Q. In Exhibit 174, Mr. Barnickel also states that the objections became more frequent--and that does refer to your period of office--objections concerning undermining of defense morale cases. Would you give us your views, please?
A That was not the reason. The reason was only that in that sphere of jurisdiction the District Courts of Appeal, the Oberlandesgerichte were most lacking in uniformity. That alone was the reason why they increased.
Q. The exhibit also states that the extraordinary objections almost always had for their purpose to achieve a more severe sentence.
A. That too is not correct. I would refer you again to the report lists in Exhibit 252, to page 5 and page 110, in the English text, pages 5 and 4, and pages 126 and 127. They show that extraordinary objections were made in the case of death sentences, and as a rule those objections, as far as Freisler's sentences were concerned, were designed to bring about a more lenient sentence.
Q. The defendant Nebelung to, in the affidavit which he gave to the prosecution--that is Exhibit 177, NG-333, document book III-G--has made a statement to the effect that during the time when you were Undersecretary, the extraordinary objections increased.
A. If such increases actually did occur, I have already given the reason. The reason was the lack of uniformity with the Oberlandesgerichte, the District Courts of Appeal, and Freisler's sentences. However, I wish to add that on no account that increase was due to any influence that I might have exerted.
Q. You stated that the jurisdiction in so-called cases of undermining of defense morale was lacking in uniformity. I would now like to put to you Exhibit 97, and Exhibit 100.
THE PRESIDENT: We will postpone those matters until after the afternoon recess. We will now take the 15 minute recess.
( A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the absence from the courtroom of many of defense counsel, the Tribunal will merely state now that tomorrow morning we will have a ruling upon the matter of the conspiracy charge in Count 1.
You may proceed.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Herr Klemm, last I asked you for your position concerning Exhibit 97, that is NG-510, Book I-D, and concerning Exhibit 100, that is NG-674, in Document Book I-E. It is the problem of undermining of military strength and points of discussion at a meeting in Weimar in 1944 at the time when you were Under-Secretary.
A. The practice of handling cases of undermining of military strength and points of discussion at a meeting in Weimar in 1944 at the time when you were Under-Secretary.
A. The practice of handling cases of undermining of military strength was firmly established. That can be seen in particular from Exhibit 97 and 100. It was different, however, with the way in which local courts and prosecutions handled it. Frequently one misunderstood that the law against malicious attacks and provisions concerning undermining of military strength were to protect entirely different legal concepts; that is to say, that these acts violated entirely different legal concepts. That discrepancy was unjust and therefore one had to do something about it.
Q. In an affidavit Gruenwald, Exhibit 283, NG-535; Document Book VII-A, the assertion is made that cases of undermining of military strength were almost always decided by death sentences. What can you say in this connection? What were your experiences as Under-Secretary concerning that point?
A. That statement by Gruenwald is based on an error. First of all one has to take into consideration that only the most serious cases were tried before the People's Court.
If one wants to get a clear picture then one would have to add the jurisdiction of the 15 District Courts of Appeal which also had to decide cases of undermining military strength. One may even speak of the fact that in cases which were referred to the District Courts of Appeal, only very rarely death sentences were pronounced. But from Exhibit 124, one may also see--that is a statistical list concerning the People's Court--that although the People's Court only dealt with the most serious cases in less than 50 per cent death sentences were pronounced. That statistical list, of course, refers not only to cases of undermining of military strength but also to high treason, treason. If one compares, on the other hand, that list of death sentences from the Ministry of Justice with it and the statements contained in Affidavit Rothaug, who estimates 30,000 denouncements per year--I consider that figure too high--but if one puts that alone in comparison then one can find out that in only one per cent of all cases of undermining of military strength, a death sentence was pronounced.
Q. As you saw matters at that time, you said that according to the statistical list on the people's Court, about 50 per cent death sentences were pronounced. Wasn't that figure extraordinarily high? I want you to make your statement from the point of view of the Ministry. That is, from what you could observe during your work as Under Secretary.
A. Here again I can only refer to the fact that one really would have to add the jurisdiction of the District Courts of Appeal, and then of course I could not get a clear picture because the Referent for these matters, Franke, almost in all cases went directly to the Minister. In addition, we did not have the right to decide, as far as members of the Protectorate were concerned, because the right for clemency in these cases was with the Reich Protectorate for Bohemis and Moravia.
Q. In this connection, I would like to ask you whether you have any knowledge of the fact that at the People's Court the defense was allegedly limited. We have repeatedly heard witnesses here who stated that defense counsel before the People's Court hardly had an opportunity to conduct an adequate defense.
I refer also to the fact that other witnesses have stated to the contrary. What have you, as Undersecretary, heard about the cases which were here quoted as presenting a limitation of the rights of the defense?
A. I have never heard anything about complaints against the People's Court with one exception, and that was the person of Freisler. There was never any complaint about any other judge that reached me. I could not even say complaint, I could only say criticism--adverse criticism. That was criticism of the manner in which Freisler conducted the trial. One case was described to me by my Adjutant when he saw Freisler in the trials concerning the 20th July. Never, however, was a complaint received by me from an attorney, and I do not know of a single case where a defense counsel might have been sent to a concentration camp for the manner or the content of his defense. Moreover, for the People's Court, the same provisions of the legal code of procedure were, of course, valid as for every other court, and that these rules were not kept, about that I have never heard a complaint.
Q. The prosecution has submitted individual cases against you. First we are concerned here with Exhibit 79, that is NG-316, in Document Book I-C. It is the affidavit by the witness Bram, and he mentions cases of illegal border crossing, cases of foreigners who lived in Germany and who had fled across the border to Switzerland and who were prosecuted for treason by all agencies of the Administration of Justice, also by the People's Court. What did you hear about that at the time?
A. I cannot say anything about that. These cases must have been important during the years 1940 to 1942. When I was there, they were no longer important. Brem, I believe, was a judge with the People's Court only until 1943. I cannot recall that during the time when I was Under-Secretary any such case had come to my attention.
Q. Then I still have to mention Exhibit 495, that is NG-1009, an affidavit by Weinmann. It's in Supplementary Book III-D. He describes the case of Dr. Will. Did you know anything about that case while you were Under-Secretary?
A. I recall that the case was reported to the Minister. Details, I can no longer remember, but I do recall that the problem was that the presentation of evidence was not very convincing and that a supplementary sentence had been pronounced for which there were no provisions in the law. Therefore an extraordinary objection was made. We also have the case Brinken, Exhibit 160, NG-274; in Document Book III-D.
The problem here was that by the intervention of a high SS leader, influence was exerted on the Administration of Justice, that is to say in this case on the People's Court. Did that case at the time come to your attention?
A. Yes, I know of that case, and that case particularly lent itself to complete clarification. Exhibit 160 contains copies, not from originals, but from the personal files of the lawyer. The prosecution asserts that Frau Brinken had been acquitted, because a high SS leader intervened on her behalf. In fact, however, she was sentenced to six months in prison, probably for an offense against the law concerning malicious acts, whereas the indictment was filed and based upon the undermining of military strength. The time she had been in prison pending trial was deducted. This correspondence was conducted only between SS Obergruppenfuehrer Hildebrandt and the defense counsel. But particularly for the intervention on the part of the SS Obergruppenfuehrer, one can prove just the opposite of what the prosecution assumes. Hildebrandt, that was the SS Obergruppenfuehrer, also approached the Ministry of Justice, but the Ministry of Justice, did not react in any way. As a result the woman remained in prison under arrest; the trial took place, and when that case was reported to the Minister, he directed that a letter be written to the Reichsfuehrer SS. I was present when that happened and know for sure that the department was instructed to send a copy of that intervention on the part of Hildebrandt, together with a complaint to Himmler, that is the superior of the SS Obergruppenfuehrer. That can be seen from Exhibit 252, page 37; in the English pages 40 to 42, from the schedule of reports of the 27th of October 1944, under No. 6.
Q. That concludes the Brinken case. But in this connection I should like to hear your explanation of Exhibit 246, NG-153, Document Book III-G. It is a correspondence, on the one hand, between Bormann and Lammers, and on the other between Lammers and Thierack of July, 1944, that is during the period while you were in the Ministry of Justice as under secretary.
Would you comment on that, please.
A. Bormann, for the sphere of the party, and Lammers, for the sphere of the state, had either drafted or prepared circular letters by which it should be avoided that people in prominent positions of the party or the state on their own initiative would submit testimonials for clemency pleas without actual knowledge of the facts concerning the contents of a penal procedure, and only with the intention to make use of their personal prestige in favor of a clemency plea; that should be stopped. And Bormann, as well as Lammers, referred to the proper channels and means for the support of a clemancy plea. The answer which Thierack gave Lammers on his draft does not bear the file mark of a department, and the answer must have left within a very short time after receipt of that letter. That shows that he himself answered directly. By these documents an element was introduced which proves that one wanted to prevent the intervention of prominent personalities -- such interventions as are charged in the Brinken case.
Q. Then we have to discuss the Pelsen case; the Pelsen case is Exhibit 161, NG--336, Document Book III--D. It is a death sentence pronounced for listening to foreign broadcasts, and you are brought into connection with that document.
A. Here again I can hardly say anything. These are the personal files of the defense counsel, and a purely one-sided description of the man who was sentenced. It is interesting to note that the clemency plea begins with an express statement on the part of the defense counsel that the findings of the tribunal are not to be disputed; findings which were based upon the statements of two witnesses. The case itself was decided by the Minister, as can be seen from Document Book III-L, page 11, in the English book, pages 12 and 13, under C, Figure 2.
Q. Then, we come to the Kozian case which is also brought into connection with you. It is Exhibit 158, NG-357, Document Book III-D.
This is a case of defeatist statements which were punished. What did you have to do with it?
A. This case is concerned not only with defeatist statements, but also -- of course that was not read into the transcript -- but it can be seen from the case, it is also concerned with the fact that the convicted man wanted to prevent his son from doing service in the army. I don't know anything about that case.
Q. Then, we have another case; the case of the witness Solf, who was heard here. The Prosecution, after hearing the witness, submitted a so-called Fuehrer Information, Exhibit 402, NG-1243, Document Book III-D. You are supposed to have known about this Fuehrer Information, that is to say, to have approved of it. Would you care to comment on that?
A. The details as to the facts in the case I ca no longer remember. I have to depend on what is written in that Fuehrer Information. The case did not come us to the stage of a decision any more. If in spite of that I considered the Fuehrer Information, that does not mean a decision in the case itself. My signature only means that I considered the contents of that Fuehrer Information so important that it had to be brought to Hitler's attention; and that further more, as for the text of the Fuehrer Information I agreed with that -- there is no other meaning to that initial.
Q. Then, we come to Exhibit 513, NG-1472; that is an indictment from the Chief Reich Prosecutor, from 1944, against Czechs, Document Back III-B Supplement. Here again you were made responsible in part by the Prosecution.
A. Again on this point I cannot give any information. First of all, the man was a member of the protectorate; the right to clemency was therefore with the Reich Protector. Moreover, that was the question of a sentence of more than five years in a penitentiary. The witness Gruenwald testified here in the witness box that sentences of that kind were not submitted to the Minister or to the under secretary. These sentences were dealt with only by the department.
Q. Then, another so-called Fuehrer Information of the 18th of March 1944, was submitted in evidence against you, and concerns free thinker Sievers; that is Exhibit 483, NG-730, Supplementary Book III--A. Will you please say something about this, too?
A. Here again I can only say that the case as such was unknown to me. Initials on this Fuehrer Information also mean that the case was so important that Hitler had to be informed; and that I agreed with the text and the style.
The handling of the case itself, that I can no longer remember.
Q. Now, my last question concerning that group of questions dealing with the People's Court; would you give us your opinion of exhibit 220 which is NG 671, document book III-I. It is a report on the situation by the chief prosecutor Lautz, which came to your attention and I want to ask you whether you may have caused that report?
A. No, the report went first to the Minister, and only he could have made any decisions about it.
Q. Now, I should like to discuss a different question with you, and that is the subject of penal law concerning Poles, Jews and members of the Protectorate. On one occasion you mentioned what you had to do with these matters during your work at the Party Chancellory. The Prosecution , however has picked up that subject once again and submitted documents which are concerned with the periods of your activities as Under-Secretary. Two of these documents, exhibit 319; that is NG 269, document book VI; and, exhibit 455; that is NG 304; document book V, supplement, concern reports in the Reich Ministry of Justice; furthermore, exhibit 351; which is NG 309; that is a list of death sentences, document book V-B, that is death sentences pronounced on non-Germans and, another list of that kind is submitted in exhibit 352, that is NG 305, so-called monthly reports concerning the execution of death sentences on Poles after the clemency plea had been rejected. You have already mentioned that a pardon for Poles in the so-called incorporated Eastern territories was not to be decided by the Ministry of Justice, but by the Gauleiters, Reichs Governors and Chief Presidents, and I want you to explain to us how far the Ministry was concerned with it?
A. These monthly lists which I mentioned only before when I discussed the correspondence between Meissner and Lammers which lead to the elimination of the lists; these lists were received by the Ministry for a year and a half before the time when I became Under-Secretary.
They were no longer submitted to the Under-Secretary as were all such reports in general, but by the proper department; in this case the department IV. They were examined and controlled, I believe; I have never seen any.
Q. Did you ever have to decide a case which concerned a death sentence against a Pole, that is to say, which would have fit into the scope of these lists of reports, Poles, who, outside of Germany in the so-called incorporated Eastern territories, had been sentenced?
A. No, because just about the death sentences, executions and pardons, the Reichs Governor and Chief President, in the incorporated Eastern territories had to decide.
Q. Then, in this connection concerning Poles, Jews, and members of the Protectorate, exhibit 343 was submitted, that is 664 PS, in document book V-C; that is a circular letter from Himmler with the classification of secret, and was sent to all Reich authorities. Your initial is on that letter because it was received in the Ministry and apparently came to your attention. In this letter it is stated that posters such as "no Jews permitted to enter public places and stores" should disappear. It was no longer necessary to show such practice to the public because the people concerned by evacuating and isolating them were no longer there. I ask you did that lead you to the conclusion that the Jews were to be exterminated or already at that time of this circular had been exterminated?
A. I would never have gotten a thought of that kind. I know nothing about the places in the East. I knew that Jews lived in a city for themselves in Theresienstadt near Leitmeritz. On the contrary, I remember having seen series of pictures in magazines, I believe pictures from Theresienstadt were shown of the Jewish mayor, of the Jewish police, also of the baths and restaurants, and similar things. Also, I believe from Warsaw, such pictures were shown in German illustrated magazines. One could not gather any more from that circular letter than that or conceive the thought that it had anything to do with the extermination or anything similar to it.
Q. In this connection concerning Poles and Jews, I once more want to refer to exhibit 441, that is the affidavit Altmeyer; Altmeyer says that you had shared the severe point of view of Thierack in cases of Poles and Jews. You have already told the Tribunal in clemency matters of Poles you had no decision to make. What can you say about that?
A. What Altmeyer says is not accurate. I did not have any possibility or opportunity to decide the cases of Poles. On the whole, individual cases were only submitted to the Minister or to the Undersecretary when they were concerned with death sentences, and they were brought before me only, and they were clear cases or acts committed wit in the boundaries of the Reich; but, as can be seen from exhibits 350 to 352 and 354 to 356, the right for clemency for Poles in the incorporated Eastern territories was reserved for the Reich Governor or the Chief President, and death sentences against Poles was so rare that I cannot remember any harsh sentences or severe decisions at all. It is certain, however, that the general tendency did not become more severe after I entered the Ministry of Justice.
Q. I should like to interrupt you here. Altmeyer, apparently did not only intend to mention death sentences against Poles, but he also wanted to mention that on the whole, penal procedures against Poles were very harsh and very severe with the consequence that the sentences became more and more severe; what can you say about that?
A. First I have to emphasize that by a decree of 20 December 1944, it was also in the Reichsgesetzblatt of 1944, page 353, that by that decree the minimum sentence on the basis of the decree concerning Poles, that is three months, penal camp was reduced to one month penal camp. Apart from that some advantages were granted to the Poles in the administration of penitentiaries, and I do not want to refer to these details now.
But, I do have to refer to exhibit 507, from that can be seen it is concerned with the statistics of penal jurisdiction, that a penal decree concerning Poles was applied in a manner as it would have been applied in any civilized country; that statistical list shows that of one hundred cases of Poles and Jews sentenced on the basis of decrees against Poles and Jews, 1.5 percent was sentenced to death; 67.7 percent to a normal penal camp; and 26.6 percent to fines. Of the normal penal camp sentences, 75 percent were to less than a year.
DR. SCHILF: May I tell the Tribunal that Exhibit 507 just mentioned by the witness is NG-787, to be found in Document Book I Supplement.
Q: Herr Klemm, this brings us to the end of this subject which we discussed on your influence as Under Secretary on sentences according to the penal decree concerning Poles and Jews. I should like to ask you now -
JUDGE BRAND: It was called to our attention that Exhibit 507 is in Book III-B Supplement. I think counsel inadvertently erred.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Q: The decrees which were passed in 1944 -- we have just discussed the decree of 20 December 1944 -- did you, as for decrees which were published in the Reichgesetzblatt, if they were signed by Thierack - did you co-sign these decrees and consider yourself responsible for their contents? In 1944 and 1945 you were Under Secretary. Therefore, there are decrees and regulations in the Reichgesetzblatt, the Reich Legal Gazette, which are signed by you as Deputy to the Minister. Would you explain to us what the relation was between the work and the task of Thierack to yours as Under Secretary?
A: In 1944 Thierack issued altogether thirty-four laws and decrees over his signature which were published in the Reich Legal Gazette. My name appears in the Reich Legal Gazette only eleven times. That shows that Thierack rarely had to be represented by me. Of the eleven times, eleven cases where I signed for publication in the Reich Legal Gazette, with one exception they were unimportant matters. I would sign formal decisions, extensions of deadlines ... At least six of these decrees contain only two paragraphs, of which the second paragraph only mentions the date when that particular decree was to be in force.
An exception, however, is made by the decree of 25 August 1944, for the assurance of the total war effort - but that is a decree which the Minister had signed. However, at that time he was not present when he was supposed to sign the final draft, and to meet the deadline for the Reich Legal Gazette for the next issue that final draft had to be sent immediately to the printing offices, and that was the reason why I signed it at all. Thierack permitted me to sign decrees which were to appear in the Reich Legal Gazette when he happened to be present, but when that decree was only co-signed by the Ministry and when the leading party in bringing about that decree had it signed by an Under Secretary. That explains, for instance, why there are decrees in the Reich Legal Gazette, of which one has the signature of Thierack and the other my signature, and just the same they are of the same date. These are matters which Thierack had me sign because they were of minor importance, and too unimportant for him to sign them with his name.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question. The eleven occasions when you signed a decree, did they include the cases where you were a cosigner, or were they only the cases where you had signed alone?
A: At the moment I could not tell that. There are some which I signed by myself, but there are a few decrees which were also signed by other Ministries.
JUDGE BRAND: When you said eleven cases, did you mean to include all of the cases in which you were merely a co-signer?
A: They are included. Eleven times altogether my Case III, Court III name appears in the Legal Gazette.
Sometimes alone as signature under a decree; some times together with other names.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, in my Document Book I shall submit these decrees in the full text as exhibits and then one can see both their contents and their signature.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q: Herr Klemm, I no longer want to ask you about the relations between the Administration of Justice and the Gestapo during the period when you were Under Secretary. That will be done by another defense counsel who will have to elucidate conditions during that period. The prosecution in connection with that relation between Gestapo and administration of Justice, submitted two exhibits from the time beginning with 1944 to 1945. Exhibit 43, NG-440Document Book I-B, German text page 100. And the second Exhibit 270, that is NG-372, Document Book IV-C. In the first case we are concerned with a speech by Himmler at a meeting at Kochem; in the second case it is a correspondence between two lawyers concerning the case Hense. Will you comment on these two documents?
A: Exhibit 43 is an announcement that Himmler, upon invitation of Thierack, had made a speech before general prosecutors and district court counsellors: The question of the development and the aims of the SS were discussed particularly the importance of the race question, biological questions of the race selection, aid so on. And that announcement states in the end that the judges and the prosecution, through the District Court of Appeals counsellors who had listened to that speech were to be instructed about the speech. And the last sentence is "You are requested to report about the impression of that speech among judges and prosecutors and to report in detail."
That remark and that request, did not emanate from the Administration of Justice by any means. It is a confidential directive on the part of the Security Service, the SD, to its confidential contact men within the Administration of Justice. The so-called "V" men -- Vertrauensmaenner -whose identity was not known to the Administration of Justice. They were to report what the impression and the reaction of that speech by Himmler had been. By a fortunate coincidence I came into possession of that SD announcement. From the outset it was clear to me that that request would result in an absolutely negative answer. And that, for the reason that Himmler's speech was a great disappointment. Thierack had invited Himmler to speak before the presidents of the District Courts of appeals and the general prosecutors. The subject was up to his discretion. He had asked for that. But one expected, and Himmler had been told about that by Thierack, that for that group Himmler should speak also about the problem of police and the Administration of Justice. Himmler failed to do so. He spoke for a long time, but exclusively about the SS which he had created, why he had created it, how he intended to develop it, and its individual tasks. Not a word was said about the police. Not a word about concentration camps. Not a word about the Administration of Justice. Nor about the relation between the Administration of Justice and the police. He only spoke about the SS. But not about its identity with the police, and about that which would have interested that group of listeners.
Case 3, Court 3 Of course, these were facts, which the Presidents of the Courts of Appeals and the General Prosecutors did not tell the offices and officials which were subordinate to them because that was not interesting from their official point of view.
The only thing that was interesting remained a fact that Himmler in spite of the nature of the group he had before him, failed to speak about the relationship between the Police and the Administration of Justice. Therefore, I called a friend of mine who was a member of the SS. He was in the RSHA and told him that it had absolutely no purpose to make that inquiry because the result of it would have to be a negative one. I gave as a reason that there was no opportunity to make notes and similar things and then I offered and it was arranged with me that I should receive the speech of Himmler in print. That was actually carried out. I was sent 100 copies of that speech and it was forwarded to the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal so that they could give them away to others. That is the entire story of that document, which is purely an SD document.
Q. Would you please comment on the case of Hensel. That is the second document submitted to show that there were relations between the administration of justice and the Gestapo.
A. That case I do not know at all. It is as I said correspondence between two lawyers, first a proof to show how the police became more and more independent and more independent and about the undermining of the administration of justice and its possibilities to award punishment by the police. The police department id not subordinate itself to the Prosecution as had been the case previously and it created it's own means for execution in the concentration camps. It spied on the administration of justice by the SD. Frequently the attempt had been made to remove Case3,Court 3 such difficulties add at times that was successful but it did not succeed in cases where tho police pretended preventive measures.
There was no longer any possibility for the administration of justice to control that.
Q. No come now to your participation in NN cases, Nacht und Nebel. As far as such cases came to the attention of the ministry during such time as you were under-secretary, will you first toll tho Tribunal what you found-out at the time about the EN cases when you were under-secretary?
A. When I returned to the Reich Ministry of Justice as under-secretary, a Fuehrer decree and the circular directive by the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning NN cases had long been issued. The manner in which they had to be handled and dealt with had become routine in the department. Many problems which might have been decided by the minister or by myself no longer occurred. Apart from individual reports which did not take into account the special nature of the NN cases, I had nothing at all to do with the EN cases. I only in fact found out that NN cases existed from the death sentences: and these reports differed from other reports on death sentences in no manner at all, because in particular the notification of the Prosecution by the Court in special cases had been eliminated before my time. Therefore, I had really no cause to get more acquainted with the matter. Whatever I did know about NN cases was based on the reports on death sentences. From these reports I knew there existed such things as NN cases, and that they were concerned with offenses against the occupying power. I also remember a report where the dealing with NN cases was to be transferred from Essen to Silesia. That was done under the influence of aerial warfare. How NN cases as such came about, the Fuehrer decree, the circular decree of the ministry of justice, about that I was neither informed nor interested.
I was not present with the minister when any matters of principle of the NN cases were discussed.
Q. Herr Klemm, the Prosecution submitted over 40 documents concerned with NN cases. I looked through them and found out that of the above 40 documents, 14 emanated from the time when you were under-secretary. Therefore, I ask you to tell us which ones of the documents you may have seen at the time or which were actually sent and where you put your signature or your initials on them.
A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecution, I must have seen two of these documents, Exhibits 327 and 332.
Q. I want to mention the NG numbers. Exhibit 327, document book VI, German page 105, and Exhibit 332 is NG 321, also in document book VI, where all NN documents are to be found. Will you please comment on the first one.
A. In Exhibit 327 you are concerned with the draft of a letter from Thierack to Bormann, where the Fuehrer was to decide as supreme authority in matters of pardons, that women among the NN prisoners could be informed that no death sentences against them would be executed. Through that procedure itself I was first informed that up to that time those who were pardoned were not informed of the fact that they were not to be executed. I approved the draft of that letter because it intended to provide psychological relief for these women, but I have never found out that Thierack afterwards did not sign it and did not send that letter out.
Q. The second exhibit submitted against you is 332. That deals with the trip to Paris by the defendant Herrn Von Ammon, and from the document it can be seen that this trip had to do with NN masters. You approved that trip or at least you knew about his Report on the trip. Would you comment on that please?
A. It was the responsibility of the under-secretary to ap prove official trips of department chiefs and officials trips abroad.