Apart from that goal, to carry out his thesis of fame, "right is that which serves the German people" he also for personal ambitions, and last, not least for that ambition, had intentions to take over the post of Ministry of Justice.
Q Could you name other personalities who in that manner fought against the Administration of Justice?
A From the inside, unfortunately, yes. I have not completed my statement. I am thinking of Thierack. Thierack had very close connections to Bormann. He concentrated his efforts at first on the president of the People's Court, a position he held at that time. Behind the back of the Ministry of Justice, in 1936, he brought about a speech by Hitler before the People's Court. As these proceedings have shown, in 1937 he had attempted to arrange another speech of that kind.
Q The witness refers here to Exhibit 105.
A The judges of the People's Court in this manner should be brought to understand that the People's Court was an institution of a special nature, in closest connection to Hitler himself; and that it was only by a mistaken step that the People's Court had been incorporated into the administrative structure of the Ministry of Justice; and that administrative connection, again in all secrecy in 1938, he tried to obtain through the chief of the Reich Chancellery, the presidency of the People's Court, following the Italian example, should be subordinated immediately to Hitler. To my knowledge, Thierack, after he became Minister, did not continue with these attempts. As I was informed from various sources, in his attempts to become Minister, he is alleged to have promised to the party that the office of the prosecution should be turned over to the police. I shall later refer to the occurrences during the trial of the Czech Minister-President Elias; but in the end I still have to emphasize what extraordinary difficulties were made to me by the personality of Freisler.
Q Who was Freisler?
A Well, the witness Behl once characterized Freisler as the representative of the party interests in the Ministry of Justice. That was correct. His career was the following: Freisler during the first World War was a prisoner of war in Russia. After the end of the war he remained in Russia for a considerable period of time. About his activities during that period of tine in Russia, a veil never completely has been lifted. After he returned he became an attorney at Kassel. First of all defense counsel for National Socialists. When the Prussian Ministry of Justice was put in the hands of Minister Kerrl, this latter called the old party member Freisler to the post of Under Secretary, Staatssekretaer. He remained there until in 1934. On the occasion of the merger of both Ministries, he was transferred to the Reich Ministry of Justice. Freisler no doubt possessed a high degree of intelligence, but quite apparently he was of abnormal spiritual inclinations that ranged from extreme brutality all the way to a rather feminine weakness. After he had insulted his assistants in the worst possible manner without any reason, it could occur that soon after he came to them to ask for their forgiveness in a very servile manner. The Tribunal has actually made the acquaintance of Fleisler optically and acustically. He was quite well informed about problems of criminal law, but he lacked any continuity and seriousness in his work. He was restless and imbued with a lust for power, always looking for new tasks and new problems. He was an old party member, and he had the golden party emblem, but he represented that type of National Socialist who again and again fearfully vied for the favor of Hitler, who definitely recognized him as one hundred per cent National Socialist, but personally did not think as much of him as Freisler would have liked to have seen.
Therefrom and from his task to survey, the Ministry from the National Socialist point of view, and from his undisputable intelligence and his expert knowledge in the field of criminal law, the dangerous qualities in his personality could be seen. He knew where he had to start in order to achieve his goals. To work with him was extremely difficult, and I may well say here that Freisler was the one, after all, who undermined the work and the strength of Guertner and contributed to his early death. And so as far as I was concerned, my continuous attempts to restrict Freisler made it extremely difficult for me in my position. He did not stick to decisions which we had made in long debates. He made secret promises to his Party which alter they became apparent restricted the Minister in his possibilities of action.
Again and again I had to find out that, partly intentionally, partly out of neglect, he had failed to report to me on important occurrence and applications. He had prohibited some ministerial directors to report to me directly. He wanted to do all of that. To that had to be added that although he did not drink much, he could not restrain himself once he started to drink, and in a condition of that kind he frequently made statements which gave an entirely wrong picture of the intentions of the Minister. When then the disappointment came, when the agencies concerned found out that the practice of the Ministry was not according to these statements, then, of course, there were serious accusations on the part of the Party and a renewed struggle.
His unstable nature brought it about that when I made objections to him, he frequently in tears promised to better himself, but his moral strength was not sufficient to make him keep these promises for any length of time.
Of course, my position with regard to Freisler was weaker than that of Guertner. I was, indeed, in charge of the work of the Ministry, but only due to the fact that I was the senior Under Secretary in rank; otherwise we were on the same level.
The possibility of influencing him or influencing others against him was very limited for me, all the more because my mission was not set for a certain time but could be repealed every day. Therefore, I could find the optimal accomplishment of my tasks only in maintaining the status quo in the Ministry of Justice such as it was at the time of Guertner's death, especially if one takes into consideration as a matter of course that on the one hand the attacks from the Party became stronger being faced with a weaker man in charge of the Ministry, and that on the other hand this weaker man was always confronted with the necessity of an increased resistance on his part.
In these proceedings here the witness, Father Wein, confirmed that during the time when I was in charge of conducting the affairs, the Administration of Justice had not deteriorated and that only the appointment of Thierack brought about an absolute change-over. I ask you to try to understand that in that I found a justification for the work of my life under these conditions as I have described them.
Q What did the taking over of the post of Minister by Thierack mean to you?
A I believe I should continue at the point where the speech made by the Prosecution left off. The prosecution said, "Schlegelberger had seen the storm brewing." That is quite correct. I anticipated a storn, and I tried to prevent it. The attitude of Thierack up to that time and his close relations with Bormann did not leave any doubt as to his program, and just as I interpreted that, it came about. As soon as Thierack assumed office, a complete change-over occurred. It was not a gradual deterioration, but it was that famous construction of a strong National Socialist Administration of Justice as it had been ordered by Hitler. I merely point to the changes in the Administration of Justice and in legislation which are contained in the material submitted by the Prosecution. If one sees that which had been demanded for a long time and which had been tried to achieve by all means, if one sees how that, all of a sudden, now came into effect, I believe then only one can find the right measure for that which I in a continuous struggle had prevented or had delayed.
I do not want to omit, to describe briefly, the complete change in personnel policy. With the exception of the man in charge of the Budget Department, all ministerial directors were released by Thierack and many Referants transferred. The entire top level of the Ministry had changed overnight. Furthermore, of twenty-two presidents of district courts of appeal, eleven presidents, and just the best ones on the basis of their qualifications, and four general prosecutors were retired.
If in the dire situation of war such a unique measure is taken, one demonstrates most clearly that my dismissal and the appointment of Thierack, in the feeling of Hitler and Thierack, represent the point at which an entire new development starts. The purge measures by Thierack were extended also to the many non-Aryan judges or judges with Jewish relatives who at that time were still in service and to many officials who did not just belong to the Party.
I believe that my decision to fight until the very limit and to stay that long in the Ministry has found its justification. Clearly anticipating that with that new man chaos would start for the administration of justice, there was only one thing left to me: although the burden physically and psychologically was at times almost impossible to bear, to try and bear it and to fight as drastically as possible. Of course, it was clear to me, and I had to experience the fact that I would be beaten at times and had to decide to make detours wherever I could take that upon my conscience.
Q What, in your opinion, was that extreme limit which could still be justified which you have just mentioned?
A If the Tribunal was good enough to follow me in the description of my life, then it will easily recognize what my work at that time meant to a man whose life work was in the legal work. At times, today, it is hard even for me to transfer myself back again into those days and to bring those days back. And, a system which was worked out to the very last detail of appropriateness and power, there was a severed island in the continuous storm almost an anachronism in those days, and that was the administration of justice. I had to experience it, how the storm hit again and again, and how certain sacrifices had to be made to this storm of power in order to prevent that it should not triumph completely. For me, in that situation, there was only one consideration, to make this one particular measure compatible with the uncompromising principles of law such as I had considered them so far as a matter of course. Was not everything now only a question of power? How could I avoid that lust for power and prevent the accomplishment of these designs? What will go through regardless of my assistance, and which can I prevent by my work? And that deliberation led me to find that extreme limit which I have mentioned before. It was the final abolition of the independence of the Courts. For the benefit of the courts, this independence I had to try to maintain at any cost. In spite and against the devilish propaganda on the part of Goebbels, I was of the firm conviction that the German courts and German judges were still in good shape; although, now, from the large number of the many decisions, particularly of the more recent period, the Prosecution may select a few in order to prove that legal principles had been abandoned in the jurisdiction, To deal with these individual cases is not my task in these proceedings. A full examination of the entire field of justice would show that this conviction of mine was very well founded that the maintenance of the integrity of the German courts was a goal which was well worth my work and my trouble because I was and still am of the opinion that the work of the courts is the more secure guarantee for the law.
Therefore, I have tried again and again to draw various fields within the scope of the work of the courts; for instance, in the economic field, the problem of getting agriculture out of the darkness, the question of hereditary health, but the basic prerequisite was that the courts had to remain independent. When in 1937 in the German civil servant law, Hitler was given the right to retire any civil servant if this civil servant could not be expected at any time to fight for the National Socialist principles state, I in my capacity as chief of the Department for Public Law at the Ministry caused that a security clause would be contained in there for the judges; this clause provided that measures, as far as the judges are concerned, can not be based on the objective content of a judge's decision. Once the independence of the court was brought to fall the protection by courts was brought to fall, then the activity of the court could even become a danger. Therefore, I drew for myself this extreme limit for my remaining in office. With the regulations of the Reichstag of 25 April 1942, my struggle had come into the final period. It was not quite clear, as it appeared frequently with Hitler's speeches, whether or not his speech, merely for tactical reasons, had attacked the administration of justice, and whether or not the true objects were the generals. Mr. Lammers, the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, to whom I spoke immediately after the speech about all these matters, confirmed that background to me as being the true objective of Hitler's polemics, but I had to see clear. I wrote to Hitler for a Fuehrer information. The judges were by that speech extremely disturbed; I had explained to the judges that, with all the weight of my office, I would stand in protection before every judge who, according to his conscience and to the law - that clarified the situation as far as I was concerned. If Hitler's speech really meant the beginning of the end of the independence of the courts, then he had to consider my statement as an open declaration of war. That was what I wanted and I wanted to bring about a breach, in that case, on purpose.
Q How did it come to your dismissal?
A Hitler, at first, did not answer that letter which I just mentioned. There was a lot of behind the scene talk about a new appointment for the post of Minister. A few weeks later Lammers, chief of the Reich Chancellery, he called me and told me that Hitler had made up his mind to appoint a new Minister of Justice and he asked me what my attitude would be, in case the choice would come on Thierack. I replied that to work with Thierack was quite out of the question. Literally, I added, I would not sit at the same table with Thierack. Lammers replied that was what he had thought and for that eventuality he was instructed by Hitler to offer me another office comparable to the position I was holding. He had thought it over and he was prepared now to offer me the position of the President of the Reich Administrative Court (Reichsverwaltungsgericht). I rejected that offer and asked Lammers to inform Hitler that I would accept a new office under no circumstances, but wanted to be retired. Soon thereafter Lammers wrote me that I should come to his quarters at Shitomir and receive the document concerning my retirement from the office, and, then, thereafter, the report to Hitler at his headquarters at Winniza in order to take my leave. That order I carried out. On that occasion, Lammers, on orders from Hitler, gave me a check for 100,000 marks which should make it easier for me to come through the transition into retirement.
I was not happy about that donation, on the contrary I was greatly disturbed. I got in touch with the chief of the Presidial Kanzlei, the Meissner, and asked how I could avoid accepting that amount. Meissner replied that the refusal was impossible because it would mean an unfriendly act toward Hitler, and all the bad consequences would have to be accepted. Thereupon, I did not return the check and when the Russians came, that amount was still untouched in the bank. At Winniza, Hitler received me. The conversation lasted for twenty minutes. Hitler told me about the following: He required his officials to carry out his instructions without any criticism of any kind. He added, "Since you have already criticized my measures, I believe it is better if we separate." He was referring to the Fuehrer Information which I have already mentioned. I took advantage of that opportunity to tell Hitler with all frankness at my disposal that an intact and independent administration of justice was a vital question for Germany; that his method to form his judgment on the basis of information received from Gauletiers, and his intention to send home judges who had done their duty, was an impossibility. The very concept of a judge required independence. People would never respect the judgment of a dependent judge as an expression of law. I added that if I had remained in office, I would have continued to protect anybody who was persecuted unjustly.
Hitler took these statements on the whole quite easily. Time and time again he even nodded approval, but when I touched upon the question of the independence of judges in connection with his Reichstag Speech he suddenly harangued against the generals and get in a hot fury which slowly ebbed like a dying flame.
Q The Prosecution alleges that there was a conspiratorial cooperation between you and your co-defendants. Will you briefly describe your relations with the co-defendants?
AAs for these relations I have, in part, to answer absolutely in the negative. A number of my co-defendants I have only met here.
Not with a single one of the defendants here, I had any personal contort beyond official connections. These official contacts in most cases consisted of just occasional conferences required by the work.
As the defendants' dock shows, the Prosecution has selected a mere few from the large number of officials of the Administration of Justice. All of them together with other colleagues worked only in that field to which they were assigned. If one would follow the principle of conspiracy as expounded by the Prosecution, the entire Administration of Justice since 1933 would have to be considered one organization in the meaning of the count of the indictment. And I believe that an opinion of that nature would best be rebutted by the fact that when I left the Ministry of Justice, that great change took place. That is sufficient rebuttal for the assertion of personal homogeneity of the officials and the judges.
Q We want to depart now from personal matters and discuss the objections made against you. The objective charges made against you begin with the centralization problem of the Administration of Justice, Verreichlichung. Will you give us your general point of view concerning that question?
A When the empire was founded in 1871, beyond the limits of the individual federal state as an overall authority, certain agencies of the Reich were founded. The same occurred in the field of justice. It was called then the Reichjustizamt, the Reich Justice Office and, in fact, was a Reich Ministry of Justice. Later, it got that name. The Reich Justice Office had almost exclusively legislative functions. It had to deal with regulations for the Administration of Justice.
Once such a regulation had been passed, all individual states had to issue executive laws for the carrying out of this regulation. That meant that after each major Reich law had been passed, more than 20 laws had to be passed in the various states to carry out the principles of the Reich law.
What that machinery meant can be seen if one looks at the collection of these executive laws of various states.
With great surprise you find that fills two fat volumes. As for administrative tasks, the Reich Justice Office as already mentioned only had to take care of the Reich Supreme Court, and in the course of time, the Reich Patent Office. Here, also, the various laenders had to cooperate. The selection of judges for the Reich Supreme Court required most difficult negotiations. One has to have seen that, in order to fully realize with what jealousy each individual state saw to it that these various posts were filled according to a definite key.
It could happen that a small stale could not even offer an appropriate candidate for such a position at the Reich Supreme Court, but then one had to preserve the claim and register it very carefully so that the next time, they could be given it. It was just as difficult to select officials for the Ministry of Justice. That, too, required negotiations and thus it came about, that long before 1933, everywhere, the desire for a uniform administration of justice for the entire Reich was expressed. I may remind you that the witness Behl has stated that even the Social Democratic Party of Germany was expressly of that same opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our noon recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing recovened at 1330 hours, 27 June 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Military Tribunal No. III is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
FRANZ SCHILEGELBERGER (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q Witness, you referred to the assumption of the Administrative of Justice by the Reich.
A Before the recess I pointed out that the desire for a uniform, centralized Administration of Justice had already existed in the period prior to 1933. The Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, worked for that idea of that centralization of the Administration of Justice, with great energy. The fact that he as a Bavarian did so, although it is generally known how very much Bavaria interested in a life of its own, explains best the fact that Guertner had very good reasons for doing so. As often occurs in life, by accident a circumstance arose which speeded up the execution of that idea. This is what happened.
When once I had a conversation with Kerrl, the Minister of Justice of Prussia at that time, and visited with him the training camp for Prussian law students a camp which has been repeatedly referred to in this trial -- I said to him that it must have cost a great deal of money to set up that camp; Kerrl laughed and replied, quite frankly:
"Oh, it didn't cost me anything. The amounts were donated by large firms, in whose cases we were very considerate about prosecuting them under Penal Law." Naturally, he added, "the money was not transferred to me directly, but it came to me via the Winterhilfe Scheme account. However, the Winterhilfe Scheme made it available to me, and with that money we built up a very decent camp, as you can see for yourself."
I was more than disgusted when I heard about those practices he thus unveiled. I made a report to Guertner.
The right of supervision over the Ministries of Justice of the Laender, was not in the hands of the Reich Minister of Justice. Guertner and I agreed that those practices must be stopped at the earliest possible moment, all the more so since one did not know whether, or in any other Laender, similar things might not be happening as were happening in Prussia. One could hot tell what was happening because the Ministries of the Laender had throughout new men working with them concerning whose persons, in some cases, one had certain misgivings, and justified misgivings. Frank was the Minister of Justice for Bavaria, and Thierack wan the Minister of Justice for Saxony.
That experience increased Guertner's energy in carrying out his work of centralization. The basis for that work was laid down in the first and second centralization laws dated 16 February, and 5 December 1934.
The result of the centralization, the transfer of the tasks of the Ministries of Justice of the Laender to the Reich, was this, from the political angle: The entire Administration of Justice from now on lay in the hands of a minister who was not a member of the Party and who, as Minister of Justice for Bavaria, had enjoyed the confidence of all parties from the extreme right to the extreme left. I myself, who also was not a member of the Party, remained at my post. The National Socialist Ministers of Justice of the Laender lost their official positions in the Administration of Justice.
The opinions of the Party as to the centralization of the Administrative of Justice is evidenced best by a statement of Goering's, which he made to me in 1941 when, in the course of a conversation, I said to him that the Party, at every opportunity, made difficulties for our Ministry, he said to me, "That cannot surprise you. The reason lies in the centralization of the Administration of Justice under the circumstances which actually obtained. That is the reason why the Party, as a group is opposed to the Reich Ministry of Justice and makes life as difficult as possible for that Ministry.
The Party is of the opinion that the Administration of Justice should again be taken over by National Socialist hands." And Goering added, "I myself will never pardon you and Guertner for the way you acted in 1934."
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I shall submit Schlegelberger document No. 26 in reference to the aforesaid statements.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q Will you please give us a brief description of the organization of the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A Under the very top, that is the Reich Minister of Justice, there were two separate under-secretariats: The under-secretariat for civil cases, the head of which was myself; the direction of the penal division was in the hands of Freisler. Further, he was in charge of the so-called Department Referat, the Hereditary Farm Law Office, and the Revision Office for Judicial Affairs.
Under the two Under-Secretaries there worked a total of six ministerial directors, (Ministerialdirektoren) who, each of them, were the heads of their specialized divisions. The number of these departments and their sphere of work changed several times in the course of time.
Inside some departments sub-sections had been created which were in charge of a "Ministeriai Dirigent". The number of higher officials in the Reich Ministry of Justice amounted to approximately 250. Personnel matters were divided into regions. As concerned the East, I was only in charge of my own home privince, East Prussia. Otherwise, I dealt with Southern Germany, I don't know who was in charge of the others. The People's Court Freisler was in charge of. The Supreme Reich Court and the Reich patent office were in my charge. The two divisions, directed by Secretaries ware entirely separate from one another. Freisler and myself had different times at which we went to report to the Minister. The Minister asked me to come to see him when Freisler had finished his report and had left the room. Only very rarely, and only when one of my officials was to be appointed to a head office in Freisler's sphere, or vice versa, the two of us met at the Minister's. If one of the under secretaries was absent his affairs were dealt with by the Minister together with the competent ministerial director. The other under secretary did not deputize for the one who was absent.
May I cite an example? I, too, in 1938 had to go to the hospital as a result of an accident and at that time the Minister did not discuss the new German marriage law with Freisler but with the head of the department. If the Minister was absent, too, the under secretary who was present in Berlin did only a certain amount of duty for his colleague. That is to say, he was available for matters which could not be postponed. In my recollection that happened only very rarely for this was one point over which Freisler and I were in absolute agreement. Neither had the wish to meddle with the other's affairs.
Furthermore, Freisler, when he went on a business trip or when he went away for the summer holidays, was practically always in contact with Berlin. Therefore, he told Dr. Guertner that a deputy for which only I was the possible candidate was neither necessary nor desirable.
It did happen that the Minister, when he did not feel well and left the office earlier, asked me by telephone to sign and to dispatch letters which he had already signed in draft from. Now and then that could have concerned matters which did fall in Freisler's sphere when Freisler could not be reached.
I should like to quote as example the letter which the prosecution submitted about the fight against political Catholicism. Concerning details accompanying that letter, I know nothing about this. In particular, I do not know what particular pressure was excercized or what instructions Hitler had issued in virtue of his right to lay down the directives of policy but I should like on this occasion to say something about what was the practice of the Ministry in regard to church affairs. I should like to point out what the witness for the prosecution, the Catholic chaplain Schowwer, on the 9th of May testified here. According to his testimony, the Ministry refused on the occasion of a church funeral for Poles to take steps against the Catholic clergymen.
Q The letter which you have mentioned is Exhibit 428, in Volume I, supplement. The examination which you mentioned here of clergyman Schosser is on page 3021 in the English transcript.
THE INTERPRETER: We are sorry, the microphone is out of order.
Q As the Jewish question is of particular importance for several points in the indictment, I would ask you first of all to tell us what your personal attitude to the Jewish question was.
AA s far as I am concerned, there is and there was no Jewish question. This is my attitude: all races were created by God. It is arrogant for one race to place itself above another race and tries to have that race exterminated. If a state deems it necessary to defend itself against being inundated and does so within the frame of a social problem, then it can and must be done by applying normal, decent means.
During the Goebbels campaign in 1938 I was abroad. When I heard about those events I said to my family:
"We must be ashamed of being Germans." That was my view at that time and that is my view today. The only person with whom I am united in faithful friendship until today because we went to school together is a full Jew. I succeeded in saving his life all through that era. He again holds his former office as a Judge. My physician, too, is half-Jewish. That attitude of mine naturally meant that on many occasions I was faced with inner conflicts. I ask you to consider that the Jewish problem was regarded as the central problem of the National Socialist State and the entire life in Germany was to be placed in line with that. Concerning that question Hitler and his followers worked in an entirely uncompromising manner; that an expert administrator could not bypass that basic attitude is a matter of fact. I shall have an opportunity to demonstrate what was my personal attitude towards those questions and how it always evidenced itself in an effort to put a check on the wishes of party policy, to make improvements and to exercise as far as possible a moderating influence on the practical application of those matters.
Q What were the manifestations of your attitude to the Jewish question in your office?
A The prosecution charges me with having cooperated in taking measures against the Jews. That the ordinance of 4 December 1941 against Jews in the Eastern territories must be evaluated under particular points of view, I shall show in connection with the Polish question. For the rest, I ask you to consider that in view of the strength of the powers with which I was engaged in a struggle, a hundred per cent victory of the Ministry of Justice was entirely out of the question. In that sphere, too, faithful to my basic attitude, I did work to make justice prevail; but frequently I had to content myself with making a compromise and I had to be pleased when at least I had achieved some amelioration.
To use a customary phrase, if I had drawn the consequences from every defeat, I would have deprived myself of all possibility to aid the Jews. Quite apart from the fact that the resignation from office, before the war would have been a factual impossibility, and during the war a legal impossibility until a new Minister was appointed.
With the permission of the Tribunal I will prove how difficult it was by citing an example. When the Party started a campaign against Jewish lawyers, I went to see Hitler and told him that it was untenable, to remove from their profession Jewish lawyers among whom research people of repute were included, and with whom I myself had worked. I was pleased when I succeeded in persuading Hitler that that was correct and in achieving his agreement that he would reject the wishes of the Party. To inform the agencies concerned, I called a meeting of Ministers of Justice of the Laender who were still in office in those days and informed them about Hitler's decision. The result was surprising. I encountered bitter resistance, and the meeting bore no result. Hitler asked for Guertner to come to see him and asked him for information as to whether I was not perhaps a Jew myself. Then the Party began to exercise pressure on Hitler. He abandoned his decision, and the Jewish lawyers were removed from office. So as to make it possible at least for the Jews to preserve their rights, I proposed to set up the institute of the so-called Jewish consultants where former lawyers worked as consultants.
As to my own attitude towards these problems, that I could show properly only where I, myself, had to make the decisions. In this connection, I attach importance to the fact in saying here that nothing is removed from me than here to play the part of the friend of the Jews. I am not a friend of the Jews; I am not a friend of the Aryans as such; but I am a friend of justice. And anybody who saw me at work and wishes to give a just opinion can confirm that with regard to all those who in my opinion were unjustly persecuted; no matter what their race or what their class, I tried to help them with all my strength.
Roosevelt, the former President of the United States of America, in 1944, in an address to the United Nations said, "Hitler asserts that he had committed the crimes against the Jews in the name of the German people. May every German show that his own heart is free of such crimes by protecting the persecuted with all his might." I can claim for myself that I acted accordingly. Concerning the members of the Ministry who were not fully Aryan, I kept them in office; and as has been established at this trial, concerning judges who were not fully Aryan, I left large numbers of them in their office, irrespective of the Party purge. I looked after those who had been dismissed from their posts and who were non-Aryans and who had Jewish relatives. As far as possible, I protected then against being driven out of their homes and being deported.
Q Concerning the question of civil servants remaining under Dr. Schlegelberger who were not fully Aryan, persons who were only dismissed on the basis of Thierack's list - I refer to Exhibit 42. On the legal provision concerning the facts that since 1933 a Minister could not resign on his own, I will submit Schlegelberger Document 79 end 80.
Witness, you also dealt with a bill concerning people of half Jewish race. The prosecution has included those documents under PS-4055. Exhibit 401, in Document Volume VIII-A, page 101. Will you tell us something about those documents?
A That document has been the subject of the discussion before the International Military Tribunal. The document, if my recollection is right, consists of two parts. On 12th March, there was a letter from me to Reich Minister Lammers and a letter of 5th April, to various agencies.
Q May I interrupt you for a moment. The first letter is dated the 6th March, and is in the English text on page 95.
A I thought you were talking of the discussion which took place on the 6th of March.
Q Yes, on page 95.
A First of all, I'd like to speak about the letter of 12th March. That was, as I said, a letter from me to Reich Minister Lammers. From that letter I gathered that on the 6th of March there was a discussion about the treatment of persons of mixed origin, partly Jewish, partly Aryan. In that conference, the SS had demanded that people of mixed origin were to be treated in the same way as full Jews and were to be sent to labor camps in Poland. If that had been done, a demand which for a long time had been voiced by the Party in a categorical manner, would have been carried out. If one reflects to what extent the police measures were carried out in those days against Jews, one had to recognize that now the question of the fate of the mixed Jews had entered into an acute phase.
When I heard about the subject of that discussion, the question arose immediately whether one could, and how one could, intervene. My moral obligation was clear to me. There was the difficulty that it was a different department; that in itself was difficult to interfere with a different department in its work; and again and again there would be the additional difficulty that I was no Minister. But to put it plainly, it was the case of an under secretary who was only appointed under a system by which he could be given notice every day. If I had attempted to attack that political solution with legal or ethical weapons, nothing would have been done and there would have been nothing but mockery about me. Thus I had to find a different way.