COMMISSION III CASE III A "The decree was a declaration of mistrust against the objectivity of military jurisdiction."
Excuse me but I am unable to read this since, during seven months of imprisonment in the prison here, I have not yet received eyeglasses that fit my eyes. I can't read this; the corrections that I made are written in too small letters.
COMMISSION III CASE III
Q Witness, May I ask you, is it your handwriting? Can you recognize it as such?
A Yes, it is my handwriting. I can also remember the changes I made. This copy was not made by me, this statement. It was a summary of an interrogation, and it was submitted to me for signature with the request to sign it. That was at noon, and it was supposed to be signed relatively quickly. I read it over and noticed that partly a severity had entered it which changed the meaning somewhat. My interrogation was concerned with the question, first, whether at the outbreak of the war had preparations been made for the establishment of special courts. I expressed my opinion as follows:
Q Excuse me, witness, first of all, we shall limit ourselves to this technical difficulty. You shall have opportunity later on to make all the corrections in any other affidavit which you consider necessary. I shall now do the following: I shall try to decipher your handwriting and first of all to take care of the formalities.
I ask you to excuse me that I have caused a complete darkness in this room.
THE PRESIDENT: We have many times experienced darkness which has been caused by counsel, either for the prosecution or defense, so we will excuse you.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, I am unfortunately not able to read the changed text, since on the photostatic copy I cannot decipher the handwriting, either, especially since several words were left in typewriting and I cannot tell when the handwritten changes begin and when they stop. Therefore we have to waive at the moment the clarification of this matter. There is till another possibility. If the Court grants me the permission, during a recess of three minutes, to go to the window together with the witness and there with the aid of better lighting to try to decipher the handwriting.
MR. KING: I wonder perhaps if Dr. Schilf's suggestion is not a COMMISSION III CASE III good one, and in the meantime we could possibly proceed with the witness Kassing, who, I understand, awaits outside.
I understand also that the examination of Kassing will not take very long. Perhaps on the conclusion of that, Dr. Schilf will have come to some agreement as to this text, and this witness may be recalled.
THE PRESIDENT: Who will be cross examining Dr. Kassing?
MR. KING: Dr. Koessl.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that agreeable to you, Dr. Schilf?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor, that is all right with me.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may step down and confer with counsel.
BERNHARD KASSING, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Onmiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DR. KOESSL: I ask for permission to start the cross examination of the witness Kassing. We are concerned with the document NG 663, Exhibit 477 in the supplementary volume 3-A on page 67 of the German.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, please state to the Court your first and last name?
A Bernhard Kassing, Justizobersekretaer, justice senior secretary, at present retired, Nurnberg, Dennisstrasse 37.
Q Witness, in the case of the two Poles Durka and Strus, were you present?
A No, I was not.
Q Did you know the actual age of the two women?
A They were two young girls. I thought that they were about 17 or 18 years old.
COMMISSION III CASE III
Q But you do not know the actual age?
A I did not know the actual age, but lawyer Kern later told me about it. He told me that they were about 17 or 18 years old.
Q Did Dr. Kern also tell you the age of the other Polish woman who was represented by another counsel?
A He did not tell me that, as far as I remember, but I guessed that the other girls was not much older, either, in my own estimation.
Q Do you know what crime they were charged with?
A. Yes, I know it.
Q Witness, please a little more slowly. And please, witness pause a little bit after the question. What crime were they charged with?
AAllegedly it was arson. It happened in a factory, in a weaving factory.
Q Did you read the case file?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you read the later sentence and the opinion? Did you hear the sentence pronounced?
A No, I was not present in the courtroom when the sentence was pronounced.
Q Did you later on read the sentence and the opinion?
A No, I did not do that, either.
Q On what is your shock about the trial based?
A Because the two girls were rather young still, and because they were sentenced to death for arson.
Q Since you neither heard the sentence orally nor read the written opinion, I would like to read to you one sentence from your affidavit. You say "the sentence was in the based on racial and not legal points of view." Did you yourself formulate this sentence that is contained and put it into your affidavit?
A I discussed the matter with Mr. Einstein and then the sentence was written down.
COMMISSION III CASE III
Q But you did not have a basis or document for this opinion about this judgement?
A No, I didn't have it, no.
Q Witness, can you remember any case whatsoever in which Rothaug caused any official any damage for political reasons?
A I do not remember any such case.
Q And now a final question. To what did you attribute the easy excitement of Rothaug?
A I knew that Rothaug was suffering from stomach disorders. It was possible that that was the cause for it, but I do not know if for certain.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination? Is there any redirect?
EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q Witness, in discussion the case of the two Polish girls with lawyer Kern, was your opinion in any was shaped by your conversations with lawyer Kern?
A I was active in the office and Kern frequently visited me in the office. On that occasion we repeatedly discussed that case because I knew lawyer Kern particularly well.
Q. So that when you made the statement in your affidavit as to the probable outcome of the sentence based on the fact that these two young girls were Poles, that statement was made both on your own observation and on your conversation with lawyer Kern?
A. That is correct.
Q. I have no further questions.
DR. KOESSL: I believe this last question is not admissible in the form in which it was put. The prosecutor put a statement into the mouth of the witness which he didn't make. If I heard it correctly, Mr. King asked your opinion about the sentence which was based on your own observation. That is just the very thing which the witness denied without any doubt and quite exclusively.
MR. KING: No. Dr. Koessl misunderstood the question. The question was, 'is the statement which you made in your affidavit based both on your observation and your conversation with Dr. Kearn.'
THE PRESIDENT: We understand the situation. The witness is excused.
MANFRED ROEDER-Recalled CROSS EXAMINATION-CONTINUED BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. May it pleast the Commission, may I repeat briefly: Exhibit 46, NG-711, Document Book 1-B, Page 100 in the English Document Book. Witness, first I would like to ask you to state your name.
A. Roeder. My first name is Manfred.
Q. And please state briefly what professional functions you exercised until you were imprisoned?
A. Until 1935, I was in the civilian administration of justice; after, I had left the administration of justice in the interim and had worked in industry.
Then in 1935, as supervising military justice, I went to Koenigsberg. In 1937, I was transferred to Brunswick in the same position. In 1938, I became supervisory judge advocate of the Air Courts Martial in Berlin. In 1941, I was promoted to Judge advocate Colonel. In 1944, I became chief supervisory judge in Air Force Unit 4 which was at the southern front. I was general judge advocate of the Air Force until the end of the war.
Q. Now, may it please the Commission, I would like to correct the technical difficulty of the German Document Book I-b. The next to the last paragraph of the affidavit reads, according to the formulation which the witness and I have agreed upon as follows:
"The decree was a declaration of mistrust against the objectivity of military jurisdiction. It complied with a directive of the Fuehrer and found resonance in the Ministry of Justice, which criticized the milder treatment of political cases."
A. I believe there is still a small mistake. The "which criticized" is supposed to refer to the decree and not to the Ministry of justice.
Q. This is a factual correction?
A. Yes, it is a factual correction.
Q. We are now coming to the contents of your affidavit, and I would like to ask you one thing. In connection with your official activity as general judge advocate, were you in your main activity or on the side a member of the Reich Courts Martial?
A. No, I was not a member of the Reich Courts Martial, Reichs-kriegsgericht, but for two individual cases.
Q. Please speak more slowly, witness.
A. I was merely appointed to the Reich War Prosecution of the Courts Martial, in addition to my position as supervisory judge at the Air Forces 3. I remained in my official position with the Air Forces while I was detailed to the Reich Courts Martial. If one was detailed to the Reichs Courts Martial, one was under the OKW. In my case, this was not so.
Q. You mentioned two cases in which you were detailed to the prosecution of the Reichs Courts Martial?
A. Yes.
Q. As such, did you carry on investigations in two cases of did you appear as prosecutor before the Reich Courts Martial?
A. In one case of the Red Chapel, Rote Kapelle, I represented the Reich Prosecution of the Courts Martial Prosecution, and in about four or five cases I also held factual investigations in addition; whereas in the second case, I, myself, was the chief in charge of the investigations. The second case was known under the code name "Depositenkasse," Depositor's Insurance." It was a matter of large scale smuggling of meney between Switzerland, Checkoslovakia, Hungary and other countries of the south to Germany which had been carried out by members of the counter intelligence office for foreign countries, which then later took a leading part in the 20 of July conspiracy.
Q. One final question in regard to your penal activity. The trial which was known under the code name "Rote Kapelle" was probably concerned with the defendant Harnack among others?
A. Yes, exclusively treason. In the journal "Die Gegenwart" recently an article by Professor Harnack was published. His cousin Harnack sometime ago, wanted to attribute purely political motives to his cousin Harnack who was condemned to death.
The investigation of the Reich Courts Martial and the sentence, the opinion on the basis of the confession of Harnack, had shown without any doubt that under the guidance of a Russian general staff officer, during the war, provided with Russian money and Russian shortwave transmission he thus sent reports to Russia. This is the basis of his sentence and the sentence which was meted out to his wife who in addition had caused a German 1st Lieutenant to reveal official secrets which also were reported to Russia by means of shortwave transmission.
Q. In conclusion, when did this trial take place?
A. This trial took place at the time, that is the middle of December until the middle of February 1942-43.
Q. Thank you very much. I am now coming to the factual questions. You mentioned a case of Ministerialrat Schwarz of the Reich Air Ministry, and there you reported the experiences that you made at the time. On Page 2 of your affidavit, you state:
"We received no support from the Ministry of Justice. In many cases, if it had merely tried to exercise the necessary influence, the Ministry would have been able to free many people from Gestapo custody."
Dr. Roeder, you will admit that that is quite a summary statement and that there are no facts which you quote in support of your conclusion, and it makes it impossible for a man who did not have your experiences to draw the same conclusion. Therefore, I ask you how you reached that conclusion.
COMMISSION III CASE III
A I would like to say the following: This not a record which I dictated, but during two days I was, as I said, generally interrogated; then after that, on the basis of the interrogations, the interrogator made up this affidavit. I corrected, in part, mistakes which distorted the meaning; I pointed them out, especially I pointed out that I could not give any testimony, make any statement about the civilian administration of justice since practically I had left it in 1935 for practical purposes. Thereupon I was asked to make a brief statement how the military administration of justice felt about it and what I had experienced in the course of my activity. This sentence, in particular, which the defense counsel read to me, I remember completely as it came about, when we discussed whether the Ministry of Justice, as we used to say could be regarded -- we used to say 150 per cent a Nazi authority -- agency. Thereupon I stated that nobody could say so who knew the conditions in the Administration of Justice in Germany, since the Justice Department especially was strongly attacked by the Nazis. I remember especially the Fuehrer's speech of April, 1942. To every trained lawyer or justice who was used to judge according to the law, this speech was a heavy blow. The interrogator asked me whether I knew any details about the attitude. Thereupon I said briefly that at the time I spoke with Herr von Donani, the adjutant pr plenipotentiary of the Minster of Justice Guertner, that I interrogated him thoroughly; there existed no doubt whatsoever, and Donani also expressed this that in the Ministry of Justice there was opposition against the absolute request for guidance action of the party authority, rather there was a reserve against this; and that in all individual cases attempts were made to exclude and influence which went beyond the legal authority; especially on this occasion Donani, Herrn von Donani told me that Herr Mettgenberg whom I don't know until this very day, and whose name I only know, absolutely maintained the directives of Minister of Justice Guertner, and from a COMMISSION III CASE III note which Donani made, I know and can testify under oath that Donani regarded Mettgenherg as a. personality who after the 20th of July, if the case should arise, would again take the pant of the absolute independent Administration of Justice.
This matter was not recorded by me in the files of the Reich Court Martial because this case of foreign exchange at the same time was treated by the customs prosecuting authority; and thus it was handled by an authority which was subordinate to the RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Mr. Witness, I think that the Commission will proceed in a more orderly fashion if you will limit yourself to the direct answering of the questions which may be propounded to you by Dr. Schilf. Will you ask questions of the witness and let him answer those questions instead of speaking at such great length?
DR. SCHILF: Before I continue the cross examination, I would like to allow Dr. Behling to speak; he apparently was to say something.
DR. BEHLING: (Attorney for the Defendant Schlegelberger) May it please the Court, the witness repeatedly has mentioned the name of the defendant Mettgenberg, I see from the Remarks he made that this statement refers to the defendant Schlegelberger.
A Schlegelberger. I ask to be pardoned, I meant Schlegelberger. When I discussed it with Herrn von Donani, he told me he was an elderly gentleman who at that time, I believe in the year 1943, yes it was in 1943 at the investigation he had already left the office.
DR. BEHLING: Yes, that is correct.
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand now that when you referred to Mettgenherg, you intended to say Schlegelberger. Now, we will continue with the question and answer procedure.
DR. BEHLING: Yes. I ask that the record be changed, corrected accordingly.
COMMISSION III CASE III
THE PRESIDENT: The record is corrected by the statement of the witness.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, may I ask you to pay attention to what the Court told you, and please give answers only that concern the context of the questions. I now have to ask you -- you said the record was not dictated by you. Do you mean the affidavit?
A Yes, I mean the text of the affidavit.
Q Do you have a copy or a typewritten copy of it?
A I did not receive it, but I asked for it; but I didn't get it.
Q This affidavit, was this taken down, written down, in your presence.
A No. It was written after the interrogation, and about one or two days later I was called to sign it shortly before the noon meal.
Q What happened then?
A I asked for changes and thereupon I was told, well, this matter is not so important here; and I said but here there are matters which change the meaning entirely, and generally does not give the meaning as the facts require it; at least, I want to change these things immediately. Thereupon he told me, all right, make your changes and make an initial in the margin. Thereupon I made the changes, and as far as I considered them especially important -- since after all I was told that these matters were not of special importance, in this strong psychosis, shall we say, in which one is due to seven months imprisonment, one does not consider things the same way as one would do as a voluntary witness who is at large who can pleasantly look everything over and think about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, I think the answer was going beyond the question again. Mr. Witness, you had the opportunity to read the affidavit and to make corrections, didn't you, and you thereafter swore to it?
A Yes.
COMMISSION III CASE III
THE PRESIDENT: Now, if you have other corrections to make, proceed to make them.
A Yes. The record in its factual contents is correct, but not complete. The essential questions which ate necessary to understand the entire attitude of the military and civilian administration of justice were not entered into the record.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q With the permission of Mr. King, I would like now during his examination to show the witness the photostatic copy. He told us that after he had signed it he did not receive a copy of it. Witness, if I understood you correctly, you have expressed the desire to correct some of the statements, and before I read a few lines to you in which you drew a conclusion that in many cases the Ministry could have, if it had only tried to exercise the necessary influence, to free many -- it would have been able to free many people from Gestapo detention. I would like to ask you to tell me do you want to maintain this statement? If you want to do so, please describe some facts which justify this conclusion or could justify this conclusion.
A In the discussion we were dealing with the following: The air force had succeeded in 1938 that everybody who was imprisoned by the Gestapo, every member of the Luftwaffe who was imprisoned by the Gestapo was within twenty-four hours or if that was not possible, as soon as possible, handed over to the administration of justice of the air force. In 1942 the Gestapo, two experts of the armament industries were put into concentration camps. Since they were directors of factories, producing only for the Luftwaffe and owned by the Luftwaffe if they had committed any offense they would have been subject to the administration of justice of the Luftwaffe.
Q Please excuse me, witness, if I interrupt you. Apparently the Court doesn't want to know individual cases.
A No. Only this is the fact on which this sentence is based.
COMMISSION III CASE III
Q All right; then please continue.
A The two of them were then taken out of the concentration camps by the administration of justice of the Luftwaffe, and when we discussed it, the interrogator asked me whether the ministry of justice did the same -- could have done the same, or would have done the same. I thereupon stated that the Ministry of Justice had nothing to do with the Administration of Justice of the Luftwaffe, and in that respect it did not exercise any influence at all. What the Administration of Justice did in individual cases in regard to concentration camps or with regard to prisoners, that I do not know at all. This is a conclusion of the interrogator who considered it absolutely --- who did not know absolutely the absolute separation of the Administration of Justice of the Luftwaffe and of the general Administration of Justice.
Q Thus, you do not want to recognize this sentence as your own statement?
A No, in this form I did not express it, but it is as I have just stated now.
Q If you look some few lines further, there is a sentence, and I quote: "I know that the Ministry of Justice was very indignant at the independence of the Military Administration of Justice, and that in 1942 the first attempt was made to eliminate the Military Administration of Justice from all political trials."
A Yes, that is correct. I was informed about that, and Ministerial Director Lehmann told me about it.
A . Altogether since 1942 there was an undercurrent noticable which wanted to attack the independence of the administration of justice Doubtless there was also, due to the attitude of the Fuehrer regarding the use of military administration of justice in the East. Who was the cause of that attitude or who caused this current, I do not know at all because I do not know the personnel conditions in the Ministry of Justice. I do not know any one of the judges who are before the court here, with the exception of the gentlemen whom I have seen here during my imprisonment here in Nurnberg.
Q. If you say in this sentence here: "I know that the Ministry of Justice, etc,"then perhaps you would correct that today to the effect that you cannot name anybody by name, and if I understood you correctly, you want to raise some doubt as to whether this mistake was due to the Ministry of Justice?
Mr. King: One moment please. I merely want to point out to the witness before he makes the statement that he may later regret that. In the interrogation to which you refer, there is a stenographis transcript, verbatim of what you said there. Furthermore, there are other sources to which we can go for proving what was said. Now, I only want to say that on a question of whether or not you made a certain statement, if this varies from the transcript of what was said in the interrogation, we will bring the transcript into court. I only want to point out-
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, I do not think you should make this kind of statement to the witness. It savors, I am sure, inadvertently, of a threat. Let the witness testify freely and fully, according to the truth here, and if you are able thereafter to impeach his credibility or contradict his statements, you will be fully permitted to do so.
MR. KING: No, I did not mean-
MR. PRESIDENT: I think Dr. Schilf should be allowed to continue the examination.
MR. KING: I only wanted to be helpful, I wanted to point out that the transcript of these interrogations are available.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand. You may proceed Dr. Schilf.
DR. SCHILF: As such, I am thankful to Mr. King for his hint. Therefore, I want to address a question to the witness.
Q. You said you were interrogated twice?
A . Yes.
Q. Were you taken under oath during your interrogations or were you taken under oath in regard to your affidavit?
A. I was taken under oath as far as I remember, for the affidavit.
Q. That is the statement which you have before you?
A. No, I believe, no I was taken under oath before that. And, then the affidavit, I cannot state that with certainty. I ask you to consider the following: I am after all, seven months I have gone through all kinds of imprisonment--four weeks in Oberursel. What that means I need not say--
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Ask another question Dr. Schilf. The witness will limit himself to answering the questions which are asked him by Counsel.
Q. I only want to ask you today if you have been put under oath, and as you have described to us your psychosis were such that during the interrogation, as well as when the affidavit was shown to you, you are of the opinion today that you are not quite free in your statements; and, I only want to point out that today you can say all those things that are in accordance with the truth because today you are absolutely free and are under no pressure of any kind, and can say whatever you want to; and, it can go to the extent that you can correct your former statements today. This is an absolute cross examination undertaken so that the correctness which you want to make, you can make them today.
A . Yes, well, regarding the sentence, "I know that the Ministry of Justice was very indignant of the indictments of the military administration of justice, and in 1942 the first attempt was made to eliminate the military administration of justice from all political trials; in other words, practically to do away with military administration of justice as a department of justice." I maintain that still today. It is based on the information which the Ministerial Director Lehmann gave me. And that he told me, and this information was given to us after the Fuehrer's speech of April 1942.
Q. Dr. Lehmann was the chief of the army-
A. Of the administration of justice of the Wehrmacht, of all three services.
A. Nut, when Dr. Lehmann made that statement he was not a member of the Ministry of Justice?
A. No.
Q. He only gave you this information from the knowledge which he had from his office?
A. That is correct.
Q. You probable did not examine Dr. Lehmann's statement?
A. I did not have any cause to do so in my position because we so-called front judges stayed away from all these questions.
Q. You gave me the word "front judge". In the next paragraph you are speaking about the jurisdiction in the occupied territories. In order to sec it absolutely clear, I ask you to state very briefly in what theater of war you worked as a front judge?
A. I was appointed in the West during the course of the campaign in France; that is in the French territory from the day of the offensive, the 10th of May until the end of October of 1940. In 1940, then in the sphere of Airforce Unit 4, from the 1st of January 1944 until the end of the war.
Q . Now, I only ask you to describe the geographical situation of Airforce Unit 4?
A. They had the southern sector of the Eastern front.
Q. That is southern Russia?
A . Yes, southern Russia, and during the retreat by Romania, a and part of Airforce Unit 4 were in the area of Uman, Proskorov, Lemberg; later on the former Polish district belonged to it; the south-ern part of it belonged to the Airforce Unit 4.
Q . This sector of Poland, did it belong to the so-called incorporated Eastern Territory?
A. Yes, Lemberg and Cracow.
Q. Do you want to say that positively or do you want to reserve the right to check it?
A. As far as I know the German administration was appointed-
Q. Was Cracow not incorporated, was that not the seat of the Governor General of Poland, Herr Frank. I just want to point that out to you, if you are not informed about it. And, if you are in doubt, I want to inform you about it. You have stated that in Poland you had jurisdiction of only military personnel?
A . Yes.
Q. Does that mean the German personnel?
A. Yes.
Q. And, that the Polish civilian population was subject to Special Courts of the Ministry of Justice. The question is decisive now whether these were the so-called incorporated Eastern territories or such territories which belonged to the so--called General Government of Poland. My question is to the effect: do you know to what extent this so-called sovereignty of the Reich Ministry of Justice went geographically?
A . No, that is entirely unknown to me. We only had the following cases, again and again, Polish workers were working in the airfield, now they stole not only air force things, but everywhere in the country something.
Q. Witness, may I interrupt you. These details are not interesting.
A. I only want to give you an example.
Q. No, that is not interesting either. You cannot toll us where the German special courts existed?
A. No.
Q. Were they in the incorporated Eastern territories or in the General Government?
A. No, that is absolutely unknown to me.
Q. Do you know that regarding the sovereignty in the different administrations of justice there were two absolutely separate offices? You do not know that either?
A. That is absolutely unknown to me.
Q. You have named some localities, and said your judges, that is the judges off the Luftwaffe who were in Warscaw and Cracow reported to you about the Polish witnesses whom they were not allowed to take under oath?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether this were special court cases, or cases before a commission or an investigating judge?
A . I cannot say how the civilian administration of justice handled it. Only our sector was of interest to me. The Polish also expressed the wish, if they were working for us and if they had committed anything also in the entire civilian sector, to be tried by the military courts. And now the military court frequently came and said, yes, we want to help the man but if he comes before a special court he is dealt with too harshly and we do not got him back. This tendency of judges of the Luftwaffe to interfere in the entire civilian sector I always forbid of course because from one point of view, first I did not want the difficulty of conflicting competency, and secondly we were already overburdened with our own cases and could not interfere with the civilian sector. So, that any wish of that kind was frequently denied when the commander of one of our airfields wanted to keep a worker who perhaps was a good worker but a little thief, you see, and I could not grant that with for basic reasons.
Court No. 3. Commission III.
Q. If the Polish workers who were working for you expressed the desire to be sentenced by the military administration of justice you say this was done out of fear before the Special Courts?
A. Yes, it was always based on the fear of the Special Courts. This expression is phrased quite generally. I wanted to say fear of the competent courts.
Q. That's what I wanted to ask you; were those courts of the Governor General or courts of tho German administration of Justice which was possible only in incorporated territories.
A. I don't know how all these courts were instituted there. That is absolutely unknown to me.
Q. You are speaking of Special Courts. Do you mean the technical expression -- there were, as you probably know, Social Courts. They had special competence. A special group of courts which existed - Penal Chambers and the District Court of Appeals. If you now name the word "Special" Court, and in your affidavit you stated that -- do you mean these special technical courts?
A. No, I mean the courts that were working in Poland. What kind of courts they were I can not say.
Q. Could they have been Courts Martial?
A. No, they were not Courts Martial.
Q. Military Courts Martial?
A. I don't know if there were Military Courts Martial.
Q. I am again referring to your judges who were in Warsaw and Cracow. Warsaw and Cracow did not belong to the incorporated Eastern territories.
A. We didn't have Warsaw under us at all.
Q. Please look at your affidavit. That is in the large paragraph on the page beginning in the middle of the second page, "In Poland..." And on page 3, the last third of the paragraph, in the English copy on page 3, there is the sentence, I quote it: "The Special Courts were supposed to take over the functions of the Polish, jurisdiction." I now skip one sentence... "Cur judges in Warsaw and Cracow often told me--"