MR. KING: As Exhibit 399 we introduce the Document NG684, to be found beginning on page 88 of the English text, and on page 94 of the German. This is a letter dated, Graz, 5 February 1940, from the General Public Prosecutor to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin. We are particularly interested in the two paragraphs appearing on page 89 of the English text, and at the top of page 96 in the German. The two paragraphs appear in the English text right under the parenthesis "page 3 of the original." The General Public Prosecutor in these two paragraphs makes the suggestion that since Gypsies have become a real problem, that they be subjected to universal sterilization. That is all of this document to which we call particular attention at this time, and we therefore offer NG-684 as Exhibit 399.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 400 we introduce Document NG-387, appearing on page 91 of the English text, and on page 98 of the German text. This is a letter from Dr. Rothenberger to Dr. Schlegelberger. It is dated, Hamburg, 4 July 1941. We are at this time particularly interested in the second paragraph of that letter. I would like to read the second paragraph in its entirety. Dr. Schlegelberger speaking:
"I was confidentially informed of the draft of the law of April 1941 concerning the treatment of asocial elements according to this law, the custody of these persons is exclusively in the hands of the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) and so the sterilization insofar as the decision of this office as to whether a person is asocial, has been declared binding on the Eugenics Court.
I consider so extensive a disregarding of a judicial authority very dubious, and I propose that the Municipal Court, consisting perhaps of a judge, a physician, and a representative of the police, should decide whether an asocial element should be kept in life-long custody or should be sterilized."
We offer the Document NG-387 as Exhibit 400.
MR. KING: Did your Honor rule on the admissibility of 401? Did you admit it - 400, I mean?
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next Exhibit, 401, will be the Document 4055-PS. It appears on page 93 in the English text, and on page 101 in the German. It consists of several letters the first of which is a letter... I was about to read the letter on page 93... I think I should actually read the letter on page 94 first, since it appears to be an earlier date... there seems to be an interposition of letters. The first letter, on page 94, is from Dr. Schlegelberger to Dr. Lammers, in which Dr. Schlegelberger says that he has been informed about the result of a meeting on March 6th regarding the treatment of Jews and descendants of mixed marriages. He also notes that he is expecting a copy of the official transcript of the meeting, and after the transcript comes he expects to discuss it further with Dr. Lammers.
On page 93, letter of March 18, 1942, from Dr. Lammers to Dr. Schlegelberger, in which Dr. Lammers says he will be glad to discuss the question with Dr. Schlegelberger, and will do so upon his return to Berlin.
The next letter, or document, in the general document which bears the number 4055-PS, is a monograph, or letter, from Dr. Schlegelberger to a number of individuals whose names are set out in the heading on page 94 of the English text, and the top of page 103 in the German text. The monograph is dated 5 April 1942, is listed as a secret Reich matter, and it is headed, "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." I would like to read several portions of that document at this time. Starting with the paragraph numbered two, at the top of page 104 in the German text, in the middle of page 95 in the English:
"With regard to the treatment of Jewish descendants of mixed marriages of the first degree, I agree with the conception of the Reich Minister of the Interior which he expressed in his letter of 16 February 1942, to the effect that the prevention of propagation of these descendants of mixed marriages is to be preferred to their being thrown in with the Jews and evacuated. It follows therefrom that the evacuation of these half-Jews who are no more capable of propagation is obviated from the beginning. There is no national interest in dissolving the marriages between such half-Jews and a fullblooded German.
"Those half-Jews who are capable of propagation should be given the chance to --"
JUDGE BRAND: "Choice", you mean.
MR. KING: "Choice", yes, excuse me. (Continuing) ".... should be given the choice to submit to sterilization or to be evacuated in the same manner as Jews. In the case of sterilization, as well as in that of evacuation of the half-Jews, the German-blooded spouse will have to be given the opportunity to effect the dissolution of the marriage.
I see no objection to the German spouse's obtaining the possibility of divorcing his sterilized or evacuated spouse in a simplified procedure without the limitations of Par. 53 of the Marriage Law."
That is all of this document that we wish to specially call to the Court's attention at this time, and we therefore introduce the document 4055-PS as Exhibit 401.
Was 401 admitted in evidence, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't know it had been offered. It will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: With the exception of one or two pending matters in Book VII-A, the presentation of Exhibit 401 has completed the Book VII-A. We are not quite ready to proceed with the Document Book VII-B.
THE PRESIDENT: You say with the exception of one or two matters? Oh, 629-PS, I guess.
MR. KING: VIII.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be only one, so far as I can see.
MR. KING: There is one document which we will present on which we have had difficulty in procuring it, and I also want to produce a better photostat copy of Exhibit 393. These are the two matters. We are not quite ready to present Book VIII-B.
However, before we leave the matter of document presentation I would like to offer in evidence two documents about which there has been discussion in the past. They both concern the Book III series, III-D, in fact.
The first of these documents is the transcript to the People's Court film. As the Court will recall, the official transcript of that session did not include the English version, or in fact any version of the analogue that took place. Shortly after the presentation of the film, I inquired if the Court would be willing to receive a transcript of that film as a document, and the Court indicated that it would. We now have ready a document which we have styled NG-1019-A. The question is raised what document number or what exhibit number this document should be given. The film was Exhibit 192, and I wonder if the Court would be willing to consider a violation of its own precedent so far in giving this document the exhibit number of 192-A. I think it would be the first "A" exhibit that we have had so far in the Prosecution's case, but I think it would facilitate reference if it were so styled.
THE PRESIDENT: I see no objection to it being given that number and letter. We have separate exhibits so that if we want to send for it, we can do so.
My suggestion was, for the record, that we see no objection to having this given a sub-number with the addition of the letter "A", but I think it is very important to always give every document a separate exhibit number so if we ever have to send for it, we will be able to send for it with less confusion.
MR. KING: With Your Honor's suggestion in mind, we offer, therefore, the document NG-1019-A as Exhibit No. 192-A.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
Will that transcript be furnished to the Bench?
MR. KING: I believe, sir, it has been.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes; thank you.
JUDGE BRAND: What book were you planning to put that in?
MR. KING: I think that should go at the end of III-D. That seems to be a convenient place.
I now call attention to one other document which we have discussed and have delayed offering pending the processing. I refer to document NG-1249, which is the Fuehrer Information Bulletin which the witness Solf referred to and in fact read into the record at the time she testified here more than a week ago. The document has been processed, English copies have been made, and I now offer the document NG-1249 as prosecution Exhibit 402. I suggest that it be placed in Document Book III-D following Exhibit 192-A.
A note has just reached me -
JUDGE BRAND: What Exhibit do you offer that as?
MR. KING: No. 402.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: A note has just reached me from Mr. Lafollette. It appears that the witness which we had planned to hear this afternoon is momentarily not available, and Mr. Lafollette has asked me to ask the Court to recess for the rest of the afternoon.
Presumably the witness will be available tomorrow morning at the opening of the session.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will be able to endure the additional time. We therefore will recess at this time until tomorrow morning at 9:30 o'clock.
(At 1455 hours, 28 April 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 29 April 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the Matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 29 April 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, will you please determine if all the defendants are present in the courtroom?
THE MARSHALL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the record show that all the defendants except Engert are present, and that he is absent temporarily upon his own request.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, I would like to have the Marshal call the witness Ancker, who is outside.
THE PRESIDENT: He may be called.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The witness will speak in the German language.
EBINGER ANCKER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repealed the oath)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If the Court please, it ask that the witness be furnished the Exhibit 204 in the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: Hand it to the witness.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LaFOLLETTE:
Q. You will state your name, please.
A. Edinger Anckor.
Q. And just before we start further questions, will you wait a few minutes after I have finished my question before you answer, and then speak slowly; that is to help the interpreters and the court reporters. Will you tell the Court briefly where and when you were born; your education and the extent of your legal education, and experiences, please.
A. I was born on the 22nd of February, 1909, in Kiel; I grew up in Kiel and Hamburg; I attended the Humanistic school, followed the classical course in Kiel and Hamburg. In 1928 I matriculated; from 1928 until 1933 I was a working student; I studied law and political science in Hamburg, Vienna, and Berlin. In May, 1933 I took the first legal state examination; in 1933 I became referent at a court of the Oberlandosgericht, the District Court of Appeal in Kiel. In December 1933 I was taken over into the Administration until 1936; I received my training at the Landratsaemter office, and police officers, mayor's office and the government of the Province of Schleswig. In December 1936 I made my state legal examination and I passed it with good. Immediately thereafter I became government assessor, from January, 1937 until February 1938 at the Landratsamt office in Altenkirchen Westerwald, a general representative of the Landratsamt. In March until December 1938, I was an agricultural expert referent, the Oberprisidium of the Province of Brandenburg, and the office was located in Berlin. January until December 1939 I was assistant referent in the personnel division of the Reich Ministry of Interior: from December 1939 until May, 1940 I was a soldier; I was trained in a replacement battalion; for a short time I was detailed to duty, then I was declared unfit for military duty, and was detailed to the office of the Reich Commissioner, the Reich Commisar for the occupied territories in the Netherlands, in the Hague.
I was referent for personnel matters, department heads; until December, 1941 I served in that capacity. In January, 1942 until March, 1944 I was assigned to the party chancellory, Gruppenleiter, group leader for the Reich Ministry of Interior, and several other ministries belonging to it. From May, 1944 on, I was again a soldier in the Waffen SS; my last rank was Untersturmfuehrer. In October, 1944 I was seriously wounded; in May 1944 I was arrested in the Field Hospital; for nine months I was interned; after being discharged from the internment camp, until August, 1946, my injuries sustained during the war were treated, were under treatment; from the 15th of September, 1946 on, I was an apprentice for a carpenter in Heide Holstein.
Q. And that is generally the general character of what you are now doing; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you were at the party chancellery from January, 1942 until March of 1944?
A. Yes.
Q. And from the Ministry of Interior?
A. Yes, the Ministry of Interior had detailed me for that; they had assigned me to that work.
Q. And during the time there, of course you were then actually a representative of or employed by the Ministry of Interior, working at the party chancellery; that was the way it worked?
A. That is not quite correct.
Q. Will you tell the Court just what was the relationship?
A. We were the experts, Sachbearbeiter of the legal division, of the party chancellery; in our field we were experts or specialists; that is, formerly we were members of a party office; that did not alter tho fact that we were civil servants, civil servants of our ministry, and as a result we conducted ourselves as such -- as civil servants.
Q. Now, then was there a department designation made on correspondence that went through and from the Party Chancellery consisting of Roman Numerals and letters?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the one for the department which you worked in there at the Party Chancellory -- that handled matters to and from the Ministry of the Interior?
A. Roman III a.
Q During the time you were at the Party Chancellory working under the arrangement which you have described, did the Ministry of Justice also have a representative working under the same sort of conditions?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And, did their correspondence have a designation composed of Roman Numerals and letters? If so, what was it?
A. III c.
Q. Do you know the defendant Herbert Klemm?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he at the Party Chancellory during the time that you were there?
A. Herr Klemm was there sometime before that, and he left it sometimes before I did, when he was appointed the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Justice.
Q. Do you recall when he was appointed Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, approximately?
A. No.
Q. You were still there when he was appointed, however; is that right?
A. Yes, it must have been before March 1944.
Q. Yes, and he was there when you came in January 1942, as you remember?
A. Yes.
Q. While you were at the Party Chancellory were you made a Dienstleiter in the NSDAP?
A. Yes
Q. Do you remember approximately what time that was; what year and month?
A. It must have been February or March 1942.
Q. Was the defendant Klemm made a Dienstleiter about that time or possibly before then, or do you recall?
A. I do not remember that exactly, but I suppose that he was appointed at the same time.
Q. Was the officer of the rank of Dienstleiter within the leadership corps of the Party level?
A I do not understand that question, quite. As far as I know, in the order of rank of the political leaders, there was no difference between Unterfuehrer and Oberfuehrer -- between the lower leader and the fuehrer.
Q. Describe what the leadership corps was?
A. It is very difficult to describe it.
Q. Well, you can do your best.
A. It was so large, this political leadership corps, that positions and the value of political leaders, were very different; there were very great differences between the position of leaders. For the rank of Herr Klemm and myself, it is important to know that they were so-called honor ranks, that is, we got the uniforms -- the assistants in the divisions, too. The political divisions did not consider us as full political lenders. That was evident from little details. First of all, in pay; we received the salary which was for the rank of which we had as civil servants, and as far as the income was concerned, that was 50 percent of the salary which the men in the same position in the political division received. During that time when I was in the Party Chancellory, attempts were made also to make this position of the Dienstleiter evident in the type of uniform by having the official rank, the insignia of the service rank, that it had a green base, as the Paymaster of the Wehrmacht has it.
We were considered just simply as civil servants. If I am not mistaken our appointments, at the time, was made so that we could be introduced to Hitler, which happened about March 1942; for that, we needed a uniform.
Q. Will you turn to the exhibit that you have at the witness box. I believe if you run through that exhibit you will find a letterhead of the National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei. It is a rather large letterhead. When you come to the letter written on that letterhead, just let me know, will you?
A. Yes, I have it here.
MR. LAFOLETTE: Your Honors, please, this is in book 3 H, the exhibit NG-131 has to do with the further restrictions of legal rights of the Jews. It runs from page 38 through page 66. This is one of the exhibits that is somewhat badly put together chronologically, and I believe I furnished the Court, at the time, a suggested chronological reading of the document. The letter to which the witness now refers is found on page 65 of the English book. I am talking of the document book now. I am sorry I cannot give the cross reference in the German because this book is not cross referenced.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Exhibit No. 204, your Honor.
Q. Do you find immediately below the dateline of that letter that you have, on the letterhead of the Party Chancellory, a designation composed of Roman Numerals and letters; and, if you do, what is that designation that you find?
A. III c.
Q. Did you talk with me, as I recall, twice yesterday about this exhibit; is that correct? Yesterday morning and yesterday afternoon?
A. Yes.
Q. And, as I recall in the morning I did not have a photostatic copy which corresponded to the one you have there before you now; is that your recollection?
A. It is possible, yes. Yesterday this photostatic copy came up during the course of the conversation I had with you.
Q. Yes, that was the second conversation yesterday, when I laid it before you when you were in my office; do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. At that time you had an occasion to read this letter from the Party Chancellory which is signed with a typewritten signature on the next page -- M. Bormann; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, that photostat of the original letter uses the expression "Rechtsmittle" and "Rechtsbehelf"; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall that Mr. Boguet, who speaks German and English was with us and that on the first discussion that you and I had there Mr. Boguet, that you told him you found it difficult to accurately mark the fine line of differentation between "echtsmittel" and "Rechtsbehelf"; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Later on, in the afternoon, we noticed a letter from the office of the Food Administrator -- the Administrator of Food and Agriculture, dated August 20th; do you find that now?
A. Yes.
Q That is on page 48 of the English text, your Honor. And there is definition on attempt there, on the letter of the Food and Agriculture Ministry, to find and point out the difference, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q I ask you whether or not, in your memory, you had seen that letter, at any time before you saw it in my office yesterday - the letter from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
A No.
Q I ask you whether or not the character of your legal training was such that in September 1942 you would have felt free to use these two terms as marking a difference in legal remedies, and different legal meanings, accurately?
A That there were differences between these two terms, I must have known at that time - but an exact definition I could not have given; especially of the term "Rechtsbehelf."
Q Now, I ask you, do you know what the educational training - the professional training - of Martin Bormann was?
A If I am not mistaken, he was a graduate of an agricultural college, Diplomlandwirt, and after the first World War he was inspector of largo farms, Gutsinspector. Then, he was in the Party service in the Main Office.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you very much. I think that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION
DR. SCHILF: (for defendant Klemm) : Witness, you stated that for many years you worked in the Party Chancellory, and that you were Gruppenleiter in Department III-A. You also stated that there was a Department III-C, and that Klemm was working in that Department.
First of all, I want to ask you whether you could tell us something more, still, about the organization of the Party Chancellory, for the figures "3" and the letters "A" and "C" show, already, that there was a rather extensive organization. I ask you to make your description of the organization of the Party Chancellory really brief.
A The Party Chancellory had three divisions, or departments:
Division I, the Business Office; Division II, political Division; Division III, legal Division - "Staatsrechliche" Division. Division III was divided into groups: III-A, mainly Ministry of Interior; III-B, the Economic Ministries - that is, Labor - Speer; III-C, Justice; III-D, Education and Culture, Church; III-E, Finance. Then there were special groups: III-S, Liaison Leaders for the Police; III--- I can't remember the letter --- Special Commissions Special Tasks.
Q Was that all within the framework of Division III that is, the Division for Administration and State Policy?
A Yes, it was called the "Staatsrechtliche" Division the Legal Division; yes.
Q You were searching in your mind for the special group .... Was it III-P - for personnel matters?
A I forgot that one. All personnel matters -- III-P. Pohl was in charge of personnel matters of all higher Reich authorities.
Q Then there was still a Division III-S... That was the one you were speaking about ... Special Tasks.
A Yes, especially liaison with the police, with the Chief of the German Police.
Q The other Divisions, I and II, were they also subdivided? I am just asking you the question. I don't want you to describe the subdivision.
A How it was about I, I don't know.
Q Can you, in brief, describe the sea of activity of Division I?
A If I am not mistaken, I had very little insight into this Division. There were two main tasks. First, the inner business service, or the office of the Reich Chancellory that is, Buildings, Operations, Personnel, Travel Course, etc. And, consequently, in this Division they were working on matters which had to do with Bormann's task as Secretary to the Fuehrer. That comprised approximately Haus and Hofmarschall, personal marshal to Hitler - the administration of this personal income, that is, Hitler's personal income and property, and everything that was connected with that task of Bormann's.
Q Then, I would like you to give a brief description of Division II, which you have already repeatedly mentioned.
A Division II was divided also into groups. These groups, were working with the political matters of the Party. Thus, essentially: direction, political influence and personnel matters on the Party organization, its branches, and affiliated organizations.
Q Witness, I would like to ask you to describe Bormann' s position, and attitude, toward the Party Chancellory, and I mean for the time when you -- approximately at the time the defendant Klemm and you were working in the Party Chancellory.
A Bormann was the leader of the Party Chancellory, the Director.
Q Was he always present in the Party Chancellory?
A Bormann was almost exclusively in the Fuehrerhauptquartier - in the Fuehrer Headquarters.
Q The Party Chancellory: I am asking you to state this: Was it in Munich?
A Its official seat was in Munich. The members of Division III were, as a rule, for two to three days during the week, in Berlin.
Q And you said that Bormann almost exclusively was in the Headquarters of Hitler; that was, of course, outside of Munich, and also outside of Berlin?
A That was, as a rule, in the East.
Q In what way was the connection established between Bormann as a Director, Leader, to the Party Chancellory, formally, and the offices in Munich and Berlin?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Don't answer that, please. If your Honors please, I have refrained from objecting at this time. I call the court's attention at this time that I called for a very limited direct examination as to this man's service, the fact that the defendant Klemm was there, as to the matter of leadership corps; and then, as to these two Divisions - subdivisions of Division III, how they were designated for correspondence, and referred to one letter. Now, all of this material which is now being elicted on cross-examination, I would say, was probably pertinent, eventually, to the defendant's case; but I am positive of the opinion that it does not constitute correct cross-examination as against the direct examination of this witness, which was definitely limited; and, I may say, also, purposely limited; and I object to this question. I have actually felt as though I should have objected to the preceding question. I want to state my my position very strongly now:
I don't think it proper for the defense to develop answers from my witness on crossexamination on matters which were not material to the direct examination, or relevant to any issue therein.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you re-propound that last question, please?
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, you stated that Martin Bormann almost exclusively stayed at the Fuehrer headquarters; the Party Chancery with its offices, however, was in Munich After you stated that, I asked you in what way a connection between Bormann and the offices in Munich was maintained.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, maybe I haven't made myself plain. Of course there is a connection between what Martin Bormann did, between this letter, between the fact that the defendant Klemm was handling Ministry of Justice matters. But, as far as the direct examination of this witness was concerned, it was limited to an identification of the correspondence numerals and the method of identifying as to the content of this letter and the Leadership Corps, which was not going in, and that was all.
Now, I did not go into any of these matters on direct examination. They are in the record from other evidence, various links. But I definitely object to this crossexamination as not being relevant to the direct examination and going into a field which was not entered in any way in the direct examination.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, may I ask something in connection with this? The witness was asked about the profession of Martin Bormann and also made a statement as to what it was. That referred to the letter which Mr. LaFollette had also shown to him. The question was put as to whether Martin Bormann, as a former agriculturalist, was in a position to explain difficult legal expressions in this letter, or to understand them.