The Reich cabinet has promulgated the following law --" of which we will read only Article 5. "The Minister of Justice is authorized to issue executive regulations for the transfer of the Administration of Justice to the Reich."
Turning to page 10 Document Book 2, 1934 Reichs Gesetzblatt, Part I page 1214, Second law of 5 December 1934.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. Page 10 seems to be omitted from one of the document books.
JUDGE BRAND: Document Book 2 pages from 9b to 11.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: You are missing a page?
JUDGE BRAND: Yes. You may supply it later.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May I supply it later, Your Honor?
JUDGE BRAND: Yes, go ahead.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Second law of 5 December 1934, concerning the transfer of Administration of Justice to the Reich.
"In the National-Socialist State, the administration of justice in uniform. It is under the jurisdiction of the Reich and requires uniform administration by the Reich. After the Ministries cf Justice of the Reich and of Prussia have been combined, the Reich takes over the immediate direction of justice in the other states in accordance with the following provisions:
"Article I. The jurisdiction of the supreme state agencies administering justice is transferred to the Reich Minister of Justice. He is authorized to transfer them to agencies subordinate to him."
We will omit the remainder of that statute and skip to Page 6 of the English Book 2, 1934 Reichsgestzblatt, Part 1, Page 341.
"Law of 21 April 1934 Amending Provisions of the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure.
"Article I. In the second part of the Criminal Code, the first chapter sections 80 to 93 is amended as follows:
"Chapter 1. High Treason.
"Section 80. 1. Anyone attempting to incorporate by violence or by threat of violence, the German territory in its entirety or in part into a foreign state, or to detach from the Reich Territory belonging to the Reich will be punished by death."
I skip now to Page 9 of English Document Book 2.
"Article III. People's Court, Section 1.
" (1) For the trial of cases of high treason the People's Court is established.
" (2) Decisions of the People's Court are made by five members during the trial, by three members outside the trial. This includes the president. The president and one further member must be qualified judges. Several senates may be established."
At this point, if the Prosecution may interpolate, according defense counsel the right to interpolate at any time, we would like to call your attention to the fact that the word "senate" occurs so frequently that we find it is incumbent upon us to remind the bench, although they probably know already that the word "senate" is roughly comparable to chamber or division of the court.
"Senate" is the literal translation. For those of other nationalities to understand it better, we think you should read "division" or "chamber" whenever you see this word. Is that permissable?
DR. SCHUBERT: That is right.
" (3) The Prosecution is represented by the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich."
I skip to Section 3.
" (1) The People's Court is competent for the investigation and decision in the first and last instance in the cases of high treason according to Sections 80 through 84, treason according to Sections 89 through 92--" There are various other jurisdiction which we will not read.
I skip to Paragraph 3, Section 3.
" (3) If another punishable act is in factual connection with a crime or offense subject to the jurisdiction of the People's Court, the trial against the perpetrators and participants of the other punishable act may be brought before the People's Court by way of combination of the respective cases.
"Section 4.
" (1) The Chief Prosecutor of the Reich can transfer the prosecution of the crimes of preparation of high treason listed in Sections 82 and 83 of the Penal Code and of the treasonable offenses listed in Sections 90b through 90e of the penal Code to the Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal. The Chief Prosecutor of the Reich can withdraw the transfer until the opening of the investigation."
DR. BRIEGER: In the American translation "high treason" is mentioned several times when the German text says "Hoch und Landesverrat." That is high-treason and treason, or "Hoch Landesverrat." At the moment I do not know whether the English technical, term high treason really does cover both German expressions, high treason as well as treason. Recording to the German law, the difference between the two, Landesverrat, treason, is treason committed in favor of a foreign power; whereas, Hochverrat, high-treason, means a revolutionary act.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution seeks to make no distinction at that time. If it later becomes relevant, we will so distinguish.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that until a distinction is sought, that is nothing that can be ruled upon.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is more of an informative thing at the moment, and we are appreciative of it.
I turn now to Book 3-A, Document Number NG-202, found on Page 12 of English version and Page 13 of the German version.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, the pages 10, 6, and 9 which you have read are sought to be separate exhibits? Or are they a part of the early exhibit?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That and every other reference we are reading from Document Book 2 will be merely a reference to an exhibit previously admit in evidence, if that has the Court's permission.
Document NG-202 is offered by the Prosecution as Exhibit 121. It is offered without reading or any other reference thereto except for a brief description of what the document purports to be. It is rather lengthy and on its face appears to be a collection of correspondence.
Going to the only point that the Prosecution is interested in, namely that it deals with the appointment of German Air Force, Luftwaffe, Office to the People's Court as lay judges. We only to call the Court's attention in passing to Page 15 of the English Document Book which is Page 16 of the German, wherein a letterhead of the President of the People's Court dated 1 December 1934 appears. This is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin. It has as its subject the appointment of additional members of the People's Court who do not have to have judicial qualifications. This was pointed out. Those were, in fact, Air Force Officers. We now offer Document NG-202 as Prosecution Exhibit 121.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
I turn now to Page 2-, NG-622. NG-622 combines two newspaper clippings from the same newspaper, the "Voelkischer Beobachter," Southern Germany edition.
These clippings are from two different issues. The first clippings is entitled, "Appointment of Honorary Members of the People's Court, Berlin 15 August 1939.
"By an edict dated 1 August 1939, the Fuehrer has appointed as honorary members of the People's Court for a period of five years;" four officials whose names the Prosecution will not read except to direct the court's attention that one is an SS-Standartenfuehrer, another is a Major, and another is a NSKK Gruppenfuehrer, aNSKK, for the Tribunal's information was the National Socialist Motor Transport Copr. The Source is "Voelkischer Beobac South German Edition, 16 August 1939, Page 2, Column 5."
The second clipping collected is entitled "New Members of the People's Court, Berlin, 20 October 1939."
This is found on Pages 22 and 23 of the German Document Book.
"In accordance with the proposal, of the Reich Minister of Justice, the Fuehrer has appointed, or re-appointed as honorary members of the People's Court for a period of five year the following list of officials." I will not read the names, but I do wish to direct the Court's attention to the fact that each appears to be either a Colonel, a 1st Lieutenant, a Navy Captain, Major-General, a General of the Anti-Aircraft Artillery, a. General of the Airforce, two SA-Obergruppenfuehrers, that is an SA General, a Chairman of a Party District, a Party County Leader or an SS-Standartenfuehrer.
Source: Voelkischer Beobachter, South German Edition, 21 October 1939 Page S, Column 3.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit Number 122, Document NG-622.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand the last matter at the bottom of the is the third clipping?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor. The matter at the bottom of the page entitled "Certificate of Translation" is added by the Office of Chief Counsel order to certify that what we have read in English is an accurate translation the German original.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: At this juncture, the prosecution seeks to direct the Court's attention only in pasting, mainly to have some reference in the record more than anything else, to Exhibit No. 52 admitted some time age, which was Document NG-148. On its face, it purported to be a proposal that pressure was needed to fill the lay posts in the People's Court. That document is found in Document Book 1-B at Page 164 of the English Version.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask a question, exposing my ignorance thereby? It's your position, is it, that the persons appointed as honorary members of the People's Court, sat as members of Tribunals in trials?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: They did in fact, Your Honor.
Turning now to Document NG-178 which is found on page 21 of the English Document Book, and appears to be scattered between pages 24 and 27 of the German Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: Which English book do you refer to?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Book 3-A, Page 21, Document NG-178. That document, in the German Books, is accurate. The English books were inaccurate in their translations and we sought to amend it. Has the clerk received the amended copies of Document NG-178? I have a few extra copies here which suffice for the Court. It is only the English that was faulty; the German was in order. Will that suffice or shall we later supply you with more copies?
(Secretary-General indicates that there are sufficient copies.)
Reading now from Document NG-178. This, too is an excerpt from a German newspaper, and is entitled, "Talks with the President of the People's Court." The source is the Voelkischer Beobachter (newspaper), South German Edition, 17 January 1939, page 2.
"Declarations of Vice President ENGERT:
Senate President ENGERT, Vice President of the People's Court, furnished information during an interview with our AT-correspondent regarding some particularly interesting questions.
Question:
Performance and significance of the People's Court are not always sufficiently known to the public.
Is the People's Court to be considered as a special court which does net conform to other legal provisions?
Answer:
Yes and no. The People's Court is a court of first and last instance and has sole jurisdiction of these crimes which affect the foundation of the state, such as high treason, treason, economic sabotage. However, the trial is conducted under the general provisions of the Law of Criminal Procedure, at least in principle, which stipulate the conduct of public trial, right of retaining defense counsel observance of certain time limits, declaration of the accused etc.
Question:
Is the People's Court to be considered a political court?
Answer:
Again, yes and no. Notwithstanding the fact that we must pass sentence on political crimes, we must demand from our judges and public prosecutors an exact knowledge of the political ideas in the world. We must know the development of all movements which are hostile to National Socialism We must always knew the position of Germany in the world, and be aware of the methods by which a hostile political philosophy attempts to fight us. In short, we must have a thorough understanding of what is usually called politics. From this point of view, the People's Court is a political court. Otherwise, politics do not determine the fate of a human being but solely the laws.
Question:
Which trials are public?
Answer:
In principle, all trials are public except these where state secrecies are involved. In these cases, the public is excluded. This is also the practice in other states. The People's Court particularly welcomes the press reports on the public trials since they are capable of enlightening large part of the population and simultaneously clear up many still existing misconception for example with regard to the measure of punishment in the sentences of the senates.
Certain instigators abroad frequently assert that the People's Court pronounces only death sentences day after day. The fact is that the number of acquittals during the last six months was eight times as high as the number of death sentences. The latter did not exceed a single digit number during this period."
The prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 123, Document NG-178.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Page 49 of the English Document Book, which is page 61 of the German, there appears NG-160, bearing the letterhead, "The President of the People's Court," dated 11 January 1943, Berlin, stamped: Secret, and sent to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin, "For your information and on your approval."
"My dear Reich Minister:
"Enclosed, please find two surveys giving y u a summary on the activity of the People's Court from the 1st of January until the 31st December 1942.
"Heil Hitler!
"Respectfully yours, "Signed Freisler."
The enclosed survey that Freisler referred to are found on the following pages. The first survey of page 50 of the English is entitled: Summary on the Activity of the People's Court. From 1 January until 31 December 1942. On this table, which breaks down the business of the People's Court by its various Divisions or Senates, we wish to direct the Court's attention to a comparison of the items number 5 et sequitor to number 13. Those numbers are found in the left-hand margin. There we find that death sentence from 1 January until 31 December 1942 totaled 1,192. Parenthetically, I might remark that I am reading from the original photostat at the moment because the mimeograph, at least in the English book, is faulty on the right margin, and I want to be careful to read the correct digits into the record. You may fee that the numbers that I read, that do not appear in the right-hand column are being read from the exhibit.
In contrast to the 1,192 death sentences pronounced by the People's Court in the above mentioned period -- I am not reading from the document now, Your Honor, I am merely describing it -- in contrast to those death sentences, we found the number of acquittals to be 107 -- approximately onetenth. We also wish to direct the Court's attention to the total life terms, item number 6, which is 79, as contrasted to item number 5, death sentences, which are 1,192. Items number 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are likewise but a fraction of item 5; and, indeed, item 12, namely fines, is non-existent.
Turning now to Page 52, which is 63 in the German, we wish to call the Court's attention to this table which is similar to the one just referred to, except that it covers the period, as it's entitled in fact, "Summary on the Activity cf the People's Court, from 1 January until 30 June 1943." Attention is invited to item 5, death sentences, which total 804. To that, contrast item 13, acquittals which reads a total of 95. As further contrast to item 5, death sentences, we invite the Tribunal's attention to item 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which are but a fraction of item 5, and in fact item 12, fines, is likewise non-existent in this table.
At this time, the prosecution offers in evidence as Exhibit No. 124, Document NO-160.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Document NG-669, on page 22 of the English book III-A, which is page 28 in the German; by way of a brief description, Document NG-669 is an official Peoples' Court case record, plus a number of attachments, including the indictment. The Prosecution, in this present document and all others like it, that is all other court case records, professes to skip through the rather voluminous case record and read in some semblance of chronological order only those portions of the indictment, the facts, the findings, the legal reasons advanced therefore in the barest details sufficient to acquaint the Court through oral reading of what the voluminous document is about. Of course the whole document will be introduced in evidence and can be perused more at leisure, but for the purpose of presentation, it appears that a chronological sampling of what happened in the case is better than a verbatim plou***hing through of the pages of the legal mind at work.
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Lautz) May it please, Court, I really meant to speak on this point when the indictment was handed over, but now the representative of the Prosecution has made a general statement on the point in what form, judgment and indictment of the People's Court are to be recognized here.
As you will see later, as indictment are presented, these indictments regularly refer to files; the indictment always say compare with pages so and so and file so and so. These indictments, therefore, looked upon alone do not constitute a complete document. This part is very important for the evaluation of the defendant Lautz, and for the following reasons: First of all, on the occasion of an interrogation, the interrogator, among other things, raised the reproach that charges had been made although his suspicion that a criminal act had been ommitted was not one hundred percent. The defendant Lautz at that time said according to German criminal law that it is not necessary that the certainty is one hundred per cent, that is to say that a certainty that a criminal act was committed. Later on he felt he wanted to say more about this in effect, in accordance with German laws the prosecutor is obliged to start the prosecution if there is sufficient suspicion.
If within this trial one wants to find out whether the defendant Lautz rightly or wrongly started the prosecution you can only find out about that if you have both files, for only the subsidiary files as well will show whether according to German law, on account of the findings of the preliminary proceedings, that there is a sufficient suspicion to start the prosecution. Furthermore, in many cases, and that particularly applies to trials of foreigners, the German Prosecutor could only prosecute if the Ministry of Justice had agreed. In many cases, apart from the agreement obtained by the Minister of Justice, further directives were issued by the Ministry of Justice concerning the treatment of the case and these will be found in the subsidiary files. For that reason too, it is necessary to see the subsidiary files. Furthermore, particularly in cases concerning foreigners, further authorities were involved; for example the high command of the armed farces, the supreme war court, and other agencies. If these statements by these agencies are not taken into consideration, the main judgment cannot be considered complete. As I have told you already, the indictment regularly refers to subsidiary files. With reference to the indictment, I do not knew whether the court and the prosecution in cases in which merely the judgment is presented, as in the case under discussion, whether in those cases conclusions are to be drawn from the judgment regarding the chief Reich prosecuting authorities. If that is so, then all these objections apply to those cases in which the judgment is submitted, but not the indictment. In those cases there is something else which arises, and that is that the files would not show whether the defendant Lautz signed the indictment. Therefore, I cannot proceed without asking for all files to be presented in t is case. Further mere, I should like to say that many of the defendants who were sentenced to death later on their sentences were remitted; acts of mercy must also be considered, if the defendant Lautz is to be charged with atrocities at all.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Now that the Defense has brought up the matter, we welcome an opportunity to mention this matter of lack of documents and files.
I will be very brief, but this has needed saying for sometime. With regard to the references in the indictment or cases that we will seek to introduce here, regard references therein to subsidiary files, such as has been mentioned by the Defense: Of course there are these those references, and of course the Prosecution does not have the subsidiary files. The reason we don't is very clear; it was a virtual act of God that we were able to secure any Peoples' Court records in the first place. The People's Court building in Berlin was destroyed by air raids and many files perished in the resulting fire, but even before that time the People's Court had largely been decentralized; at least the Chief Public prosecutor's office had been moved in part to Potsdam and various other places, with the resulting breakdown of any cross-reference filing system for the Germans themselves, lot alone for occupiers who came in later and attempted to find cross-references from a document they happened to pick out of the rubble. On the other hand, although we do not have these files, the subsidiary files referred to in the indictment and case records, we do not purport to have in evidence anything more than appears on the face of the document which we offer. The Defense has remarked that the documents we may submit in the case of Peoples' Court record are not complete. We do not profess to say that they are; we merely say that if there are flaws and defects in the proof that we intend to establish, then the Defense is perfectly free to point out such defects for whatever damage that they may have against the probative value of the documents we submit. One further thing; the Defense remarked that in many cases death sentences were remitted; that clemency pleas were granted; that defendants sentenced to death were never actually executed. Of course that happened, but we will not rely on the death sentence of any defendant in any case that we submit without also submitting proof to the fact that that man lives no more.
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Lautz) May it please the Court, may I make an additional remark.
In the indictment, as you know, the main point is that the German courts made their decisions without reference to the a ency of the Fuehrer.
If this trial here in effect maintained that count, then in my view it is compelled to go over every case a-new. I should like to explain that by one example, and one of these judgments. A foreigner was condemned because he had given a prisoner of war plans of surrounding areas. The Pole stated at the time he asked for the plan to see where in the neighborhood there were camps where civilians worked because he wanted to go and see a friend there. The Peoples Court took the view that it was not the purpose of the plan to show the Pole the location of the civilian workers, but it was of e scape. In that decision it was exclusively to point out the purpose of the plan. If today that judgment is submitted, the Defense in my view cannot forego insistence upon having that plan submitted because only on that condition can it be seer what sentence was passed at the time, and the same applies to all the other cases; if it is to be cited here whether wrong sentences were passed, then that can only be done by having recourse to the files which at that time were the basis for the prosecution. As far as the defendant Lautz is concerned concerning the files, there is the following to be said:
The defendant Lautz is charged with having made infounded prosecutions. The point of the Prosecution for that was the result which was available when he started tho preliminary investigations. That result can only be seen from the files dealing with the preliminary investigations. This we cannot accept without seeing these subsidiary files.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One final word, surely the Prosecution is entitled in its own way, and in its own manner to make out a prima facie case without objections to the methods of proof which it attempts to use. The one question can be that we end up proving if the Defense is of the opinion that the proof we introduce is insufficient then let them so show in their case in chief. At least the Prosecution so submits.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the view of the Tribunal that it is a matter of argument and largely as to whether proof is made in these matters, and, of course, if no further proof is offered, the document and this evidence will be of much less value, but Mr. Wooleyhan says they will produce further proof and if and when ho does, this document will then have greater value. But it does seem to the Tribunal at this time, it has probative value and therefore admissible.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution would like to say a brief word to the Defense, in that we wish to preserve the relationship of mutual good faith which we have had thus far, and that my remarks at the beginning of this motion directed to the difficulty of obtaining additional evidence, and in particular, the impossibility of obtaining the type of evidence that the Defense suggested with regard to subsidiary files. It should suffice to show the Defense we are not attempting to withhold on that point, that is due to a lack rather than a refusal on our pert to furnish such proof....
JUDGE BRAND: I think that as an individual I may say that the Defense Counsel can rely upon the fact that the Tribunal will disregard any evidence which may be received unless we find it does have probative value as to some individual defendant. They may assume that will be the procedure in this Court all times.
DR. GRUBE: I should like to add to the Prosecution's remark the following: I did not want to say to the Prosecution that it withhold material. I only meant to say that the material which has been submitted to us here, for example, an indictment without subsidiary files, but that does not constitute a complete document, but I have not said that I believed that the Prosecution intended to withhold any material.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this document being offered?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor, we do seek to offer this document after we read certain portions of it.
The cover shoot of the Case Record contained in NG-669, on page 22 of the English and 28 of the German: "The Reich Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court," dated, "3 April 1941" addressed to "The President of the Second Division of the People's Court. Subject: Case against Kolinski and others from Bruss for preparation of High Treason."
The appendices to this cover shoot, at least when it was originally prepared were to volumes of documents and 49 copies of the indictment.
"I forward herewith the indictment together with enclosures and at the end refer the requests, I have made.
"Since the majority of the accused are not conversant with the German language, I will see to it that an interpreter is called upon."
And, continuing to the next page we find that the cover sheet personally is signed by the defendant Lautz, as it appears from the original, Lautz.
The next page, page 24, which letterhead, "in the name of the German People", contains the sentences of some 20 defendants set out here in particular by name and address, whose names are unpronounceable, and we will not read them. On page 25, however, at the conclusion of the enumeration of the defendants, we see that all of them were former Polish nationals and at present are in custody pending investigation, which means trial in this context, on charges of preparation of high treason.
"The People's Court, 2nd Division, has passed in the trial of 23rd, 24th, and 25th of September 1941, in which the following judges participated:"
Of which we will only road, "Vice President of the People's Court Engert presiding passed the following sentence:"
And then the sentences are set out on the bottom of page 25 and 26, particularly as to each defendant. Without reading them all we find that the following persons are being sentenced for the preparation of high treason. He find that the maximum sentence imposed was 6 years in the penitentiary and the loss of civil rights for 6 years, and the minimum punishment was a year and 6 months imprisonment. Two defendants wore acquitted.
Skipping to page 31 of this document book, which is page 37 in the German text, we find paragraph 2 setting out the circumstances of the case which we see fit to road in some detail:
"The Circumstances of the Case.
"In April 1940 when the house of the deceased for defendant Dziekan was being searched, a fairly worn, partly illegible piece of paper written on in Polish by the deceased was found, the contents of which as far as it is legible, are as follows in German translation:
"'Citizens of Poland!.
"'At this critical time we are spoken to....the time will come when we will be united. For already the might of the age-old enemy is declining as e.g. with regard to munitions and material. Likewise there is not sufficient food for tho civilian population. Amongst the people disillusionment reigns about the Hitler Regime, it will march in with our Army. Citizens be patient, the day of liberation draws near. If aver one braces himself for tho ancient battle against the Teutons.....He work under orders. Therefore always be prepared to take up your former positions, therefore we do not leave the towns and villages, do not voluntarily give up Polish positions to the Germans, You must hide arms and war equipment as far as you can, but on the other hand do not risk your lives and other Punishments unnecessarily. Poles, do not lose hope!'" The Prosecution wishes again to direct tho Court's attention to tho date when this was found.
It was found in April 1940, and presumably was written then or at some previous time.
JUDGE BRAND: Does your record show where the trial was hold?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor, on the first page of the cover sheet which is signed by Lautz, on page 22 of the document book, it appears that the indictments were sent to the Second Division of the People's Court, which from the face of the document, is Berlin. So, it appears that the case was tried by the Second Division of the People's Court In Berlin. a JUDGE BRAND: Is there anything to show in which country this paper was found? I mean whether in Poland or within the boundaries of the Reich?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Whether that will appear in a subsequent reading, your Honor, I do not know. May I supply the information at the afternoon session?
Continuing on tho bottom of page 31, which is page 38 in the German book, in reference to the paper and the writing thereon which was found and which we have just read:
"Dziekan had copied this writing from a handwritten leaflet which had been left him by the likewise deceased former defendant Frymark. The contents of the paper reiterates the gist of a proclamation of the former Polish General Sikorski which the latter had broadcast after his flight abroad by the French and English radio, as well as by means of illegal pamphlets in the area of the former Polish Free State."
If I may halt a moment, I think that answers your question, at the top of page 32.
"The original proclamation requested in the last sentence that the pamphl be cut up and re-distributed.
"The investigations made after the paper had been found at Dziekan's showed that in accordance with this request tho proclamation in the above re-distributed form, somewhat different from the original, but in which the sense of the original was adhered to, had been handed on from one to another amongst the defendants, in most cases after each had made a copy first. There each individual defendant participated as follows."
If the Court please, we may not continue this policy of reading in such great detail from a case record in tho future, but this first time, if the Court will be indulgent, I propose that the prosecution does read in some detail as to the facts of what each individual defendant factually did in this case for which he was indicted.
These are reports of investigations, starting on page 32, in which each individual defendant's participation is described as follows:
"1. The defendant Eugenie Kawka, when at the end of February she was press at a funeral in Kirchdorff at Gross Wollental, had the Sikorski Proclamation read to her by her brother, the engine-driver Josef Klein, who was already condemned for his participation in broadcasting the pamphlet. When she asked if she could copy it he declared that the Proclamation had been taken to bars. Thereupon the defendant made a copy of the Proclamation to show to her husband. At home she gave the copy she had made to her husband.
"2. The defendant Johann Kawka read the pamphlet which his wife had received and took it with him to his work where he had several copies typed by the shorthand typist, the defendant Raszeja, because he wanted to bring the Proclamation to the notice of several friends. He also showed a copy to the witness Hoppe who advised him to destroy the paper. Thereupon the defendant burnt the copies in his possession."
The following paragraphs, 3 to 19, ending on page 35 of the English and 42 of the German, continue a factual account of each individual defendant's either reading the pamphlet, reproducing it in some way, or passing it on. The extent of each individual's participation, each defendant's participation in the matter, appears to have seen either a copying of the pamphlet or a reading of it, or a describing of it or a telling of it to another party; in other words, dissemination.
We turn now to paragraph 3, on page 35:
"The convicted defendants.
"1. Their statements and the weighing up of circumstantial evidence.
"The accused admitted without exception the circumstantial evidence as stated. Only the accused Kramer gives a different picture of the circumstance established in his case. He asserts that, when calling at Bartsch's office, the latter had already copied half the leaflet. Then Bartsch read it out to him, whereupon he dictated the second half to Bartsch. This statement contradicts the statement by the accused Bartsch, who describes the incident in the manner ascertained. The court has given preference to Bartsch's description as he gave the impression of greater reliability and, above all, because from the very first he made the same statements at all hearings, whereas Kramer already told the police that he could not exactly recall all details.
"The accused, Czarnowski, who admits his participation in the distribution of leaflets to the ascertained extent, denies, however, that he Used to meet Dziekan, Frymark, and the accused Kolinski for anti-German conversations, as charged by the prosecution. He admits to having visited Frymark on several occasions and of having met there sometimes Dziekan and Kolinski. He denies, however, that he had any talks on politics at all. This statement seems hardly credible, particularly as Czarnowski handed Frymark Sikorski's leaflet to copy, but it cannot be refuted with absolute certainty.
In some respects, this statement is supported by the statement of the witnesses Josef and Anna Prominski, who say that they have never seen Czarnowski at Dziekan's house. The latter seems to have been the mainspring of the mentioned circle.
"On the actual facts of the case..." I submit that the true translation of "the actual facts" there, should be "subjective side." Is that permissible to the defense, "on the subjective side of the case"? If not, we will bring that up at a later time. "...the majority of the accused are rather evasive. The statements all agree that they were not aware of the true significance of the leaflet. They either state that they did not give any thought to the content; of the leaflet, or that they did not take it seriously, or that they consider it improbable and just stuff and nonsense. Only a few of the accused admitted that they believed in the announcements contained in the leaflet or considered them possible.
"The legal view."
For the Court's information, I am still reading from the second senate of the People's Court finding in this same case:
"The legal view.
"The contents of the leaflet, distributed by the accused, were in reality by no means empty talk and harmless or even a ridiculous joke. Even in this somewhat modified form, which in essence and in the main corresponds to General Sikorski's appeal already known to the Court, this leaflet presents clear challenge to the Polish population to arm and prepare themselves for a fight against the German Reich. After first pointing out that the might of the 'ancient enemy' is already on the wane with regard to ammuniton and material and through a shortage of food, an invasion by the Polish Army and the approach of the day of liberation is predicted. Then follows the challenge to strengt en 'the ancient fighting spirit against the Teutons', to prepare for the take over of previous positions, to remain at their places of residence, and final to hide arms and weapons of war in a specified manner. The whole affair is thus not an expression of hope that the Polish cause is not yet lost, but rather an incitement of Polish jingoistic passions with the aim of creating an atmosphere of resistance and revolt against the German government and of effecting a preparedness of fighting weapons, in order to be in a position t attack the Germans at the opportune moment for a resurrection of Poland.