q. Then, I shall help you. You said that the same three political questions were put to you by the court as Dr. Knappe put to you. We have already discussed these questions. Now, I only want to know from you, whether at the first question already you put your question?
A. No.
Q. And, what did you answer to the first question?
A. Nothing at all.
Q. You did not answer the first question at all; and the second one, not at all, either; and, only when the third question came up, you put your question?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you give an explanation for the fact that this objection to the political question, that you did not bring it up already when the first question was asked of you?
A. I wanted to hear whether the judges would put the same question to me; therefore, I did not ask right away when the first question was put to me.
Q. Did the judges then address further questions to you?
A. No. only those questions -- oh, yes one question: Whether I knew what position Goering held, what position Hermann Goering was holding.
Q. But, you did not remember any more without referring to your piece of paper?
A. Well, it might have been a slip of the tongue. Couldn't it?
Q. So, this question about Goering was put to you as a fourth question, after you had refused to answer after the other questions?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please, Dr. Kubuschok. I have lived a long time, and I think I know something about cross-examination, but this is not cross-examination. Just asking the witness to go over and over again, the same thing, the witness has answered the same thing a half dozen times -- it seems to me it is about time to go to something else.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, the fourth question was discussed by the witness for the first time just now; about the Goering question we had not heard anything so far.
THE PRESIDENT: How can it be material whether she knew anything about Goering, or whether she didn't know. She is only a citizen, and I don't see that would have anything to do with it, has it? Has that anything to do with her sterilization? -- I ask you the question, do you think that has anything to do with this issue?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Mr. President, in my opinion, it is contrary to all experience that at the Health Office, and at a trial at the Hereditary Health Court, merely so few questions were asked in order to determine the intelligence quotient of the person concerned -- his mental attitude. I shall make efforts to obtain the files of the Court, and I think that in that case, in all cases, we shall find out that the test covered very large areas of the ability the perception and the association of thoughts in very many fields. Since I consider it absolutely unbelievable that merely three questions were put to the witness. I wanted, already during the cross-examination, to gain a clear picture about the actual process of the trial.
MR. KING: I wonder if Dr. Kuboschok is aware of a part of the testimony of this witness. Nothing was stated at any time, so far as I know, that the questions put to her by the Health Court were to test the intelligence quotient. Perhaps if Dr. Kubuschok had said political intelligence, quotient, we could agree with him. But these were not intelligence quotient tests. They were put to test the witness's knowledge of political affairs, particularly of the Party, and I think it is an undue reflection on the witness to refer to them as an I.Q. test, when in fact they were not that at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok said himself that this seems impossible that they would be the only questions that would be asked. Well, that may be -- it would seem to everybody that has nothing to do with the question of a marital loan. But we have been hearing testimony here about very brief trials -- this morning about a man being tried in forty to forty-five minutes, and executed within twentyfive minutes thereafter. Here, we have a case that had been running on for months, and it would seem, by comparing this case with that case that it seems impossible that could have happened, but the witness testified to it. And if you want to contradict this testimony, when you come to your case you may present your testimony and we will rule on the contradiction at that time. But there is nothing gained by asking this witness any more questions along this line. That is our ruling. You're consuming time, and accomplishing nothing.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I understand, and for the purpose of an expeditious trial I shall interrupt the cross-examination -- break off the cross-examination -- and I hope that the court authorities in Neuruppin will make the files available to me, and that I shall have the opportunity to prove the course of the trial through documents, through the records.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross-examination of this witness? Apparently not. Have you any re-direct?
MR. KING: The prosecution has no re-direct, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused.)
MR. KING: The next exhibit will be the Document NG-787, and will become, when offered in evidence, Exhibit 507. I suggest that this document be placed as the last document in Supplement Book 3-B. The document consists, almost entirely, of statistical summaries of cases heard before Reich courts for at least part of the war years, together with the sentences given as a result of these trials. We suggest that it may be of interest to the Court to correlate the statistical tables in this document with the information in the Warlimont document which was submitted this morning as Exhibit 499 -- that is, Document NG-1395.
That document showed the degree of losses, the comparative degree of losses, as the war continued past the zenith, and to the end. Without further comment we wish to offer this Document NG-787 as Exhibit 507.
DR. SCHILF (for the defendant Klemm): The document which was just handed in concerns the year 1942. The affidavit by Warlimont starts only with January 1943. Therefore, it is not clear how these two documents can be brought into relationship with each other. This refers only to the explanation made by the prosecutor.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The explanation made by the prosecutor, of course, is not always binding on the Tribunal, and it might even be possible that the prosecutor might make a mistake. So we will let the Tribunal judge the validity of these remarks.
I would like to address the Tribunal a minute, if I may. The Tribunal has seen me in this capacity for many times, too many -We will rest the prosecution's case with the introduction of seven more documents. One of them, NG-988, which deals with the organization of the Reich Ministry of Justice. That document was just distributed today and we can not put it in under the twenty-four-hour rule. There are three documents which involve decisions of the Special Seante of the Peoples Court, in which the defendant Petersen sat as a lay judge: NG-1472, and NG-1473 -- the last two are still in what is know as the Typing Poel, but we hope to get them to distribute tomorrow. NG-1474is the affidavit of the witness Horst Guenter Franke. I am not going to run through the whole list of the comedy of errors or tragedies that have prevented as from producing Horst Guenter Franke --. Anyway, the last time we went for him they said he wasn't there, and then they called up and apologized -- and he is still up in the British Zone. If he does not get here by Wednesday we will put in his affidavit, and we can order him to be brought in and he can be cross-examined at a later time.
We started out ten days ago to get this witness.
NG-837 involves the defendant Lautz. NG-808 is an affidavit which involves the defendant Cuhorst. They will not be ready tomorrow. I have about reached the end of my capacity to be embarrassed, but I am doing everything I can to get these documents distributed so that we can have them by Wednesday.
As I said to the Tribunal, if Hans Guenter Franke doesn't appear in person on Wednesday, we will put in his affidavit and he can be crossexamined at some other time.
There is one other matter; I just gave the citation to Mr. Wooleyhan, who is going to check it. There is an enactment of the Reichstag of 1934, the Law Against Malicious Statements for the Unity of Party and State and Against Malicious Statements against the Party and Party Uniforms. I was of the opinion that we had introduced that into evidence. I still may be correct, but if I am mistaken I wish defense counsel would listen closely because I am going to make a request of them. This law, of course, is well known to every German lawyer, and if I can't get it processed so as to distribute it under the 24-hour rule before Wednesday, but have it available, I trust that defense counsel will permit me to finish up with that without requiring me to do that. I appreciate it very much.
That is the situation of the Prosecution's case, Your Honor. I will not offer one single document, other than these, that will delay. I regret that we can't do this tomorrow, but some of these documents are still being typed. Again, in fairness to every one in the organization here, some of this documentation came in very late; it was turned over by the Russian Government to the Document Center in Berlin not more than three weeks ago, and the processing of that and getting it down here is what has delayed some of these instruments, particularly the three instruments involving the defendant Petersen were just that group. I thought last week that the translation and the processing through the document room would clear certainly by today so we could close tomorrow.
I do ask that we recess until 9:30 Wednesday morning, and I have stated exactly what our proof will be.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the situation concerning the crossexamination of the affiants who have submitted affidavits?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That, your Honor, I think both the prosecution and defense counsel are awaiting the decision of the Tribunal as to how it cares to decide on that matter.
The Tribunal's ruling, roughly as I recall it, was that these affiants would be examined in open court, unless the Court determined that it would be equally expeditious or satisfactory to examine them before a commissioner. If they were to be examined before the prosecution was considered to be technically closed, based on my experience in getting witnesses in here at any specific date, that would extend the beginning of the time for the defense to a point which I would not even want to contemplate. I have already stated my position on it. I certainly do not wish to work any disadvantage to the defense, and whatever ruling the Tribunal makes, of course, is satisfactory to me. I can be here, but I think under the circumstances that is a matter that almost, from a practical standpoint, must be done before a commissioner of some kind.
The Court will recall that I read here, several days back, the provisions of Ordinance 7 which seemed to indicate that even under all circumstances it was the obligation of the Secretary General's office, as written out, to produce these witnesses. That has never -- at least, as far as the prosecution witnesses are concerned, that has not been done.
The ruling of the Tribunal in the case of the affidavit of the witness Behms, in which discussion Dr. Grube and Dr. Schilf participated, which was on or about the 7th or 8th of March, was that there would be an opportunity for cross-examination where witnesses could possibly be made available. However, as I read the ruling, that ruling which was made at that time, the Court did not make it a condition to attaching any probative value to affidavits that there must be a crossexamination. Certainly, if there is no cross-examination either before an open court or before a commissioner, I would expect the Court to take all those facts into consideration in attaching probative value to any affidavit. It seems to me that in the end that is a ruling which the Tribunal must make, and one which perhaps it would care to make on Wednesday.
It has just been called to my attention that Exhibit 507 was offered, but no formal ruling that it was admitted was made, according to the notations at the prosecution's desk.
We note that was submitted, and it is to go into Supplement III-B, Your Honor. That is NG-787.
THE PRESIDENT: If no ruling has been made on that, the ruling will be made now that it will be received in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, referring to the remarks that have just been made by the prosecution, I don't recall that any ruling was made that none of these affidavits would be regarded as evidence without the opportunity of cross-examination.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Exactly; I thought I said that I understood the Court did not make any such ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see; I thought you said the reverse.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No. The Court ruled that every opportunity should be afforded to permit cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't remember putting it in that language, but the availability of the witness was the thing.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, the availability of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it possible that you are waiting for the opinion of the Tribunal now as to each individual case before you start anything?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It was rather my thought that the Tribunal would state, not as to each individual affiant or as to each individual request, but the Tribunal would state whether or not it would appoint a commissioner who should be empowered to use whatever facilities are available to obtain these affiants for cross-examination, or whether the Tribunal anticipated that it would make the ruling that it would continue to hear cross-examination before the prosecution rests. I did not anticipate that would be the ruling of the Tribunal.
I am sure that defense counsel will consider that they have stated their requests to the Tribunal. There is no record in the transcript or otherwise of the exact names of those affiants desired.