An explanation of the bureaucratic structure of the Party cannot be avoided; its division into separate departments and groups will have to be described. The defendant Klemm was at the head of only a subordinate group in the Party Chancellery. Its number was IIIc. I would ask the Tribunal to be so good as to take due note of this number IIIc in my speech for the defense, so far as the latter is concerned with the Party Chancellery; and also when I come to explain the documents relative to the Party Chancellery. My client was employed exclusively in this legal group. This outward sign alone is an important circumstance to be considered in arriving at a correct estimate of the work of my client. The special task of this group IIIc was to deal with all matters which affected law, codification in this legal group remained, as did Klemm also, officials of the Ministry of Justice; they were merely delegated by that Ministry. They also therefore represented in the Party Chancellery the idea of justice and the concerns of their own Ministry. Whenever different questions were raised in Group IIIc, for example, questions as to the legal disposition of the affairs of foreign peoples, a different department or group of the Party Chancellery dealt officially with and decided upon the matter. Owing to this restriction of the field of their work the legal group only raise objections against the treatment of any matter in another department if formal questions were handled. The legal group had no right of appeal if a matter had been decided on principle by other groups. Thus it will be shown that the decree about penal law with regard to Poles was not dealt with or decided upon in Klemm's legal group but in Group IIIa of the Party Chancellery, which was concerned with "Folkdom questions". The defendant Klemm, therefore, could not exercise any influence whatever, during the period of his employment in the Party Chancellery, on the provisions of this law.
4095a Through further evidence it will be made clear that Klemm's position in the Party Chancellery, as a consequence of the latter's special method of working, could only have slight influence on decisive matters.
Really important affairs concerned with politice or both politice and law, so far as they may interest the Tribunal and the prosecution were not handled by the legal group headed by Klemm.
The officials of the Party Chancellery, so far as they were group leaders, had no influence whatsoever on politics. On the contrary, this was done by the Party's own office. The latter had no state functions as had the Party Chancellery. The NSDAP had offices for agricultural policy, People's Welfare, People's Health, a National Legal Office, an organization of Germans living abroad and many more. There the political principles were planned, there the influence was exercised that found expression in the sentence; "The Party gives orders to the State." All these Offices of the NSDAP must he separated clearly from the Party Chancellery with its function of a public nature. These Party Offices transmitted their plans through the competent "Reichsleiter" directly to Hitler as the Party Leader and Head of State.
Also the position of Bormann must be explained. He also had a variety of Offices and functions as Reichsleader, Secretary of the Fuehrer and Leader of the Party Chancellery At the time when Klemm was working in the Party Chancellery, Bormann was regularly at the Fuehrer's Headquarters and thus away from Munich. All important questions of a general nature, also those affecting justice and its policies and organizations went directly to Bormann in the Fuehrer's Headquarters. There Bormann himself ordered that most of the matters be handled at once. In such cases Klemm's Legal Group often received no information at all of his decision, or at the most a copy subsequently.
When Bormann transferred a job to the Legal Group in Munich he included as a rule instructions for the handling of the matter. When things were handled in this way by Bormann no objections could be raised. Moreover, the evidence I will produce 4096-a will destroy the rumor that my client had close contact with Bormann.
They disliked each other very much. The main reason was that Klemm did * not acced willingly enough to the wishes of Bormann. It occurred only very rarily that Klomm reported to Bormann. To a much greater extent than other subdepartment heads of the Party Chancellery, Klemm informed also Bormann about his own point of view.
After I shall have tried to clarify the unclear and dark picture of the Party Chancellery, I shall discuss in detail the working method of my client and I will outline in what matters he participated and how far he is, therefore responsible, and in what matters he did not participate.
A series of documents submitted by the Prosecution carry the dictation symbol of Bormann, I shall show that all these documents can have nothing to do with my client, Klemm. They were prepared solely by Bormann and his staff at the Fuehrer' Headquarters. No copy was sent to the Party Chancellery at Munich, so that the Legal Group never received any knowledge of them. This is the reason why it is so important to draw attention to the symbol of the Legal Group, namely, IIIc. Klemm neither prepared, nor had any knowledge of, any letters of the Party Chancellery which do not bear that file number. Just as an example I mention Thierack's letter to Bormann on the collaboration of the judicial authorities in the extermination of Poles, Jews and gypsies (Exh. 243). As "Top secret Reich fatter" that writing never reached section IIIc of the Party Chancellory.
I will show that the defendant cannot be held responsible for a possible crime in which the huge organization of the Party Chancellery may have been involve, but not the defendant, if he had never participated in the execution and if he can never have received information about it. It is my opinion that this is also not possible by using the concept of conspiracy or the broadly defined forms of participation according to the Law Number 10 of the Control Council, Such a reasoning is not possible especially if I prove how strongly Klemn advocated -- especially in the Party Chancellery - the idea that law has to prevail in a state and how he tried to prevent that Party organs be influenced in any unfavorable way.
Every day the Group IIIc received complaints against the Justice, the Judges and against the offices of the administration of Justice, which wanted to influence pending proceedings or even to change sentences which had already been passed. Work in connection with such complaints made up the biggest part of the working time of this group. In all these cases the complaints were rejected, by stating that the judge is independent. I shall submit evidence to show that the Party Chancellery, particularly Croup IIIc, expressly forbade all Political Leaders (that is, the Fuehrer Corps of the NSDAP) to interfere in the jurisdiction. It will be demonstrated that this circular decree was issued on Klemm's initiative. I shall disprove the assertion of the Prosecution and shall show that my client advocated emphatically the punishment of Party Members who were found guilty of an offense. Accordingly, Klemm did not use his position in the Party Chancellery to keep judiciary under pressure but on the contrary tried to promote the interests of judiciary and the idea that law has to prevail in a state. In the year 1941 for example he succeeded in persuading Bormann in a memorandum to reject the plans of Himmler, who attempted already at that time to transfer the jurisdiction over the Poles to his police.
c) The documents submitted by the Prosecution, so far as they really affect the Legal Croup of the Party Chancellery, will not be able to invalidate my above assertions. When I will submit the evidence for the defense I will have the opportunity to explain the purpose and the context of these documents. It will be possible to correct many misinterpretations. In this connection it seems to be necessary to explain briefly the fact that Klemm's influence in the Party Chancellery was never so great that it could have played any part in the appointment of Thierack to Minister of Justice in the year 1942. Many a person who could not know the actual events and their background may have had some fantastic ideas in this respect. The explanations of the defense will destroy these conceptions.
5.) With regard to the activity of my client as Under Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice, it will be the task of the legal presentation to separate those actions and measures for which he is responsible from those for which he is not responsible. Also with regard to this point I shall emphasize my point of view that on the Basic of Law Number 10 of the Control Council, my client can not be held responsible for what he himself did neither instigate nor approve. In order to be able to find the facts which will serve as the basis for such legal arguments, I must give you during the proceedings of evidence a detailed picture of my client's position as Under Secretary, of his working field and of the extent of his personal influence. Even externally the position of the Under Secretary had changed considerably since the appointment of Thierack. While before this time the Under Secretary in the Ministry of Justice stood on principle between a section chief and the Minister, after that time his position was simply co-ordinated to that of the Minister. Formerly the Under Secretary had a broad working field and had authority to make important decisions himself, and only the most important matters reached the Minister himself, such as bills or critical matters with regard to policies of the state and of justice.
Thierack on the other hand, handled himself all matters with regard to the administration of penal law which the section chief was not permitted or did not want to decide and he degraded the Under Secretary to a position in which the latter could merely give his opinion like any other expert. It is correct, that from an external point of view the working field of my client seemed to be greater than that of his predecessor, Dr. Rothenberger. The sections of the Ministry III (Legislation in the sphere of Criminal law), IV (Administration of Criminal Law), V (Execution of Sentences), which were not under the latter's jurisdiction were formally re-assigned to Klemm. This seeming extension - my client was thus practically in charge of the whole Ministry of Justice with all its main sections, but with the exception of Section XV (Section for secret matters) which was already in the process of dissolution - actually resulted in a curtailment of his executive powers. Only in a limited field did he receive the authority to make independent decisions, namely as Leader of Section II, which was concerned mainly with educational problems and whereby Klemm was entitled in personnel matters to propose appointment and promotion of officials up to the grade of District Court Director and officials of equivalent rank. In all other fields he was subjected to the domineering orders of the Minister in the same way as every other official of the Ministry. Although he could call for the report of an expert and could thus bring a matter to be decided within his sphere he was prevented from doing so if the Minister himself reserved the final word for himself. Through presentation of my evidence it will be made clear how Thierack, because of his previous career, directed his interests, perhaps his only interest, to problems of criminal law and execution of sentences.
Thus we will recognize that the above-mentioned main sections of the Ministry were only formally under the jurisdiction of Klemm and that no change " in the line of the direction of Justice" , as Thierack expressed it in a discussion of the Section Leaders on 7 January 44 (Exh.
45) resulted from the appointment of a new Under Secretary". It will be proved through the evidence how little the Under Secretary could care for other sections, and that because of the external circumstances, as for instance the evacuation of whole sections from Berlin, he was only rarely present at conferences with the Minister or was left out intentionally.
6.) This limitation of the tasks of the Under Secretary through the organization was furthered through the personal qualities of the Minister, Thierack. A picture of Thierack will result from the documents and the statements of witnesses. He was an autocratic, brutal and even a. rude person. He pursued his views and objectives with remarkable stubbornness. Accordingly, he was hardly to be persuaded from an opinion once formed. He tolerated no one next to himself in his struggle for power. For such a person it must have been easy to suppress such a soft and yielding personality as Klemm. Thierack was not interested in problems of the jurisprudence in concepts of law. He thought that he was a politician and merely a practitioner of the administration of justice. The contrast in the characters had an especially unfavorable effect on Klemm's method of working since Thierack thought he could treat Klemm merely as an official dependent on him personally. That resulted from the prior personal relations of the two men. When Therack filled the post of Minister of Justice for Saxoy immediately after the seizure of power by the NSDAP, Klemm was his adjutant. When Klemm again after many years had to come into personal contact with Thierack through his appointment to Under Secretary, he was in the opinion of Thierack, again not more then his adjutant. When he contacted his Under Secretary Klemm, his manners were just as rough as in his contact with other subordinate officials. Even in the presence of other officials he showed tactlessness, and treated him, too, with disdain and certainly not as a "trusted friend", as the prosecution obviously assumes.
Thierack would not attach much weight to an opinion voiced by Klemm as would have been appropriate because of the latter's Official position. In my defense plea this personal relationship is of importance, so that it must also be show that Thierack was an extremely reserved person. He disclosed his plans and intentions to nobody before they were carried out. He kept the most important political-judicial events and decisions secret even from his Under Secretary. When he received visits of other Ministers, or higher Party and SS officials nobody else was present as a rule. This was particularly true in his contacts with Himmler and the people surrounding him, such as Kaltenbrunner. Of the contents of the discussions Klemm like the other officials of the Ministry was not informed until a decree of Thierack was published for the individual sections of the Ministry.
As to the outside Thierack used Klemm only if he considered it as advisable to emphasize his position as Under Secretary. Thus Klemm signed legal decrees not really as deputy of the Minister who was absent, but only when Thierack thought that he should put his signature under a document of little significance. Klemm had to sign the correspondence with other Ministries if Thierack preferred this procedure for reasons of prestige. This is the only reason for the fact that the so-called "directing letters" (Lenkungsbriefe) to the Presidents of the Appellate Courts Stuttgart and Hamburg do not bear Thierack's name but that of Klemm in spite of the fact that it was Thierack who, in individual reports, complained about the sentences as being too light.
7.) Starting from this general statement with regard to the evidence concerning Klemm's position as Under Secretary I will have to discuss in detail the documents submitted by the prosecution and the statements of the witnesses. Here it will be proved that the main counts of the indictment have no relation at all to the activities of my client. Almost all the measures which the prosecution declared as objectionable, were completed when Klemm took over the position of Under Secretary.
The special regulations against members of foreign nations were issued, the Jews were already excluded from the jurisdiction of the justice authorities, the so-called transfer of a social "prisoners to the police" - handled by department XV which was never subordinated to Klemm, not even formally -- was carried out. No more did my client have anything to do with the Nacht and Nebel cases. The interpretation of the laws by the courts was distinctly crystallized a steady practice had already developed during the preceding 4 years of the war, when the sentences became more severe because of the conditions caused by the war. The prosecution did not submit any evidence showing that Klemm during his time in office as Under Secretary advocated more severe sentences, especially in cases of high treason. The award of punishment and. the granting of clemency took place in accordance with distinctly developed standards. In this connection I will have to demonstrate in detail the proceedings which developed for the clemency questions in cases where a death sentence had been imposed. It will be proved that Klemm did not initiate Thierack who was severe on principle but that on the contrary, especially if the absence of the Minister offered an opportunity, he was inclined to be lenient. Impressive examples for this fact will be given to the Court from the document book of the prosecution III L (Exh. 252.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf, the hour for our noon recess has arrived. You may continue at 1:30 until which time we will recess.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. SCHILF: Schilf for the Defendant, Klemm.
May it please the Tribunal, before the recess I discussed the attitude of Klemm in the Ministry as Under Secretary and as far as the ciernen* question is concerned.
I now shall continue.
"In this connection the opportunity will arise to prove in general that it is only a mere assertion of the prosecution that the Ministry of Justice illegally ordered that a death sentence be carried out. Klemm did not participate in the issuance of directives concerning the clearing of jails, when the enemy approached. These were affairs which were ordered by the executive department of the Ministry (Dep.V). Evidence will be submitted which will prove that my client had practically nothing to do with department V. They will prove that all decisions in these questions were always made by Thierack, without his consulting his Under Secretary. Concerning the individual case about the illegal murder in the penitentiary Sonnenburg, the evidence obtained up to now through the cross examinations of witnesses will be supported by additional evidence. It will clearly be shown that the Ministry of Justice was not responsible for those measures. It will be seen that Klemm did not know anything about the order of the Reich Defense Commissioner and that, therefore, he did not have the possibility to prevent that those intentions were carried out."
I want to say here, Your Honor, that the sentence which I have just read is formulated differently in the document which you have before you.
"By reference to individual cases I will prove, that, in accordance with the plea made by the entire defense, the Judiciary did not do anything which made the lynching of Allied fliers who were shot down possible. The contrary will be proved. It was Klemm who ordered, that criminal proceedings should be started against Germans who had killed Allied fliers illegally.
The disputes with the party offices with regard to these orders will be shown. Furthermore it will be proved that Klemm saw to it that Germans, who treated bailed-out enemyfliers decently, were protected from subordinated authorities of Justice and other party agencies which showed over-great zeal.
"8.) When discussing the individual counts of the indictment I will try to find the basis of the evidence for subsequent legal considerations. This includes especially the question, as to whether it can be at all important for the judging of the facts of a crime to examine the actions of a superior Minister in which the subordinate Under Secretary had also no part. Here the problem will not be the importance of an order with regard to criminal law, but it will be discussed that the necessary causal connection is missing. Furthermore we will have the opportunity to produce evidence before this High Court with regard to the subjective side.
"I will demonstrate that Klemm due to his conviction that law has to prevail in the state and due to his generally decent human attitude interceded on behalf of the law. It will be proved that my client was held in high regard by his co-workers in the Ministry, that he tried in many individual cases to mitigate the fundamental harshness of Minister Thierack who was severe on principle, that he always was ready to listen to other officials, that he always was ready to accept sensible suggestions; in general he was thus just the opposite of Thierack.
"This attitude shewed also results - as will be proved - in the sphere of personnel policy. On principle he did not give any preference for positions to so-called "old party members". In case of promotions and appointments he recommended persons who did not belong to the NSDAP. I shall be able to show cases where he also recommended persons who were on the opposite side, if they had special professional qualifications. He tried to aid officials of justice who for political reasons, were personally in difficulties.
"10.) Extended fields which Klemm handled in the Ministry of Justice have not been mentioned by the Prosecution.
When submitting evidence I will have the opportunity to show especially that my client had to spend most of his working time in the Ministry for Department II of the Ministry. This department handled all questions which were concerned with the general training of all German jurists. Here the special difficulties which arose with regard to the personnel of tho authorities of the administration of justice on account of the events of the war had to be surmounted. The evidence will show that my client in training tho young jurists omitted all politics, that his work was absolutely unpolitical. Thus the so-called ideological training and examinations which were very much favored in the time shortly after the assumption of power of the NSDAP and which found a specially exact expression in the "Roferendar Lager" -- the Reforendar Camp for prospective lawyers -- "Hans Kerri" were excluded from the professional education of the jurist. At the time when Klemm at the beginning of the year 1944 took over his position in the Ministry, all these things had been settled a long time ago. The most urgent practical problems, where one could get young judges when and in what manner young jurists should make their examinations, how former soldiers were to be treated and similar questions belonged to Klemm's working field. This was practical work; also this field had nothing to do with "politics".
"If thus the picture and the activity of my client will be made clear to the Tribunal, then it will be proved that it is not a cheap attempt of throwing the blame upon dead persons, then it will become clear that it has been tried and perhaps also of Bormann. Klemm is, however, not responsible for their guilt."
That is all I have to say at the moment.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Wandschneider for the Defendant, Dr. Rothenberger. May I begin my opening statement. At the beginning of my opening statement I want to say a few words about the task of the Defense as I see it.
The Task of the Defense.
With the presentation of its theory of proof, the Defense really starts its task in this trial. It is Confronted with an indictment presented in the name of the world community against the officials of the administration of justice in National Socialist Germany and referring to the moral conscience of just this world community. This situation requires a few words about the duties and position of the German defense in this trial. It is a cheap trick, if the Germans now, subsequently, merely because of the National Socialistic State has collapsed, declare very simply and without resistance that Hitler was "not right", and if these same Germans during the National Socialist regime, completely renouncing their own attitude and personality, were opportunists and cooperated with the entire National Socialist Policy with just as little resistance. Such a confession on the part of the Defense, which would be considered suitable only because the sentence of the International Military Tribunal established the amoral character of National Socialism, would also be a cheap trick and valueless.
Opinions are not formed under pressure of outward conditions, but on the basis of one's own knowledge. Of course, we do know on the basis of our knowledge that under National Socialism the basic rights and worth of the free individual and of the human community whose interests are inextricably bound together became corrupt and were destroyed and that is, by misuse and waste of the most valuable sources of power of the German Nation itself and of other non-German nations. Only selfrecognition, self-education and efficient, responsible cooperation of all members of a community lead to a really democratic way of life and state.
"The above statements which were made in order to be honest and above board have not been made from the standpoint of any disinterested neutral third party. How could a German defense-counsel be inwardly untouched by the arguments of the prosecution, regardless of whether and to what extent, he, as a German, considers himself "guilty". In view of the fact that the German people were entagled into error, misery, and guilt, should he not feel even more that he is one of them, and should he not try to gain that which cannot be lost: self-reflection, principles, and dignity. The defense wishes to thank the Tribunal for having given it full opportunity in this trial to represent the interests of its client in this spirit.
"II. Criminal facts of the case according to the indictment: Conspiracy and the individual facts of the case concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"Dr. Rothenberger is charged with the crime of conspiracy, committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. According to the prosecution, the same concrete facts form the basis for the last two charges. In like manner, the charge of conspiracy is connected with the planning of the aforementioned war crimes and crimes against humanity. The facts presented by the prosecution to prove these crimes are in accordance with the I.M.T.-Judgments (viz. pages 94 and 95 of the Nymphenburg issue of the I.M.T.-Judgment) only relevant from the penal point of view since the beginning of the war. We are concerned with the following facts with, "Count 9 and 21 of the indictment:
"Use of the Special Courts and the People's Courts for the oppression of political enemies.
"Count 10 and 22 of the indictment;
"Participation in the discussion between Himmler and Thierack of 18 September 1942.
"Number 11 and 23 of the indictment:
"Sentencing and execution of Germans and non-Germans for high treason.
"Number 14 and 26 of the indictment:
"Illegal execution.
"Number 16 and 28 of the indictment:
"Preferential treatment shown party members who are to be punished and collaboration in the introduction of the special penal law for Jews and others.
"III. Non-existence of a conspiracy on legal grounds.
"Before starting to discuss the basis for the above charges in the indictment, it seems fitting to treat briefly the question of conspiracy. From a legal point of view, attention must be called to the fact that according to the statute of the London Treaty, as well as the Control Council Law No. 10, the conspiracy, or the planning can only be considered a crime in itself if it concerns a crime against peace, but not if it concerns a war crime or crime against humanity. This viewpoint was maintained also by the I.M.T. in trial No. 1.
"IV. The general circumstances of the case which form the basis for the charges of the indictment.
"1.) Memorandum of Dr. Rothenberger.
In its opening statement against Dr. Rothenberger the prosecution called particular attention to his memorandum to Hitler for the year 1942 and entered it as exhibit 27 in its document book I B. The prosecution characterized this as a peculiar document and commented upon it from its own point of view.
The defense will also have to analyze the memorandum minutely and discuss in detail its previous history and what has happened to it. It appears that the central problem here is the basically important question, of the dominating position of the judge in the life of a nation. The appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as Under-Secretary can be traced back to this memorandum, the character of which is clearly open to a psychological judgment. Naturally the reasons for his appointment will have to be discussed in greater detail. The memorandum presents therefore the very first of these important developments which put Dr. Rothenberger in the defendant's dock in Nuernberg.
"2) Dr. Rothenberger's reaction to the Hitler speech of 26 April 1942.
"The prosecution has further produced against Dr. Rothenberger his report on conditions to the Reich Ministry of Justice, dated 11 May 1942, as Exh. 76 in Document Volume I-C, which describes the reaction to Hitler's speech of notorious fame dated 26 April 1942. The prosecution blames him for the measures taken after the Hitler speech, just as for the corresponding measures of Autumn 1942. It will, therefore, be the task of the defense to show how the measures taken by Dr. Rothenberger in 1942 following the Hitler speech were meant, and what was their effect.
"The documents specified under this as well as the previous number, in fact, in the opinion of the defense, touch upon crucial questions of the whole trial; namely, the place of the judiciary in the National Socialist state. They require, therefore, a full description in the presentation of evidence by this side.
"3) Dr. Rothenberger's ideas on reform.
"Dr. Rothenberger failed with the plans for reform contained in Ms memorandum. It may also be conceded that they were bound to fail by virtue of a historical necessity. However, that is not the point, but rather to demonstrate that Dr. Rothenberger exerted himself again and again to the utmost for the preservation of the foundations of justice, in particular for an independent judiciary, and used all his strength to that end.
The defense will clearly show that in the case of his discharge after he had served only fifteen months as Under-Secretary, not personal but decisively factual differences were at stake, on account of which Dr. Rothenberger was no longer acceptable to the rulers in the Third Reich.
"4.) Dr. Rothenberger's personality and career from the pre-war period and into the second World War.
"The above events falling directly within the war period, become fully understandable only by showing the development of Dr. Rothenberger's personal and professional circumstances before the war. It will be demonstrated that even before 1933 he was a professionally able lawyer, interested solely in civil law, energetic and conscious of his responsibility. It will further be shown that after 1933 he succeeded in having his proposals for a constitutional state adopted in Hamburg. He did, to be sure, become involved, in constantly growing opposition to radical Party circles and to the SS, especially after the outbreak of the war.
"All the facts of the case expounded above under IV are legally relevant from the point of view of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as from that of conspiracy; they are therefore presented with reference to all charges against my client.
"V. The various facts of the case in the order of the indictment and the position taken with regard to them."
May I say at this time I notice in the English translation for the German word "Tatbestaende, the word "facts" is in the document. I have consulted and I have been told that the word "charges" would express more properly what I mean to say.
THE PRESIDENT: The charges cf the case, that is in the title?
DR. HANDSCHNEIDER: Yes in the title.
"The various charges of the case in the order of the indictment and the position taken with reward to them.
"All the charges made against Dr. Rothenberger have to do with the field of criminal law and administration of punishment. It will be shown by the prosecution's own documents and by further evidence, that Minister of Justice Thierack reserved for himself all matters of criminal law and criminal law procedure of criminal law, as well as of administration of punishment, and accordingly by the exclusion of Dr. Rothenberger, placed Departments III, IV, V and XV of the Ministry, under his own direction. Dr. Rothenberger, therefore, neither had influence on the whole field of criminal law nor was he responsible for it. Neither Special Courts nor the People's Court, neither General Public Prosecutors nor any sort of criminal courts nor prisons were under his direction. The description of Dr. Rothenberger as successor of Freisler in the opening statement on page 64 of the German translation is therefore incorrect and an error. Without question, the entire criminal law was under the direction of the latter as Under-Secretary, which from the beginning was not the case with Dr. Rothenberger.
"1) Ad numbers 9 and 21 of the Indictment;
"According to the above general statements, therefore, Dr. Rothenberger did not cooperate in the improper use of the Special Courts and the People's Court for the suppression of political opponents.
"2) Ad numbers 10 and 22 of the Indictment:
"On 18 September 1942 an agreement was reached between Himmler and Thierack which, according to a file note by Thierack, among other things, provides for the delivery of criminal prisoners to the SS for the purpose of "extermination by work" and for the transfer to Himmler of criminal justice in cases concerning Jews, Poles etc. It will be shown timt Dr. Rothenberger did not take part in the discussion of these points, was not responsible for them either, and had no knowledge of them at that time.