A. The case Bonnes was like this: Bonnes was first sentenced to death, and then Klemm intervened in favor of an extraordinary objection against that sentence; the minister agreed. Before it came, however, the attorney had already succeeded with an application for reopening of the trial, but also in the trial Bonnes was sentenced to death. Thereupon the minister upon the report made to him by Klemm at first agreed that the sentence be commuted to eight years in the penitentiary, but when the Gauleiter was of a different opinion, he changed his mind confirmed the sentence, and Klemm could no longer do anything about it.
THE PRESIDENT: We have heard all of that before; every world of it.
Q. Mr. Hartmen, I come now to another subject, relating to the cases where allied fliers had been shot down over Germany and who were lynched by the population. I went to put two questions to you, but first I want to hand you a letter by the Reichminister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers, of the 4th June, 1944. I have a photostatic copy before me which shows a handwritten remark which Thierack is said to have written. May it please the Court, this is Exhibit 109, Document 635-PS. I hand this photostatic copy to the witness. It is not easy to read.
A. Yes, I can see it.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your question, Dr. Schilf?
DR. SCHILF: I want to ask the witness to read that remark on the letter by Thierack, in handwriting, and I want to ask him if that remark was actually written by Thierack.
A. It can be clearly seen that that is Thierack's handwriting; he wrote circular decree, adding the remark that such cases have to be submitted to me to examine the question of quashing. Signed Th. Above Klemm initialed.
Q. It is very hard to read; if you want to look at it again, COURT, III, CASE III there is another sentence in the next line -- for the purpose of examination to be submitted to me, if pending.
What was the purpose of that note, that remark of Thierack's?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object for the reason that this witness cannot possibly know what Thierack's purpose was.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
Q. I ask you what did you personally assume was the reason for Thierack's remarks?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, for it is not pertinent what this witness assumed that Thierack thought; it has no probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
Q. Did you see that decree by Thierack at that time? That circular decree?
A. I remember that I discussed the case with Under Secretary Klemm.
Q. What did you discuss with Klemm?
A. Klemm said that he was of the opinion that the result, the success of the circular decree of that kind would be that the cases would be submitted to us in the ministry and that at least we would be informed about them.
A. And by being informed about it, did you in the ministry oppose influencing the prosecution of cases where the German population had lynched allied fliers?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Just a minute. I object for the reason that this witness cannot testify as to a possibility which existed only in the minds of some one in the ministry. If he can testify at all it should be what influence this defendant Klemm might have had; if he knows the facts from which he can base his information on.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have any knowledge as to what influence Klemm had or exercised in the matter of the assassination of fliers, you may state it; limit your testimony to that matter.
A. With reference to that subject I can say that according to my knowledge one case was actually carried out against a man who had lynched a flyer, and that was after that circular decree had been issued. That case was discussed at the time; it was a SA leader from Dusseldorf who had shot down two fliers; the case was prosecuted and not quashed.
Q. Do you happen to have any information about the fact that Klemm issued directives to the District Referents (Bezirks referenten) that such cases should be prosecuted by the public prosecutions?
A. I know that Ministerialrat Muetschke in the case of that kind reported to under secretary Klemm and that Klemm directed him to see that that case -- I believe it was in Munich -- should be prosecuted.
Q. According to the content of that circular decree by Thierack, cases should be submitted to him for his examination. Is it known to you whether Thierack actually quashed cases of that kind?
A. I don't know of any single case of a quashing.
Q. Now I have another question pertaining to the personality of Klemm; that is the relation of Klemm to Freisler; that is, Freisler who was at that time president of the People's Court. Did you make any observations as to how these relations were?
A. Klemm's relations to Freisler and vice versa, were bad; they went out of each other's way. I never saw that Freisler came to see Klemm officially in 1944. On the other hand Klemm never went to see Freisler. He particularly did not attend any sessions of the People's Court, not even in connection with the 20th July case; I, however, was there once.
Q. Did Klemm have any opportunity to observe Freisler's manner of conducting trials, and did he say anything to you about it?
A. I told him about the manner in which Freisler conducted the trial of the 20th of July, and he asked me -- I had the impression that he welcomed that opportunity - he asked me also to give that report to the minister; that report, of course, was quite negative. In that connection he stated that it was quite irresponsible that a man of the type of Freisler was presiding judge in the People's Court.
Q. Now, I want to ask you about another individual, and that is the general public prosecutor Hansen. Did you happen to know what Klemm's relations were to him?
A. I remember the connections because it was Hansen with whom I came out of the People's Court session, and Hansen approved of the manner in which Freisler conducted a trial. I told Klemm about that.
THE PRESIDENT: The question was: If you remember what the relations between Klemm and Hansen was. Answer the question.
A. Yes. And when I told him about this, he told me I am not surprised that that is Hansen's point of view because Hansen is a very ambitious man and he asserts himself even though he does not always stick to the truth. That was what Klemm told me about Hansen when I reported to him about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you refresh your memory as to just what office Hansen held as a prosecutor?
A. Hansen was general public prosecutor at the Kammergericht at Berlin, the highest Prussian court.
Q. As Klemm's adjutant, you must have heard statements, remarks by Klemm about his attitude toward the police in general; if that is the case, please describe it.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Wait a minute, if you please. I object, Your Honor, on the ground that this can only be a self-serving declaration which cannot possibly have any probative value. These are only selfserving declarations.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection so over-ruled-. We have received a great many declarations which but for the fact that they are not post litem motam might be called self-serving; this is merely one of them. The weight of the testimony is for the Tribunal. You may answer the question.
A. I had the impression that Klemm tried to re-establish the prestige which the administration of justice had lost with the police. I can give a practical example for that. Department III had submitted a draft for a decree concerning the competence of the city and country home guards; and, according to the SS, competence over the guard should be turned over to the SS and police courts. Department III had already prepared the draft. Klemm, however, did not agree and rejected it because he did not want to see any more spheres of influence turned over from the sphere of the administration of justice to the police.
Q. Could you give us another definite example to show that Klemm had tried to regain his sphere of influence from the police to the administration of justice?
A. An entire sphere, no.
Q. Could you observe in individual cases that Klemm opposed the police very strictly if such a conflict arose between the police and the administration of justice?
A. Klemm had started a folder where he kept all those cases; in all those cases where he had complained to the RSHA in writing against transgressions by the police. These were mostly cases of arrest, after terms had been served, and the refusal to turn over cases from the police to the administration of justice.
Q. Did Klemm, in your presence, state what his intentions were with that folder?
A. Yes, he hold me that he wanted to collect that material against the police so that when the time had come, the right moment had come, to use it in an attack against the police.
Q. Mr. Hartmann, did you ever hear it mentioned t!iat Klemm, as under secretary, had anything to do with so-called more severe interrogations?
A. During the entire year of 1944 no such case was submitted.
Q. Did you ever hear anything from Klemm about his relations to the General Public Prosecutor Joel, the present defendant Joel?
A. Yes, I know that there is a considerable tension between Klemm and Joel. Both, one may well say, are each other's enemy, and that is true for the both of them, Joel as well as Klemm consider each other enemies; and I remember that Klemm told me that the minister in 1943, asked his opinion about the appointment of Joel as general public prosecutor in Hamm, and Klemm had answered -- don't ask me, please; you know what my opinion of Joel is, and I would not want to make any statement.
Q. That is sufficient. As Klenm.'s adjutant in 1944, did you make any observations as to whether Klemn was in close relations with Bormann -- orally, or in correspondence?
A. From my observations, I know that Klemm rejected the character of Bormann, and from my work as adjutant I can report that not a single letter was received in Klemn's office from Bormann, nor that Klemn ever wrote to Bormann directly.
Q. My last question concerns the relations of Klenm to Thierack. How was that, according to your observations?
A. According to my observations I can say that these relations were good, but I had the impression that it wasn't so much on the basis of the same ways of thought, but of many years of personal contact. Klemm was certainly at a disadvantage because he was much more sentimental than the cold, calculating Thierack. Furthermore, I had the impression that Klenm in an increasing measure after he had gained the confidence of the people in the ministry, tried to succeed with his ideas with the minister. For the first few months he merely played the part of the first adjutant so to say, and I also had the impression that by these attempts to gain a certain amount of independence on the part of Klemn, a certain tension, had arisen between the two.
Q. As far as these relations between Thierack and Klemn were good relations, what were the consequences for the administration of justice?
A. According to my observations, in my opinion, one could only achieve anything with Thierack if one was on good terns with him, and, therefore, I am of the opinion that as far as good relations existed between Klemn and Thierack, that could have only favored results for the administration of justice.
Q. Thank you. I have no further questions for the defendant Klemm. However, if the Court please, I have a few questions for the defendant Mettgenberg which I want to put to the witness.
They concern technical questions.
By JUDGE HARDING: I have some questions pertaining to this testimony that perhaps might be asked at this time.
Q. How long were you the adjutant for the defendant Klemm?
A. From the beginning of January 1944 until the end of December, 1944.
Q. You have shown considerable familiarity with the various details of his activities. Do you know whether he was acting minister on January the 29th, 1944?
A. Well, I couldn't say that from memory.
Q. Do you know around that part of the month of January where Thierack was?
A. No, I don't remember that either.
Q. Did you ever hear of the incident at Sonnenburg where a great many people were turned over to the police and executed?
A. No. In the beginning of 1945 I became a soldier again, and then during the entire year of 1945, of course, I had no contact.
Q. At the beginning of 1945, you say, you became soldier?
A. Yes.
Q. Just what time in 1945 did you become a soldier?
A. On the 3rd of January, 1945.
Q. You never heard of the matter of Sonnenburg?
A. I heard about it by the counsel.
Q. Did you ever hear of it before that?
A. No, I didn't know it before that.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. For the defendant Mettgenberg, I have a technical question. Mr. Hartmann, did a duty trip have to be approved by somebody in the ministry?
A. As far as the department chiefs were concerned, all duty trips to another country, had to be approved by the under secretary.
Q. Who approved duty trips of the ministerialdirigents?
A. The department chief.
Q. And the trips by the department chiefs you said?
A. The under secretary, but it happened if the ministerialdirector for instance with some of his assistants wanted to go on a duty trip, that in that case the approval for all the gentlemen in the group was given by the undersecretary, because the undersecretary was the one who had to give the approval for the ministerialdirector.
Q. Were there any forms or applications for such approval or permission?
A. Yes, there were mimeographed forms.
Q. Did such forms go through your hands; did you see them?
A. Yes.
Q. If a ministerialdirector was to be accompanied by another official of the ministry, on an official trip, was the permission, the approval requested on the same form, or was it different?
A. No, As a rule the approval was requested and was given on the same form for both gentlemen.
Q. Then, you as the adjutant of the undersecretary saw the applications at the same time?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you happen to remember that you ever saw an application for a duty trip to be undertaken by Dr. Vollmer, who was chief of department IV, Ministerial Director, and Dr. Mettgenberg?
A. No, I would have noticed that because Mettgenberg was Vollmer's deputy and on principle did not leave the ministry at the same time as his chief did for an extended trip.
Q. According to that, do you consider it quite impossible that you might have forgotten about any such applications?
A. Yes.
Q. You know the concentration camp Mauthausen, don't you; do you happen to know Mauthausen?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you there?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it have attracted your attention if Herr Vollmer, together with Dr. Mettgenberg, during the time when you were the adjutant of the under secretary, would have made a trip to Mauthausen?
A. I certainly believe that I wouldn't have overlooked that.
Q. Do you happen to have any indications that Dr. Mettgenberg once visited the concentration camp Mauthausen?
A. No, no indications whatsoever.
Q. Are you of the opinion that the former Ministerialdirigent Herr Suchomel, who has asserted here as a witness that Dr. Mettgenberg together with Vollmer had gone to Mauthausen may be mistaken on the basis of the reasons that you have given us?
A. Yes.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor
THE PRESIDENT: Sustained
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defendant's counsel desire to examine this witness? It appears there is none.
You may cross examine
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I would ask that the Prosecution may be permitted to divide this cross examination. I will cover that as far as the testimony goes to Klemm and Mettgenberg, if I may.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Now, with reference to the lists which you testified about, Exhibit 252, do I understand that Klemm and Thierack each got a list on each occasion?
A. Yes.
Q. And if Klemm for some reason did not attend, then how did he have a record in his files of the decisions of the Minister of these matters?
A. No. As far as I remember, Klemm made his handwritten remarks on the lists only if he himself had attended the report.
Q. Well then, it isn't quite correct that he kept his list down there solely so that he could check on whether or not any orders sent to him by the Minister were accurate?
A. If I understand you correctly you mean that the under-secretary, when he had not attended the report, could not have information about what happened?
A. Yes, As I understood you, you said that Klemm kept these lists so that, if an order for execution came through, he could check against what his records were. Now, then, if he kept none of may kind when he wasn't there, what good was the keeping of any list for that purpose?
A. That is true. In those cases where he had not attended, he had to depend on what was told to him by the Referent who submitted the matter to him and what the Referent told him about the decision of the Minister. In those cases he had no additional way of checking as he had in other cases.
Q. The lists were made you from the various departments, IV and III they largely came from, did they not, or or only IV?
A. Only Department IV.
Q. Just pick a list there in April, 1944. Tell me how many names are on it, just the number.
A. Yes. I have the 26 of April here. There are 127.
Q. How many Referents or other workers reported on that list that you have? That indicates, docs it not?
A. Yes, the Referents changed alternately according to who was handling the individual case and of course, there were a great many who reported in connection with that one list.
Q. How many are on that list, different ones, if you can tell me without too much trouble?
A. Do you mean the names?
Q. How many different people's names are there? I don't care if a man's name appears twice, why don't count him. How many different names are on the list?
A. Do you mean on the list only the death sentence cases?
Q. No; I can all of them, please.
A. Counting quite superficially I see 25 names of individual Referents or assistants.
Q. You are still positive that those lists were made up late the day before there was to be a meeting?
A. At any rate, what concerns the heading because in that case the lady who handled it---that was Frau Pfelder of Department 4- would call me on the day before and ask me whether the undersecretary would be present and, therefore, I assume that that final question to whom the reports were to be made was decided and put on the list in the end. When the individual matters were compiled for the list in detail that, of course, I cannot say because I was not in Department 4. But I do remember that many matters were put on the list the very last moment.
Q. You testified about the order from Bormann which Thierack initialed. That is Exhibit 109, 635 PS. Did you send out the copy of that to all of the prosecutors and justice officials in Germany from the Minister?
A. Well, I see here that it is a circular decree and that circular decree went to all districts.
Q. It went to all districts?
A. Yes.
Q. And that went to your office as the undersecretary's office? That went through the undersecretary's office?
A. No. The circular decree was made out by Department 4 and was then sent out to the individual districts.
Q. You know that fact as adjutant of Klemm?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew it at the time it went out?
A. The circular decree itself I did not come to see, but I author that a decree of that kind must have been the consequence of what remark made by the Minister, the directions put down here by the Minister.
Q. And did you make trips with the defendant Klemm as his adjutant when he went into the Protectorate?
A. No, never.
Q. You never went with him to Theresientstadt?
A. No.
Q. Now, these reports that he kept a file of about Gestapo cases and delivery cf people to the SS or the Gestapo after trial, did you ever see a Jewish name on any of those?
A. No, there were no Jewish cases among them.
Q. Had he been keeping the list before you became his adjutant? Could you tell by looking at the file?
A. I became his adjutant at once when he came into the Ministry. Before that he did not have any other adjutant in the Ministry.
Q. But I said to you, from looking at this file of cases as you did, if you filed matters in ot, did you see cases from before the time that you became adjutant, in this file?
A. No, no.
Q. You testified that if the defendant Mettgenberg had gone to Mauthausen, that fact would have stayed in your mind because the name Mauthausen would have meant something to you. Why?
A. Because in 1943, together with undersecretary Rothenberger, I, myself, had been at Mauthausen.
Q. Did you make out these service trip approvals?
A. No. There were forms and they were filled out in the defendant from which that application was made. They only had to be signed by the undersecretary.
Q. They all had to be signed for every trip?
A. That is if that trip was made to a foreign country or by a department Chief.
Q. How many department chiefs were there?
A. Eight.
Q. How many trips did Alstoetter make in a year?
A. Well, here one has to destinguish between these that required approval and those trips that he had to do.
Q. I beg your pardon. How many trips did Altstoetter make that came across your desk as the adjutant of the undersecretary for approval in a year?
THE PRESIDENT: In what year?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: 1944; the year that he was the adjutant.
DR. SCHILF: I want to object to this question because it is not a question of trips made by Altstoetter but by Vollmer and Mettgenberg.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I would like to test the witness' credibility to see how many trips he approved in a year to test his ability to remember this one.
THE PRESIDENT: For the purpose of testing his memory he may answer. Do you remember?
THE WITNESS: Well, if I exclude the trips which, of course, went back between Berlin and the evacuation place, then there may have been three or four during the year.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. How many of that kind of trips in the year 1944, that your approval, did Engert make?
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I think it might be better if I repeat the last question as I remember it.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. How many such trips in the year 1944, which required the approval of Undersecretary Klemm, did Engert make?
A. As far as I remember, I did not submit any travel permit for Engert to the Undersecretary.
Q. Well, if Engert went to concentration camps and to prisons, didn't he have to have one of these travel authorizations?
A. In accordance with the practice of the Ministry, as I have already stated, every division chief had to obtain a travel authorization in such a case. However, for Division V and XV, as I have already stated, I remember for certain that I did not see a single travel authorization. I did not know whether such authorizations were issued, or if perhaps the Minister issued them directly. In any case, 1 do not remember a single one.
Q. Was Vollmer a department head in that year?
A. Yes.
Q. And was Crohne a department head in that year?
A. No, Crohne was the predescessor of Vollmer, and he went to the People's Court in 1942.
Q. But out of all those that you approved and issued in that year of 1944 you have a particular memory of Mauthausen not having been visited by Mettgenberg and Vollmer?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let me ask you about this Gestapo file that Undersecretary Klemm kept while you were his adjutant. Is it a fact that he may not have had any records before 1944 because you, as a Gestapo member, supplied him with that information?
A. But what just came over the sound system was that I was a member of the Gestapo. Did I understand you correctly?
Q. That is right.
A. Bur that is not correct.
Q. You are positive?
A. Yes, I certainly am.
Q. And if your personnel files show that, it is in error?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Gestapo or SS?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I mean Gestapo, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Then it contains an error, and I do not believe it is stated in my personnel file that I was a member of the Gestapo.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Maybe it doesn't, maybe I am wrong. I am just asking you.
A. Yes, I see.
Q. Now, let me get one thing clear. You never went to Leitmeritz with Klemm?
A. Yes, I did. Once I was in Leitmeritz when Klemm was there too. Whether we went there together, I do not remember. On the occasions when I went to Leitmeritz I always went by train.
Q. Did the train have to get clearance through Theresienstadt?
A. No.
Q. Did you know anything about Theresienstadt, near Leitmeritz?
A. No, I did not know anything about Theresienstadt.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have no further questions as to Klemm and Mettgenberg. Mr. King will continue now.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Hartmann, I would like to continue with the cross-examination pertaining to Dr. Rothenberger that we interrupted before the luncheon recess.
Did you ever meet Kaltanbrunner?
A. Yes, in Mauthausen.
Q. What year was that, please?
A. The year 1942, November 1942.
Q. You testified this afternoon, in response to a question by Dr. Schilf, that you visited Mauthausen in 1943. That was your second trip to Mauthausen, was it?
A. No, that must be in error. I made only that one trip to Austria, together with Dr. Rothenberger, and that was in November of 1942. I did not make a second trip to that district.
Q. You were appointed as assessor in Hamburg in May 1934 you testified.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Besides the regular duties of an assessor, from May 1934, what other job did you have, other principal job?
A. In the civil service? I held no other office.
Q. Don't restrict it to civil service; what other job did you have?
A. For example, I gave lectures in different administrative academies.
Q. And what else?
While you are thinking, Dr. Hartmann, I would like to ask you another question. Was there another assessor by the name of Hartmann in Hamburg in 1934?
A. No, not in Hamburg.
Q. You were the only one?
A. Yes.
Q. Now go ahead and think about the question that I asked you. What other job did you have besides that of being assessor in Hamberg at the beginning of May 1934?
A. I do not recall having done any other work. I have already testified about my membership in the SS.
Q. Yes, I know, and in connection with your membership in the SS you were a member, or at least a Gestapo Referent; that is true, is it not?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. That is not correct?
A. No.
Q. And you never heard of a Referent for protective custody matters in Hamburg, a job which was held by assessor Dr. Hartmann, who was also a member of the Gestapo? You never heard of that position, I suppose?
A. No, I never heard anything about the fact that I ever had the least connection with the Gestapo during my entire life.
Q. You never heard of Streckenbach?
A. No, I never saw that man in my life.
Q. Streckenbach?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what position he held?
A. Yes, in the Gestapo, in Hamburg, he had some position or other; I believe he was even the Chief of the Gestapo.
Q. Your memory is correct on that, he was Chief of the Gestapo in Hamburg.
I would like to show you, Dr. Hartmann, an excerpt from the Reich Ministry of Justice diary. Parts of it were submitted in the IMT as PS-3770. I have here an excerpt from that diary, page 464.
I am going to hand you that document and ask you to read item No. 4 on the second page, and will you please read it slowly so the the translators may fallow you.
A. "According to information received by the presiding counsel of the Reich Lawyer's Chamber of 20 September 1933, the lawyers Dr. Auert and Dr. Koffka, in a protective custody matter, through the Referent with the Gestapo, Assessor Dr. Hartmann, received the information that it was the general practice not to admit defense counsel to represent persons under protective custody. The present opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice is to the contrary, and that contrary opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice was submitted to the Minister of the Interior for his information. However, a final decision has not yet been issued from the latter's office."