Q. I am asking you, witness, if that statement I just made was correct. Isn't that what you just said?
A. I was in the sick bay and then we were told: "Get dressed. You are going to be moved off." That was on the 17th of November 1943. And then the head of the sick bay came and said that we were probably going to be sent to Mauthausen concentration camp, and we heard that another transport had gone there before us.
Q. Who was it, do you remember? Was it another prison inmate or was it a prison official who told you there in the sick bay that morning that Mauthausen was the extermination camp for penitentiary inmates?
A. That was evident because not only penitentiary inmates were sent there but also political prisoners who it was their intention to liquidate completely and remove from this world, and these things were discussed in the sick bay. It was always said that Mauthausen was the extermination camp and that nobody ever got out of it alive.
Q. Mr. Hach, when you arrived at Mauthausen for the first time, were you physically beaten?
A. When we arrived in Mauthausen, an SS guard beat us. We asked him what he had done - and some of us were beaten to such an extent that the blood was pouring down.
Q. During your stay in Mauthausen concentration camp, and later in the branch camp of Mauthausen to which you were sent, describe the food that you were fed, particularly during late 1944 and early 1945.
A. In 1944 I was taken to the branch camp at Ebensee. In Redelsieck the food was plentiful, but it wasn't enough for the very hard work which we had to do. It was bad food. It consisted of sweets, and potatoes which were not peeled. The bread ration when we arrived was about a pound a day. Then on the fourth of May 1944 I was taken to the Ebensee branch camp. That is between Badischl and Gmunden. There the food was bad. In the Spring of 1945 we were only given water, a little bread, coffee in the morning. At lunchtime we were usually given potato peels and perhaps a little sweet, sometimes nothing, only water. In the evening we just got a piece of bread and one couldn't cut it up, it just broke into pieces - it may have been about 70 grams - a little margarine and a little sausage.
The margarine was perhaps about 50 grams. That was our supper, bread and a little tea or coffee - perhaps 70 grams of bread and 50 grans of margarine, sometimes only 30. But when we had no bread, then we just had soup. That was in the evening, and that soup was very thin. It was just soup with a little potato peel and things that we picked up and scraped together. It was a starvation diet.
Q. Mr. Hach, during the time that you have just described, did anyone you knew there in the concentration camp die of starvation?
A. Yes. From what I saw, I can say that everybody died of hunger or starvation. One evening I was walking along the barracks and I went into the sick bay and there I asked - some dead bodies were lying there and on the other side there were people who were alive and people who were near dying - I asked how many dead there were and I was told since yesterday evening until today - this morning - it was about half-past nine then - more than 100. And that was from one barrack. They all died from starvation. They were just skeletons and the color of their skin was green and black and blue.
Q. Mr. Hach, how did you escape from the concentration camp?
A. How I escaped? This is how it happened. The food was so bad there that all of us were nearly starved. There was only enough food left for another two days. There were about - I don't know exactly but about 18,000 to 26,000 people there. When North Germany and East Prussia were being occupied, when the occupation forces arrived, and when they finally came to Ebensee, there was hardly any food left. It wasn't sufficient. When the Americans occupied Ebensee, we left. I went to an American and asked him to sign a letter, and then I simply left. The gates were open and the barbed wire had been cut through and I just ran away towards my home. There I reported --
Q. Mr. Hach, I believe that is sufficient. Thank you. We have no further questions.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, so that Defense Counsel may be advised and that we may make progress, the witness Roemer, who signed the letter which was not sworn to, is now in Nurnberg and I hope that we will be able to use him after this witness, which modifies my request for a recess after he is used. It shouldn't be long; I want to advise counsel now so that they don't leave. It may be that we cannot put the witness on, but I think that we will following this cross examination, or during the day.
THE PRESIDENT: Do Defense Counsel desire to cross examine this witness?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. LINK: (Attorney for Defendant Engert)
Q. With the permission of the Tribunal, I am going to put a few questions to the witness Hach. Mr. Hach, you stated that sometime before you were moved from the Amberg Penitentiary to Mauthausen a rumor was rife that that camp was an extermination camp.
A. Yes.
Q. Was there also a rumor going about, or do you have some more positive information on that point as to how that transfer to Mauthausen from the penitentiary came about. Was there any talk or any rumor about that?
A. I didn't get that question properly.
Q. While you were in the penitentiary, were people wondering, were they able to find out about any facts as to according to what points of view individual prisoners had who were to be moved away as to who selected them?
A. Who selected us, I don't know. I wasn't there when it was done, when it was decided which of us would be sent to the concentration camp, but the fact that some of the people had already been moved ant that no answer came from them, and that political prisoners had already gone to that concentration camp and had returned to the penitentiary and had said that things were not going very well at that concentration camp, we assumed that Mauthausen was the same camp and would be the same sort of extermination camp as other camps.
Q. That isn't what I asked you, Mr. Hach. What I wanted to know from you was merely whether you can state how you and the other persons in your transport were selected; and you said you don't know.
A. No, I don't know; I wasn't there.
Q. And the head of the sick bay couldn't tell you anything about that?
A. He didn't say anything about it, nor did I ask him.
Q. Another question: I would like to know from you; you told us that normally you would have been pardoned after fifteen years in a penitentiary; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you think it would happen; did you know what the pre-conditions for such a pardon were?
A. The prerequisite for pardon was good conduct, hard work and good qualifications, and a good testimonial by the head of the prison.
Q. Do you know at all as to how your reports were until you were sent up to Mauthausen?
A. No.
Q. Are you convinced that you filled the prerequisites for a pardon -- all those prerequisites which you named just now?
A. Prerequisites which I mentioned just now amounted to my being able to put in for a pardon after fifteen years, and I think a pardon would have been granted.
DR. LINK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination on the part of the Defense Counsel? If not, is there any redirect examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Just one question, your Honor. Mr. Hach, were you ever tried for or convicted for any other crime than the one which you have described this morning?
A. No, it was my first prison sentence, and my last.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If your Honors please, I did not hear what Mr. LaFollette said with regard to procedure following the excusing of this witness. Did he say that we would ask for an adjournment, or that we would proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: He said that he would have Mr. Roemer follow this witness.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Then, if we may ask the Tribunal's indulgence for a minute, we will send a messenger to see what is available. Your Honor, may the Prosecution ask that the Tribunal adjourn until 1:30, at which time we will be able to proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Under ordinary circumstances it would be a very reasonable request and we would be glad to comply, but I have a personal reason I would like to get through with the witness today.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I believe we can assure you that we will finish with this new witness today.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you give that assurance with very great certainty without consulting Defense Counsel?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: As a matter of fact, no.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate it is apparently inconvenient to proceed now.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you have the witness here by one o'clock?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: By the normal time that we reconvene at one o'clock, 1:30.
THE PRESIDENT: I am inquiring whether you can possibly have your witness here be one o'clock.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We could, Your Honor.
DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendants Mettgenberg and Klemm) May it please the Court, in the interest of the defendants may I say if we resume at one o'clock it means that the defendants will not get their lunch, or won't get it in time; any how, a great difficulty would arise.
Therefore, in the interest of the defendants, I would like to suggest perhaps 1:15, or rather 1:30 -- could you make it 1:30, please?
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn at this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 24 April 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I wish to announce at this time that without any desire to hurry these proceedings, if we do not get through with this witness by 4:30, the adjournment will not be until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon instead of tomorrow morning.
MR. KING: Before the prosecution asks this witness to be called, we would like to state that his testimony will concern the document 720. Document 720 is to be found in the English document book VII-A at page 147, and in the German document book beginning at page 175.
We ask at this time that the witness Walter Roemer be called, and it is our understanding that he will testify in the German language.
WALTER ROEMER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
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).
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. May I ask you, please, to state your name?
A. Roemer, Walter.
Q. And what is your present position, please?
A. Ministerialrat in the Bavarian Ministry of Justice.
Q. And you have held that position from what time until the present, please?
A. Since the 1st of December, 1945.
Q. And may I ask what position you held prior to that time; that is, during the war?
A. I was, since the 1st of July, 1934, first public prosecutor at the District Court Munich 1, Landgericht.
Q. That position you held until the end of the war, or shortly after the end of the war, when you assumed your present position; is that correct?
A. Yes; yes.
Q. I show you a document which bears the identifying symbol of NG-270.
(Document submitted to witness.
MR. KING: May I point out, for the benefit of the Court and of defense counsel that this is the original of the document which appears in VII-A at page 147 in the English book, and 175 in the German.
Q. (Continuing) Witness, is this document which you hold in your hand, NG-270, the original or a photostatic copy of the original of a document which you submitted to American authorities in Munich some time in July of 1945?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Are you at this time willing to swear that all of the information contained in this document, to your best knowledge and belief, is accurate and represents your thoughts on the subject at the time the statement was made?
A. Yes.
Q. Without going into the details of how this particular document happened to be written, will you answer only this one question? Was it an unsolicited document so far as the American authorities were concerned?
A. I was solicited by no one to write this document. I made this statement voluntarily and it was unsolicited, and I handed it over to the American authorities. First I gave it to a Colonel in the American Army, and later on, through an intermediary, through the help of the then Minister President Dr. Hoegner, I gave it to the Bavarian Military Government.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, we offer the document NG-270 as Exhibit 382.
The prosecution has no further questions to ask of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: This being a sworn affidavit, we feel that we can receive the document in evidence at this time. Of course, counsel for defense may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. GRUBE (Counsel for the defendant Lautz):
Q. Witness, in your statement you said that you were director, in Munich, of the executory authority of the prosecution in Munich?
A. Yes.
Q. In your statement you stated further that in that capacity you had to carry out sentences of the People's Court.
A. Yes.
Q. May I now ask you the following question?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. I noticed the yellow light flashing a moment ago, and I think I should explain to the witness what that means. When you see this yellow light flash, you know that the translator is hurrying too much; slow your language a little, to let her catch up with you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. Witness, may I now ask you the following question? In what form was the prosecution in Munich asked to execute the sentences?
A. The prosecution Munich 1, in each case, received a request from the Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court to execute these sentences. In this case the files did not accompany the request, but only one copy of the sentence with the opinion.
Q. Thus you had an opportunity to look into the sentence?
A. I read every one of these sentences.
Q. In these sentences, were there also sentences against defendants who had been convicted under the NN decree?
A. Yes; you can see that from the statement.
Q. Can you tell us, as to the Reich Minister of Justice, or the People's Court, or any other authority, whether you complained to them about sentences which you saw?
A. I did not do so myself. I was not the President of the Prosecution, or the Chief Prosecutor. The head of the prosecution Munich 1 at the time asked the Reich Ministry of Justice not to hand the execution of such sentences to the Prosecution Munich 1.
Q Did you find out that sentences were sent to you which were contrary to international law?
A I do not know international law well enough in order to be able to judge this objectively. However, in each case I read the sentences very carefully, and I could not find any such violation, because otherwise I would immediately have reported it to my superior. However, among the sentences there were a number which I found too severe, even though I did not consider them contrary to international law.
Q That is your statement which you made in your declaration and your repeated statement, that according to your opinion the sentences were not contrary to international law, you maintain?
A The sentences which I saw here did in no way violate international law. I only regretted that among those who had been convicted there were, in part, people who took part in the resistance movement and sabotage acts to a lesser extent, and among these persons that it would not have been necessary to levy a death sentence, possibly, but one might have pronounced a some what more lenient sentence.
Q Witness, but you probably must be in agreement with me that it was a question which was up to the judge who, as a result of the trial, could reach the conclusion.
A It was a question of the extent of the penalty, in which the judge in each case, according to his opinion, could judge in a more lenient or severe way. Cases in which there should have been an acquittal in which the sentence was a violation of the law, I did not see.
Q Did you see any cases in which sentences had a form -
A That cannot be seen from the opinion. The sentence as such was in a form always as it should have been. How the trial was carried on, that I do not know.
Q Now I am going over to another point. In your statement you said several times that the Oberreichsanwalt repeatedly urged you to execute the sentences correctly.
A Yes.
Q First a question. By "Oberreichsanwalt" do you mean the office of the Oberreichsanwalt or Oberreichsanwalt Lautz personally?
A The office of the Oberreichsanwalt, not the Oberreichsanwalt personally. It is possible that one or the other of these urgent letters were signed personally by Oberreichsanwalt Lautz. That, however, I cannot remember. The majority must have been written by or signed by officials of his office.
Q You say the majority. Do you have any reason or any way in which you can find out whether the majority of these letters were not from the Oberreichsanwalt, but only from his employees?
A That is only a subjective supposition, but every one of these letters was signed, had a signature affixed. For instance, I remember the signature of Reichsanwalt Weiersberg.
Q Did you ever see a letter in regard to execution of sentences which was signed by Oberreichsanwalt Lautz?
A I do not know. It is possible. I don't remember.
Q Can you say something as to whether the prosecution Munich was called up by Lautz?
A By the defendant Lautz? Never.
Q Never?
AAt this time a telephone connection with the Oberreichsanwalt was hardly possible any more. It is possible that the first time such telephone calls took place -- if I said so in my statement at the time. Now too much time has passed. I cannot remember whether telephone calls took place or whether there were only telegrams. But what I stated at that time, half a year after the event, that I did according to the best of my memory.
Q But it is correct Lautz himself did not call by telephone?
A I never telephoned with Mr. Lautz and I did not meet him personally.
Q You just mentioned that the telephone connection had been interrupted.
A Yes.
Q The teletype must have been interrupted, too?
A I do not believe so. At least there was still a teletype connection of the Gestapo and the police. Moreover, there was the normal way about sending a telegram.
Q In your statement you say that a representative of the Reich Ministry of Justice had appeared in Munich and had urged that the sentences should be executed?
A Yes. That was Ministerialrat, Ministerial Counsellor Altmaier of the Ministry of Justice. He was accompanied at the time by Ministerial Counsellor von Ammon, who came to Munich, however not in this matter, but in another matter. I wasn't concerned with the case he came to Munich and I cannot remember what it was, either.
Q Witness, if the Prosecution received an order for the execution of a sentence, what was the wording of this request, this order?
A It is difficult for me to remember the exact wording. I shall try to reconstruct it from my memory. It must have been something like this, just about. I request to have the attached sentence of the People's Court of that and that date against so and so to have it executed and the accompanying opinion returned to this office again. In case of a request for a reopening of the case I ask an immediate report or something like that.
Q Witness, can you remember that in these orders for execution of the Ministry of Justice -
A Oberreichsanwalt -
Q Just a moment, witness. The Oberreichsanwalt transferred the denial of the clemency appeal to you and a copy of the order for execution.
A No, just a moment. He referred the statement of the Minister of Justice, that the sentence is to be executed, that no pardon will be granted. He handed it to us directly, not via the Ministry of Justice.
Q The order for execution of the Minister of Justice in People's Court sentences was thus not sent to you?
AAt the moment I cannot say that with certainty any more, how the statements of the Ministry of Justice were worded. It is possible that the denial of the pardon also contained a sentence, I request you to execute the sentence with the greatest of speed. It is also possible that sentence was written only in the request of the Oberreichsanwalt to execute the sentence.
Q Witness, you probably also executed sentences for or got orders from the Ministry of Justice in matters which were not from the People's Court.
A The Reich ministry of Justice never gave orders for execution, but in every case the Prosecution had to carry out the sentence. The sentence, of course, was accompanied by the declaration of the Minister that he did not grant a pardon.
Q Witness, may I show you a document which the Prosecution has already introduced, NG 596, Exhibit 137. It is in Book 3-B. It is a letter from the Reich Minister of Justice of 7 March, 1942, and in the German Document Book 3-B it is on Page 80.
A Yes, I now recall that these decisions of the Minister of Justice were in each case sent to us, together with the rest, by the Oberreichsanwalt. These are the exact words. I now recall this way of wording it.
Q Witness, read to the Court the paragraph which has the actual request for execution.
A I request with the greatest speed because of the execution of the sentence, according to the direction of Paragraph 453 and 454, Code of Criminal Procedure in the formulation of the letter of 28 June 1935, Reichgesetzblatt 1, Page 844-849, according to the regulations in the circular order decree of 19 February 1939, No. 4,417, III-A, 318.89 and of the 12 June 1940, 4,417, 647, 40, to instigate the necessary steps. The execution has to be referred to the Executor Reichert in Munich.
If the corpse is to be handed over to an institute according to No. 39 of the circular decree of 19 February 1939, the Anatomical Institute of Berlin has to be taken into consideration.
Q You have thus found out that the Ministry of Justice urged the greatest of speed?
A Yes.
Q Could you say that this was true also of the other case, that was the usual form?
A Yes. Yes, the Ministry of Justice, as far as I remember, desired that as few as possible people who had been condemned to death should remain in the present. Therefore it urged the characteristic execution if there was no pardon.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. KUBOSCHOK:
Q Witness, since when do you know Mr. von Ammon?
A I know Herr von Ammon at the latest since the beginning of 1929. At that time we were both assessors and associates in the Bavarian Ministry of Justice.
Q In March 1944, did you meet Mr. von Ammon in Munich?
A Sir, you're mistaken in the year. It was in 1945, and first in January 1945 when together Mr. Altmaier he came to Munich.
Q That is correct. At that time, did you entrust Mr. von Ammon with your saving acts which you explained in your affidavit and which was in regard to the convicted prisoners?
A I entrusted him with it, but I don't think I did so already in January when Herr Altmaier came, but somewhat later when he came as Commisioner of the Reich Minister of Justice and was in Fuerstenfeldbruck. At that time, I met him in a cellar way in the Munich Palace of Justice, and I took him aside and asked him, by referring to our old acquaintanceship, to help me. I told him that about 130 condemned persons were in Munich; that I wanted to prevent these executions at any price; and that I asked him to help me because naturally I was risking a great deal in doing so at the time. I asked him if he should in this matter receive any report from Berlin that there was some trace of this matter/ that they were following it up-- that he should warn me.
Q Was Mr. von Ammon in agreement with you?
A He became very much frightened. He probably got scared however, he was in agreement, and he was quiet about the matter.
Q Did you have confidence in him in this matter? Did you entrust this matter to him because of the knowledge of his entire personality--you knew him as a person who thinks in a humane manner and therefore thought he would support you in this matter?
A Yes. I can say the following in explanation of this: I had not seen von Ammen for 15 years. I did not know how during in these national socialist surrounding of the Reich Minister of Justice, how he developed, so in January, I was at first rather careful. But I noticed, according to his entire manner, that he was still the same old fellow and that obviously he had informed Ministerial Counsellor Altmaier about me so that he would not give an unfavorable report about me in Berlin.
Therefore, I had enough to tell him this matter.
Q Were the contents of the discussion which you have just described, was it dangerous for you and von Ammon--even in danger of your life--of it became known to the Minister of Justice?
A This question, I can with a good conscience answer "Yes". At that time all the people we knew about this matter risked a great deal.
Q You mentioned in your affidavit the letters and belonging of the NN-prisoners, and you state that these were not given to the relatives when the people died. Does this means that this belonging were supposed to be destroyed or does this mean only keeping in reserve within the meaning of the entire decree in order to avoid that the execution should become known?
A I do not know this decree, I never saw it, And as far as I was infromed, the letters were supposed to be kept until the end of the war. But I do not know that exactly. But I suppose that in the inevitable collapse, all this material at the People's Court would be destroyed.
Q Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF: (for the defendant Dr. Mettgenberg*)
Q Witness, the affidavit which was submitted also contained an appendix. This supplement in the same date, that is the 15th of July 1945; Munich. For purpose of clarification, I only want to ask-because you said that you wrote this statement unsolicited--what the first word in the supplement means: "as requested."
A It was as follows: I told an american Colonel Krauss at that time-- I gave to this Colonel at first this statement without the supplement. Later on, I spoke with Minister President Hoegner and asked him wether I should make this matter with the letters public. I may tell you the reason why I hesitated. The letters were very sad and I wanted to hand them over.
However I wanted to avoid the impression that I wanted to put myself in a favorable position by using the fare well letters of the prisoners for that purpose. I told that to Minister President Hoegner and the now Minister President Ehard, and both of them told me that I should make them Public. I then told that to Colonel Krauss, the American Colonel, and he told me that under all circumstances I should put it down in writing.
I may also say the following in regard to that: The original letters have been destroyed. A part of these letters, which I secretly partly in the office copied from my files--on the next day, they were supposed to be forwarded to the Oberreichsanwalt. On this day, there was an air raid and a fire in the Palace of Justice, by which especially this part of the letters which were supposed to be handed ever at that time were burnt.
I made the copies during the night, in as far as I could not complete them in the office, and partly dictated then at night to my wife because she was a better stenographer than I. These copies which I then kept hidden, I have then still with me even today.
Q. In your statement in the text which I have before me on page 3, it is page 177 in the German document book VII-A, page 148 in the English, you say, Herr Ministerialrat among other things, you said the following: (I quote) "It could be seen from the copies of the sentences which the Oberreichsanwalt had as usual sent us with the request to return then immediately--" I omit the intermediate sentence--" so that the sentences definitely did not violate international law even if they were in some cases very severe.
As far as women were among those who had been sentenced to death a request for execution Was never submitted."
Witness, I want to ask you, the context of the sentences leads me to ask whether in the case of women, these were also NN-prisoners?
A. I cannot remember that any more; however, I believe that there were women among those who had been sentenced, and from that, I concluded that these women would be pardoned. At that time, I thought "Thank God, at least women are not executed." I don't know but that was my impression at the time.
Q. From the collection of letters, perhaps you can still reconstruct whether women were among there too?
A. No, no women among these people.
Q. I have a further question. On page 180 in the German -
MR. KING: I wonder if the answer to the last question night be repeated. What was the witness' answer to the question that he didn't know whether or not there were women among the NN-prisoners or there were not any women?
THE WITNESS: Among those sentenced to death, as far as I remember, there were some women, but not among the prisoners who were handed over to us for execution. Among the sentences, there were some women enumerated, as far as I remember, but these were never handed over to us for execution. I do not know where they were kept as prisoners, and I had hoped that their pardon or at least nonexecution of the death sentence would result.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. A further question. On page 180 of the German text of the document, you made the following statement: