Court No. III, Case No. III That was the wrong channel through which the files sent.
Originally the files were to go to the Gestapo but not to the Prosecution, for the plans for the funeral to be issued. As I told you yesterday Dr. Reuter further said to me that the whole matter was extremely difficult and embarrassing, and I remember that now because I have read page 3 of that file where it says that it was advisable not to allow the relatives to see the corpse but to have it cremated immediately. I have also had an opportunity to examine the question which the Prosecution put to me concerning page 25 of the file, the question was whether I knew Herr Baritsch, and what Herr Baritsch's position had been. My answer was that Baritsch was a Public Prosecutor or Senior Public Prosecutor. That is correct, out it wasn't a complete answer because as a result of the pages being stapled together rather badly I had ignored that on page 25 Baritsch acted at the request of the administration of Justice, of which Dr. Rothenberger was in charge, and signed a letter by which tie administration of Justice asked for information concerning the progress the case was making. To that extent I have to supplement my testimony. The defense counsel yesterday mentioned, and if I remember correctly, the Prosecutor also mentioned the question whether Buhk died through murder or suicide. I am -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, witness.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Just a moment, please, witness, We have now discussed this Buhk case again in detail, and I don't hesitate to go into the matter again, but I think we dealt with it properly yesterday and I think we had concluded the Buhk matter, because otherwise I would have to go into all of these questions again.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, that is quite incorrect.
You concluded your cross-examined in that matter yesterday. This is re-direct examination. The witness is entitled to make his explanation of his previous testimony. Your objection is overruled.
WITNESS: I would not have made these statements unless the Tribunal had told me I was entitled to supplement my testimony of yesterday. As I am a witness under oath here I think I am entitled to correct these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
WITNESS:
A. May I refer to page 26 of these files, that is a letter of the 2nd of November 1934, by the General Public Prosecutor in reply to a letter by Dr. Baritsch dated the 27th of October, 1934, concerning the progress of this case. Naturally, at that time I didn't know the letter and I have seen it now for the first time. It is astounding to find that in this reply the General Public Prosecutor asserts that according to the finding of the expert physicians the death had occurred through suicide. I believe that my testimony yesterday concerned the findings of the official physician showed that the physician did not say that at all but merely stated that it was probable that hanging was the cause of death, but that it was neither his job to say, nor did he say on his own initiative, whether Buhk died from committing suicide or for other reasons.
BY MR. KING:
Q. I have just one final question, Dr. Wentzensen. When Letz called you in for a discussion of the case and stated his views or at least stated the views that you heard from him for the first time and you said you could not comply with what he was asking you to do because it was to the best of your conscience against the existing law, specifically, did you have in mind?
Would you explain that briefly, please?
A. As I told you yesterday, Letz, who was also Deputy of the Chief of the Administration of Justice, told me that the courts did not have to deal with happenings at the concentration camps. That directive was contrary to the two basis principles of the Weimar Constitution, that is to say, on the one hand contrary to the independence of the Judge, which was guaranteed under the Weimar Constitution, and secondly also it was contrary to the principle which says: "Nobody may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful Judge." If the police was no longer under an obligation under Article 159 of the Penal Code of Procedure to report crimes committed on prisoners to the prosecution, that meant that the offenders who had committed such crimes were removed from the jurisdiction of their lawful judge, and I tried to explain that to Dr. Letz, too, and that was why I took a position to his statements. His reply was as I told you yesterday, it was neccessary to understand the great happenings of the time. I should like to say that Buhk had been beaten so severely to make him admit something about an illegal organization which was supposed to have existed.
MR. KING: I have no further questions on re-direct. May I say parenthetically that the Baritsch which Dr. Wentzensen has mentioned is the same name that appears in NG2251, which is Exhibit 591. The name is spelled B-a-r-it-s-c-h; it is mis-spelled in Exhibit 591.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused. Call your next witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION ERICH WALDOW
DR. WANDSCHNEIDNER: May it please the Tribunal, my examination of the files has abviated my questioning of this witness Waldow about the Jantzen case, a right which I had reserved for myself.
THE PRESIDENT: You reserved the right to crossexamine as to this one case?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, only on the Jantzen case, I have read through the Jansen files with that in mind and I compared the files with the statement by the witness, Dr. Waldow, and I see no reason for asking Dr. Waldow any further questions, and I, therefore, refrain from examining Dr. Waldow any further.
THE PRESIDENT: You completed your direct examination, didn't you, Mr. King, didn't you complete your direct examination of this witness?
MR. KING: The direct examination of the re-direct?
THE PRESIDENT: Was there cross examination which you have not conducted re-direct on?
MR. KING: There was cross examination which I have not conducted re-direct on as I recall it.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
MR. KING: Excuse me, I believe that is not correct. Dr. Wandschneider did not cross examine last night; he said he would reserve; -- Your Honor is correct -- and this morning he said had no cross examination, so technically there should be no re-direct.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness is excused. You are excused witness. Call your next witness.
MR. KING: The Prosecution calls Dr. Skok of Hamburg.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath: I swear by God the Almighty and Omniscient that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION DR. HERBERT SKOK BY MR. KING:
Q. Would you, for the purposes of the record, give us your full name and present address, please?
A. Dr. Herbert Skok, Hamburg I, Gurlittstrasse 46. I am forty years old.
Q. Dr. Skok, you are familiar with the Jantzen case, I should like to put the file before you for the purpose of identification.
A. Yes, I know about the Jantzen case. I have here in front of me portions of the Jantzen file.
Q. And is this document, identified as NG-2410, which is now before you, the record in the Jantzen case?
A. Do you want me to find a definite page? What page is it you want me to look at'
Q. No, I merely asked you if the file before you identified by the number I gave you is the record in the Jantzen case?
A. Would you mind repeating that number, please.
THE PRESIDENT 2410
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Yes, I mean Dr. Skok when the Jantzen case was originally tried, you were public Prosecutor, were you not in charge of that case?
A. Yes, I was, I was the assistant to the Prosecutor and I acted for the Prosecution at this trial.
Q. Dr. Wentzensen testified this morning there were SA men in attendance at the trial. Now did you take any action to have the SA men attend the trial'
A. Yes, after I had discussed the matter with the Presiding Judge, that is, the witness in this trial, Dr. Wentzensen, I asked the superiors of Jantzen and his SA men to attend the trial on the day on which I made my plea.
Q. And they did attend in accordance with your invitation, right?
A. Yes, on that second day of the trial Standartenfuehrer Triund appeared and his adjutant, Sturmhauptfuehrer. Benrends.
Q. Now, can you tell us briefly, Dr. Skok, what the SA men who attended the session of the Court, in which Judge Wentzensen's decision was made known, can you tell us what their re-action was at that time, as you observed it, of course?
A. Well, the SA leader after my plea quite openly took sides with the defendants. They went across to the three defendants, shook them by the hands and talked to them, using "Du, thou", the intimate form, and one of the two SA Leaders, I believe it was Benrends, Sturmhauptfuehrer, said to Jantzen, not in the presence of the judge and not in my presence either, but during a brief recess in the presence of the guard. (Gerichtswacntmeister), and he said it so loudly that the guard had to hear and me intended him to hear, and while he spoke those works me pointed to the bench: "What do those people up there know about National Socialism. After all, in the former times they sentenced the Nazis. They still do it. Jantzen was such a good Sturmfuehrer in the Red District." We were told that the SA Oberfuehrer confirmed him, emphasizing that Jantzen had been such an efficient Sturmfuehrer, and raised his fist so as to give proper emphasis to his works.
Q. Yes, now, can you tell us briefly what the attitude of - what the actions of the SA men who were sentenced continued to be after the trial and while they were still under sentence, as you and the other people in Hamburg observed it?
A. Well the defendants behaved in an unheard of manner before the Court. They were definitely trying to influence the Judge a short while before my plea.
Q. Dr. Skok, I think you misunderstook my question. I ask you if you observed any subsequent, any actions subsequent to the trial of these SA men in the matter of public demonstration?
A. Yes, I understood your question, but I think I should say a little more, because I think it is a part of the whole matter. I should say first that Jantzen himself stated before I made my plea, that he had already told a high ranking person, and we - the judge and I - thought he was referring to the Reichstatthalter Kaufmann, about the attitude of the presiding judge at the trial on the first day. It was obvious that the judgment which was made in accordance with the sentence I had asked for would have the effect of a bomb shell, but the SA leadership would not agree to leave things at that and they had already said they would not leave it at that, they said so in the court room. There was an appeal against my judgment and public efforts were made and the defendants were praised to High Heaven. Jantzen was placed in charge of leading the sturmbann. Pictures of him and his detachment appeared in the Nazi Paper, Hamburger Tageblatt, and that paper also publiched articles and there was a public announcement to the effect that Jantzen was going to be sent to the Party rally in 1935 as an official delegate, there to be introduced to the Fuehrer, to have his hand shaken and to be awarded a decoration. I am firmly convinced that the purpose of all of those things was merely to influence the outcome of the appeal proceedings and to make sure that the outcome would be the desired one.
Q. Yes, now, Dr. Skok, did you as Public Prosecutor go to part headquarters at Berchtesgaden and complain about the action of the SA men, both in court and subsequent to the decision of the Court?
A. Yes, when I was on leave in June 1935 I went to Berchtesgaden and asked for an audience with SA Obergruppenfuehrer Brueckner. In the house of the Fuehrer, I was not immediately able to see Oberfuehrer Brueckner. He was at a meeting and I saw his adjutant, a man whose name was Dr. Haase. I gave Dr. Haasa a copy of the judgment in the Jantzen case. I called his attention to page 45 of the judgment, that is the page which I have here, No. 125, it says there that it is necessary for the Hamburg SA leadership on the basis of the fuehrer decree of the 30th of June 1934, to suspend immediately the SA men who had been convicted though the conviction had not yet legal force. As I have already told you the steps which the SA leadership took were to the contrary. Not only were those people left in their jobs, out they were promoted and they were extolled as examples and thus other SA members were admised to imitate them. They were almost forced to follow that particular example as they were made to see that the SA leadership in Hamburg rewarded punishable acts committed by SA men by promoting them. At that time conditions in the SA in Hamburg were absolutely impossible. Excesses happened all of the time. I myself repeatedly had to deal with cases before a summary court where SA people had committed excesses against the police and other persons.
Q Dr. Skok, I don't want to interrupt you, but I think you are digressing some what from the course of the question. You were testifying that you saw the proper party man in Berchtesgaden and complained to him about the SA activity in connection with the Jansen case. Now, then, after this conference you subsequently returned to Hamburg, did you not?
A Yes.
Q And following your return to Hamburg did anything happen concerning the case and your part in it?
A Yes. Dr. Drescher, the general public prosecutor, asked me to go and see him. He told me that the sentences which had been passed on those people were much too severe, and that the sentences would not be upheld. That prophesy by the general public prosecutor, which was almost a guarantee, was incomprehensible to me to begin with, as the competent appeal judge, Dr. Waldow, who has been heard here, and his opinions were known to me. I knew that with him it was out of the question that the sentences might be reduced considerably. The general public prosecutor, however, told me quite positively that it would happen in that direction. He told me that he - in negotiations which were being held almost every day - had tried to settle the matter with the SA. It was obvious, therefore, that the SA had approached him and had approached the Reichsstatthalter and had approached Dr. Rothenberger as well in connection with the results of the first trial and had complained about the outcome of that trial. Dr. Drescher told me that he had spent three hours talking to the Reichsstatthalter and that he had been arguing with him all the time. The matter had now been settled and the grass had now grown over this severe judgment, and what he actually said in so many words was: And now -- will you forgive this hard expression: the big animal, well, the camel of the German proverb -- now you, the big animal, the camel, as the German proverb says, come here and eat up the grass. Of course I realized immediately what had happened in the meantime. A judgment which had not yet acquired force cannot just he allowed, to have grass grown over it, and one cannot by laborious, almost daily conferences and by arguments of three hours with the Reichsstatthalter, and those arguments had been very embarrassing to him as he told me -- one cannot by such methods just deal with the matter and settle it for good.
A conspiracy, a plot, must have been formed, the object of which had been to settle the matter at the appeal proceedings the way the SA wanted it settled, that is to discontinue the case, and, as I know, that actually happened.
Q Yes. Now, Dr. Skok, did you hear from Drescher again? If so when, and under what circumstances?
A On the 19th of July, 1935, for those political reasons I was dismissed from my position with the prosecution, and that with immediate effect. Dr. Schubert, who was then the senior public prosecutor, handed me the order which was signed by general public prosecutor Drescher. He told me that Drescher had been forced to act this way. He was sorry that he had to hand me an order decreeing my dismissal, and when he said that he was sorry, that was merely a polite phrase. He added that he by mistake had received the letter which SA Brigade 12, Hamburg, had written to the general public prosecutor. In that letter the question was asked, what steps had been taken against Assessor Skok. Dr. Schubert, in saying goodbye to me, stated that Dr. Drescher did not wish me to go and take my farewell from him. At a later time in my personal file I saw the letter from the SA Brigade 12. The next sheet in my personal file contains the order decreeing my dismissal.
Q Yes.
AAnd that means that the general public prosecutor dismissed me at the request of the SA.
Q Yes. Dr. Skok, I would like to inquire now briefly what is your present position in Hamburg, and what do your duties consist of?
AAs public prosecutor with the prosecution at the district court.
Hamburg, in the department for crimes against humanity, I deal with cases which under the Hazi regime were committed against German citizens, and I also deal with other cases which have resulted in the political field, that is to say, I deal with measures which must be taken on the basis of the laws issued for the British zone for the elimination of national socialist interference with the administration of justice.
Q Yes. Now, in connection with your present work, you screen cases involving, according to Control Council Law No. 10, cases against humanity occurring in the Hamburg area. Now, in these cases that you are reviewing -
A Yes.
Q In the Hamburg area, do you find instances, actual cases of mistreatment in concentration camps, particularly in Fuhlsbuettel and Neuengamme?
A Yes - well, that is my daily bread.
Q I would like to have you explain just very briefly, Dr. Skok, in a few, a very few instances of the type of maltreatment and torture which are revealed in the records with which you are working at the present time. Please make it brief.
A These contain not only cases that occurred in concentration camps, but also cases which occurred within the area of the city. For example, when people were persecuted for political or racial reasons, excesses on the part of the Gestapo, or the guards at the concentration camps, which consisted in forcing people to make confessions by beating them up. They were fettered and were left standing up for days and nights on end; they were beaten so severely that they either committed suicide or died of the results of such ill-treatment. It was not always possible to clafify such cases; one cannot always find out whether these people committed suicide because they couldn't stand such torture any longer or whether these people died as the as the direct result of such torture.
The leading circles in Hamburg at the time, including the chiefs of the administration of justice, that is to say Dr. Rothenberger, as senator and chief of the administration of justice, - the time to which I am referring goes from 1933, the time of the seizure of power, until the 1st of April 1935, that is the time when the administration of justice was centralized; and subsequently. Dr. Rothenberger in his capacity as chief of the administration of justice within the area of the district court of appeal at Hamburg until he was appointed to the Ministry of Justice as under secretary of state, that must have been approximately at the end of 1942. At the time such cases of ill-treatment and the cases of death of prisoners, none of that was intended to come to the knowledge of the general public. The prosecution which, under the law, had to undertake investigations trying to discover the reasons for cases of death, and the courts were excluded from carrying out their functions and from instituting dissertions. As I know from Dr. Reuter there was an agreement
Q Dr. Skok, I wonder if you will limit your answer to the question as to what type of cases you are dealing with currently. I should like to show you a case which we have identified with the Number NG-2250, which involves a man by the name of Elkan, a Dr. Elkan who was taken into protective custody, and while in protective custody was severely mistreated; and there appears in the document a statement from Dr. Rothenberger and Dr. Drescher to the effect that this individual or the individuals responsible for the mistreatment were not to be prosecuted.
I ask you, Dr. Skok, is the document before you, involving the Elkan case, one such document that came to your attention in your present activity.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you is that 2250?
MR. KING: 2250; NG-2250.
THE PRESIDENT: It hasn't been identified.
MR. KING: Not yet.
THE PRESIDENT: We have made a mistake; it is time for our recess. We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: We have an announcement to make. Counsel for the prosecution and also for the defense have expressed the view that they will require, as a minimum time, two weeks in which to prepare for final arguments. Final arguments will begin at this place on the 13th day of October. That gives counsel two weeks, and we call to your attention the fact that every hour that you save next week will be added to the two weeks which you have for the preparation of your final arguments. We trust you will be guided accordingly.
We also understand that Dr. Schilf has witnesses here whom he is hoping to call. Now we are starting on rebuttal, and witnesses for the defense must be called; they must be called at once. Assuming that he expects to examine them at all, he may have them here this afternoon. The same applies to the other defendants.
MR. KING: I should like to have marked for identification at this time the document NG-2250, and request that the exhibit number of 598 be reserved for it.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the document be identified as 598 for identification only at this time.
May we register a complaint concerning the noise which is still coming over this transmission system. We certainly are entitled to have better service.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Skok, I have placed before you the original of the document identified as NG-2250. I asked you, before recess, if this document was one of the cases which has come to your attention in your present job and work in Hamburg.
A. Yes.
Q. Have you had any discussions with any of the principles in the Elkan case in connection with your present official duties?
A. No; but I have to correct myself. The General Public Prose cuter, of course, knows that these files and authenticated copies have been loaned to this prosecution for this case.
Q Yes. Dr. Skok, I would like to go back to approximately 1935, to a case that has come up for discussion in this Tribunal in the past two days, and on one occasion earlier, the Buhk case. A certain Dr. Reuter played a part in this Buhk case.
Let me ask you, first, do you know Dr. Reuter; and second, are you familiar with the Buhk case, from your personal knowledge, dating from the time of the case in 1935?
A Yes, I knew Dr. Reuter, and secondly, I know the Buhk case.
Q Yes. Now you know, do you not, that Dr. Reuter filed the original application for investigation of the Buhk case with Judge Wentzensen?
A Yes.
Q Is Dr. Reuter still living?
A No, Dr. Reuter died on the 10th of October 1946.
Q Tell me, Dr. Skok, did you know Dr. Reuter very well from 1935 or before, and until the time of his death?
A Yes, I knew Dr. Reuter especially from that time, 1935, and I knew him very well.
Q Yes. Now in 1935 -- I withdraw that.
Did you continue to know Dr. Reuter up until the time of his death?
A Yes, from 1935 on, until shortly before his death, I met him frequently.
Q Did he stay at your home in the last days of his life?
A Not during the last days of his life, but in August and October of 1945, twice.
Q And did Dr. Reuter, in 1935, discuss the facts of the Buhk case with you at that time?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Skok, in your conversations with Dr. Reuter did Dr. Reuter ever tell you, as one friend to another, of an agreement of which he had learned existing between certain individuals in the Hamburg Justice Administration whereby the facts of the Buhk case were not to be revealed?
A Yes.
Q Who were the individuals who had concluded the agreement?
A That was the Chief of the Gestapo, Streckenbach, Reichstatthalter Kauffmann, Justice Senator, at that time Dr. Rothenberger, and the General Public Prosecutor, Dr. Drescher.
Q Now, what did Dr. Reuter tell you about the facts of this agreement between these four highest officials in the Hamburg area?
A That agreement concerned illegal handling in the case of deaths which were not cleared up.
Q Would you give me further details, please, if you know them?
A Yes. It was a question of corpses at the concentration camps. Bodies which were to be taken away without making it possible for the relatives to find out about the traces of ill-treatment on these bodies. If, according to the legal provisions, upon application by the prosecution to the court, a corpse had been dissected, it would have been possible to find out whether the death was due to ill-treatment, torture, and so on. However, that was to be avoided. Therefore the agreement was made that these corpses from the concentration camps should be brought to the crematory directly and that the relatives should only get a box with the ashes.
Q Yes. Now, from what Dr. Reuter told you, do you know whether he learned of this agreement from any of the four individuals whom you have mentioned as having concluded the agreement?
A Dr. Reuter told me that that agreement was kept absolutely secret, he had not know about it. However, on the occasion of the Buhk case, which you have mentioned, he obtained knowledge about it.
Q Did he indicate to you the manner in which he had obtained knowledge of this agreement?
A Yes. That file, according to his impression, had been brought to the prosecution, apparently by mistake but really intentionally, by a detective of the police who did not agree with that illegal method of handling these cases.
Dr. Reuter thought that that police detective had informed Judge Wentzensen about the existence of that agreement.
Q Yes. Now, do you know, from your close friendship with Dr. Reuter, whether he ever made a public record of his knowledge of the Buhk case?
A Yes.
Q What was the form of that record?
A It was not exclusively a matter of the Buhk case, but the general and recurring ill-treatment of inmates. In the meantime, it had become a fact that the prosecution did not interfere in such cases at Hamburg. In such cases the persons handling these matters were obliged to favor the offenders, so to speak.
Q Let me interrupt one moment, Dr. Skok. I repeat the original question. Do you know what form this public record, which Dr. Reuter made of the facts in the Buhk and other cases, took? What form was that public record? Was it a letter?
A It was a report signed by four members of the prosecution which went, through the office of the General Public prosecutor, to the Justice Senator Dr. Rothenberger, and which was supposed to be forwarded by him to the Reich Minister of Justice at Berlin.
Q Did you ever see a copy of that letter?
A No.
Q Did you know about it at the time Dr. Reuter was preparing it?
A No.
Q Did he tell you about it after he had prepared it?
A Yes.
Q And you knew that he had prepared the report and sent it on, right?
A Yes, he told me so.
Q Yes.
MR. KING: The prosecution has no further questions at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: You may cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, as a representative of the prosecution you handled the Jansen case from the outset?
A No, I was only sent to the session at the Blitz Court.
Q At that time, or in the meantime, did you obtain information about the entire case, and particularly about the fact as to whether any influence was exerted before the main trial?
A It is not known to me that any influence was exerted on the case before the first session of the trial. I personally did not receive any directives.
Q I see. Did I understand you correctly that you said it was on your initiative that the SA leaders were invited to the session?
A In agreement with the presiding judge.
Q At whose initiative?
A I cannot say that. Both of us were of the opinion that it was absolutely necessary.
Q Why were you of the opinion that it was absolutely necessary to have the SA leaders present during the session?
A I have already said that according to the attitude of the defendants we gathered that immediately after the sentence in the first instance the SA leadership in Hamburg would have to decide, from the point of view of SA discipline and disciplinary proceedings, to what extent they would have to proceed on disciplinary grounds against the defendants.
Q May I now put the question to you whether you are of the opinion that after criminal guilt had been established in the trial, without having the SA leaders present, it was necessary for subsequent disciplinary proceedings to have these SA leaders present in the sessions?
After they have been convicted, the basis is already there for disciplinary proceedings, without the presence of these leaders.
A I have already said that the SA defendants in the main trial behaved in such a manner that it was thought these SA leaders who were competent to institute disciplinary proceedings should be afforded an opportunity to gain an impression themselves in the main trial.
Q Witness, may I point out to you that is not quite an answer to my question. You could not anticipate the way these defendants would act in the trial, and my question aimed at why you intended, beforehand, to invite the SA leaders to attend the session.
A Defense counsel, I think you are mistaken. I said the first of the day the trial had passed. On the second day I was supposed to submit my plea. On the first day the SA defendants had acted in such a manner that the judge and I were of the opinion -
Q I understand you now. Then your decision was not made before the scheduling of the main trial, but during the beginning of the trial.
A Yes.
Q Thank you. Did you exclude the public? That is, did you make the motion to exclude the public?
A I don't remember that, but I do know that the public was partly excluded.
Q May I ask for what reasons the public was excluded?
A For State security reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't it obvious that the public was excluded for the benefit of the SA and not for their injury? There is no complaint that the SA was being held out by this procedure, is there?