"This appeal by Sikorski, to prepare for the coming fight, is a part of the efforts of a circle of Poles who escaped to other countries with Sikorski as their leader, to re-establish Poland as a sovereign state. These former polish loaders mainly advocate military assistance to hostile powers not yet conquered by Germany and attempt by all possible and available means to recruit volunteers among the Polish population for the Polish Legion set up abroad, which they allow to participate in the war inside the organization of enemy armies. They also endeavor, however, by appeals and other propaganda over the radio or by leaflets, to incite Polish citizens against Germany and to evoke in them the determination for an armed revolt at a favorable moment in order drive out the Germans and to build up Poland in its former glory. By this prpaganda they pursue, at the same time, the aim of separating by force from t Reich the Eastern Territories incorporated into the German Reich by decree the Fuehrer of 6 October 1939."
That date, if I may interpolate, was tho reason for my again calling the Court's attention to the date when the leaflet in the case in question was found. That leaflet was found in 1940, after the incorporation of Poland into the German Reich.
"Leaflets of the kind distributed by the accused, therefore, bear the character of high treason. The passing-on of such a leaflet presents circumstantial evidence of preparation for high treason in the meaning of Article Section 1, 83, Section 2 of the Penal Code.
"The more profound meaning of the appeal and the author's intended purpose has also been realized by the accused. Their diverging statements on the actual facts of the case can only be taken for empty excuses. As politically interested people possessing judgment,they became aware, on reading this unmistakable appeal, that it was intended to win all Poles for the fight against German domination and for a free and independent Poland, and that it aimed at separating by force the incorporated Eastern Territories, including Western Prussia, the district in which the accused reside, from the German Reich."
Shipping new, to the last paragraph on page 38:
"'These persons accused if the preparation for high treason have committed this act in accordance with the aggravating clause of Article 83, Section S, Figure 3 of the of the Penal Cede. This applies to those accused who copied the leaflet and then passed it on, as well as to those who merely passed on the leaflet they had received. Both types of accused have helped in the distribution by the leaflet passing on a single copy, for they disposed cf it and by this intense or counted on the receiver cf the copy making it available to others, just as they have done themselves.
The number of people who would ti s sue the leaflet was, in their opinion, unlimited, even if confined to these likeminded. Their action was, therefore, also intended to influence the masses."
Skipping, now, to the top of page 39:
"Thus, the accused are all guilty of having, at the begining of 1940, prepared for the act of high treason of separating by force or throat of violence from the Reich a territory belonging to the Reich."
I skip new to page 42, which is page 51 of tie German book.
"Paragraph V; The Sentense.
"Even though the actual extent of the guilt of the individual convicted defendants is not very great, it is nevertheless necessary to take severe legal stops against ghem. The Polish undermining work in the newly incorporated Easter territories, whether it is oral propaganda, distribution of leaflets, or any other kind, has to do stepped from the very beginning, Magmanimity or softness in smaller cases would be interpreted by the Polish circles concerned as a weakness of the Germans and would be taken as an incitement to continue the Anti-German activity to a still greater extent. The consequences there from could easily be a spreading of the Polish attempt to obtain independence, and thereby a considerable endangering of the welfare of the Reich. Especially new, during the war, ruthless action is necessary, because the German Reich is not to be diverted by undermining activities in the interior from its fight for existence and from the problems of foreign policy decisive for the victory, and is not to be hindered in taking the required military measures. A prison punishment would never have served as a warning to the fanatical Poles."
Document NG-369 is offered in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 125.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence, and we will take the noon recess at this time. We will again convene at 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION:
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, I would like first to make a suggestion that during the afternoon recess the defense counsel would get together and choose a committee of not more than three, and they would then come to my room 243 at the close of the session and we will try to work out a stipulation on handling translations that I believe will be satisfactory, and this I am sure the Court wants us to do as soon as we can.
I would like to have Dr. Conrad Ferdinand Wilhelm Behl called, please
DR. CONRAD FERDINAND WILHELM BEHL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Onmiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
"The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Will you sit down, Doctor? Doctor, will you tell the Tribunal your name?
A Dr. Wilhelm Behl.
Q And what is your present position, Doctor?
A Langerichtspraesident in Schweinfurt.
Q Doctor, have you in your life done translations from English to German and German to English?
A Yes, at the time when I was not in office during the Third Reich.
Q And I believe that in 1928 and '29 you appeared before the AngloGerman Mixed Arbitral Tribunal in London on behalf of the German government as attorney; is that correct?
A Yes. I was representative for the state, for the German Reich, before the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitration Tribunal in London.
Q There you conducted the proceedings in English; is that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q You are completely conversant with both the German and the English languages?
A Yes, I am.
Q Doctor, will you tell the Tribunal your general and legal education.
A I was born in Berlin on the 3rd of March, 1889. There I attended high school and followed an economics course. In Munich and Berlin I studied law and legal science. From 1907 until 1910 I was the legal assistant. From '10 until '15 I became legal assessor and represented a lawyer and public notary during the first World War. I took over his practice in Schloppau in Silesia. I was active as public prosecutor in Berlin from 1917 until 1925 and then I became Amtsgerichtrat, that is, legal counsellor, at the local court, Berlin-Tempelhof, from 1925 until 1930. During this time I became the legal officer of the German foreign office sent me as Gorman representative to the Arbitration Tribunal in London. In 1930 as government counsel I became a member of the inner administration and was active in the German as well a sin the Prussian administration. I was director and president of the examining office for defiling and dirty literature and the Reichminister of the Interior in Berlin from 1930 until 1932. At the same time I was in charge of theater and art matters in Berlin. In 1932 I already after the Papen affair in July was transferred to a cultural political position there and was still active in the administration of water traffic until September 1935 Then on the basis of the so-called law for the restitution of provisional civil service, Paragraph 6, I was retired. At the outbreak of the second World War on the basis of an order issued at that time I again had to return to my office for a temporary period as a legal official for civil arguments and for the restitution of damage, etc., I was employed in that capacity. However, already in 1941 on the demand of the Nazi party as insufferable I was again discharged. In the meantime I occupied myself with literary activities. That is how I made a living, in addition to the pension which I receive after the collapse of the Third Reich, at which time I was in the Oberpfalz in the city of Kemnath in July 1945. The American Military Government, with the reopening of the local court there, the American government ordered me to reopen it. 363 I worked there for a year and then the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, on the first of September 1946, appointed me President, Presiding Judge of the District Court at Schweinfurt.
Q. And are you the presiding judge now, doctor, at Schweinfurt?
A. Yes, that I am now.
Q. Do you know Dr. Karl W. Jacobi?
A. Yes, I know Dr. Karl Jacobi since 1908.
Q. Do you know anything about his legal training or education?
A. He has the same education that I have. From 1908 until 1910, we studied together in Berlin, and in 1920, when he came to the Public Prosecution in Berlin, I still worked together with him as his colleague. Then he was still for a long time, until 1933, working as Attorney General, and particularly through working on economic and tax questions, he became well-known. In 1933, because of his Jewish descent, he was pensioned until 1933. He was still active as adviser on questions of foreign exchange, and then he was in charge of administering American property in Germany. During this entire time, until his immigration about Spring 1941, I was in constant contact and in a friendly relationship with him.
Q. Doctor, during all this time t hat you knew him, and that you knew him in Berlin while he was a practicing lawyer, did you become acquainted with his reputation among the practicing attorneys and the Bench and the Bar of Berlin as to his ability in legal knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. I ask you what was that reputation?
A. His reputation was very good. I still remember one conversation I had with the deceased lawyer, Professor Ahlsberg, about Jacobi. He knew him from his activity in economic matters and he knew him as his opponent, and he made especially favorable remarks about his activity and his abilities.
Q. That reputation, I ask you, was general throughout the members of the profession in Berlin, that Dr. Jacobi was an able and competent student of the law, is that right?
A. As far as I talked with colleagues and lawyers, I have to affirm this.
Q. Do you have with you in the witness box, a work on German Substantive Criminal Law?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What work is that, Doctor?
A. It is prepared by Jacobi.
Q. Are you acquainted with that article and treatise, Doctor?
A. Yes, I have looked through it and read through it very carefully.
Q. That is the same Karl Jacobi about whom you just testified?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you also have with you any text books on German Criminal Law procedure? If so, tell the Court what they are.
A. I have two short commentaries -- editions of the Reich Legal Counsel, Otto Schwarz: the Reich Legal Code and Criminal Procedure, with all additional laws and war time supplements. Both in the 7th edition. In the year 1943, these books were in fact, in practice, used extensively.
Q. Were they considered to be standard books of practice and assistance for lawyers practicing criminal law, both before and after 1933, Doctor?
A. Yes, already before these books had appeared in earlier editions: later, however, especially during the Third Reich, they were used in legal practice.
Q. Now, I wonder if, from your own knowledge and any of your own notes and from your study of the work of Dr. Jacobi and from the accredited books on German criminal code and procedure, you will tell us first about the Court system in Germany prior to the advent of the National Socialist Party in 1933, and then contrast that with the system which developed after that date up until the end of the war.
A. The Administration of Justice, before the Nazi Regime in the era of Kaiser Wilhelm and the Weimar Republik, was of such a nature that the individual countries exercised the justice, especially as they were in charge of the appointment of judges and public prosecutors. Also, the granting of pardon, clemency pleas -- they guarded this as their sovereign right. The Reich Ministry of Justice was at that time, in particular, concerned with the preparation of laws. So that was the condition in the year 1933, when with the seizure of power by the National Socialists, soon the tendency to a strong centralization became apparent. Already in 1934, the Prussian Ministry of Justice was merged with the Reich ministry of Justice, and in April 1933, the entire administration of justice had already been taken over by the Reich, as was said in a ratter unpleasant expression, "Vereichlicht" -- made part of the Reich. Thereupon, the administration of justice of the individual provinces was discontinued and the entire direction and responsibility had been transferred to the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Already at an earlier time, the promulgation of laws and all important matters was made by the Reich. The laws were issued by the Reich. The centralization was in existence already long before the advent of National Socialism. The administration and execution of justice by judges were carried out by judges who were independent and subject only to the law. This basic principle is mentioned in the Reich Constitution of Weimar, in Article 102. That is laid down in this article. However, it existed already in the old Prussian Constitution of 1850, and one could find it also in the Constitution of Courts of 1877 in the first paragraph.
A second basic principle which is in the Weimar Constitution, in Article 103, is as follows: The ordinary legal jurisdiction is exercised by the Reich court and the courts of the provinces. That, as I said, presumed that the individual provinces still had some jurisdiction 566
Q. Excuse me, Doctor, what were the traditional regular courts prior to 1933?
A. The ordinary jurisdiction consisted of local courts as the lowest court cases of civil and criminal law of minor importance. The borderline to which the cases were submitted to the local courts was often changed in the course of time. Small local courts had only one judge. There were courts with several judges; one of whom then was in charge of the administration. And in larger cities, the courts had judges with higher titles, that is Amtsgerichtsdirectors, or Presidents of local courts.
Then there were the provincial district courts over the local courts. These worked on more important civil cases and in criminal chamber and Schwurgerichten, jury cases. The form of jury courts was changed in 1924. The President of the District Court is in charge of the District Court. In addition to that there were directors of districts courts who presided over the chambers. There were criminal chambers or divisions and civil chambers. And there were some district courts for special matters about economic questions.
Over these are the district courts of appeal, Oberlandesgerichte, as courts of appeal and especially for review. The Chief of the District Court of Appeal is the President of the District Court of Appeal. For each division there are senates who are presided over by senate presidents.
The entire administration of these courts is presided over by the President of the District Court of Appeal. He, himself, follows the directive of the ministries.
Q. Excuse me, Doctor, the ministries to which you refer now are the Land Ministries, the Ministries of the German states?
A. Yes. The only Reich court was the highest court at Leipzig which also had the name Reich Court. Thu Reich Court made all important decisions in questions which concerned the revision in Reich law. The decision of this ReichCourt was always divided into senates. These decisions were currently published and they influenced the jurisdiction of other courts in an important way. However, there exists in German law nothing like the precedent which you have in Anglo-Saxon law. Every judge of a local court is at liberty to lot his verdict differ from a decision laid down by the Reich Court.
Q. Were there r were there not changes made in this system of courts? Were additional courts added along with other functions after the advent of Nazi Party to power in February of 1933? Were there changes then in this system.
A. Afterwards, you mean?
Q. Yes. Afterwards, important changes were made.
Q. Tell us about those.
A. The development went in the following direction. Its aim was to take certain special cases out of the jurisdiction of ordinary courts and to establish special courts, Sondergerichte, for those cases.
They would have exclusive jurisdiction over these cases.
Immediately after the taking over of power by the Nazis, a decree was issued about the creation of special courts in every district where there was a District Court of Appeal. This decree was issued on 21 March 1933. The people appointed to these courts were judges from the district where there were District Courts of Appeal. At first, in each such a district, there was only one special court each. But later on, when more and more cases came before the special courts, and their competence was increased, special court for each such district were provided. These special courts had such an extensive jurisdiction, that in addition to the jurisdiction which had been laid down in the law, they became competent for other crimes if the prosecute was of the opinion that the immediate judgment by the special court in view of the graveness, seriousness, or objectionableness of the act or because of the excitement caused in the public, or because of some serious endangering of public order this was desirable.
Q. Pardon me, Doctor, is there a Reichsgesetzblatt reference to the provision you have just been reading?
A. Volume 1, page 405.
Q. That was in the year 1940?
A. 1940, yes.
Q. Thank you.
A. In practice, the special courts had grown to such an extent, they swel** to such an extent, that ordinary jurisdiction became an exception rather the the rule. And if the decree of what the Reich Constitution says, in Article 103 is not absolutely contraty to the formation of special courts, neverthel the principle has to be applied which Professor Anschuetz suggested. He is the most important authority on this field of constitutional law. I refer to the principle he suggested in his commentary on the Reich Constitution the the possibility of special courts is limited by the fact that special courts should never become the rule rather than the exception, and in this way, in Curtain sense, swallow up the ordinary courts.
Q. Dr. May I ask you prior to the rise of the control of Germany by the Hitler government, was there at any time either under the Papen Government or just prior to that time, a period of time in which there was a form of special court in Germany? And if there was, tell whether it differed in any way from the special courts which arose under the Nazis.
A. Under the government of Breuning, under the emergency decree, the Third Reich emergency decree of the president of the Reich of October 8, 1, the Reich government is empowered to establish special courts in this decree which, however, was not used at all during the government of Breuning. The is also some stipulation about ending the activities of the special court; then through the National Socialist activities the situation become constant less secure, and, therefore Papen's government actually used this decree or powering them to establish special courts, and it did so by a decree of the Reich government with the creation of special courts, of 9 August, 1932; it is this decree that, a few weeks after Papen's attack against the Prussi** government; here certain crimes were mentioned, among them the crimes of paragraphs 211 to 215, murder, etc., the dynamite law, which were to be judged by special courts. This decree about special courts, in some detail particularly has some semblance to the latter decree of the Third Reich, is noticeable, however, stipulation of paragraph 17 of this decree, which points out the temporary and provisional nature of those special courts. opening in favor of the sentenced person was permissible if facts or evidence made it necessary to review the matter in an ordinary trial, in a regular trial. This stipulation shows the big and fundamental difference between this temporary establishment of special courts and the later one in the Thi** Reich, which must have been meant to be permanent according to the entire structure of the Third Reich.
Q. Doctor, in addition to the special courts, were there other courts outside of the regular courts which existed prior to 1933 established by the Nazi regime; do you know anything about the Peoples' Court?
A. Yes. In 1934 the peoples' Court was established, apparently as a result of the disappointment of the National Socialists about the sentence the trial concerning the arson of the Reichstag, in which four defendants acquitted. The Peoples' Court replaced the Reichsstaat insofar as it was competent for quest ions of treason and high treason. It replaced it entire in the place of the judges of the Peoples' Court, they were in audition to professional judges who were chosen very carefully in accordance with the ideology of the government.
In addition to these two judges there weren't high party functionaries or military people; here there were thus even the few judges whom it was considered possible to choose for the Peoples' Court; even these were in the minority compared to the representatives of the party interests.
Q. Doctor, I will also ask you now to tell us about the judiciary of the German courts prior to 1933- whether or not the extent, if any, of the liberty which they enjoyed, the freedom of decision, and compare the situation then as you observed it in Germany after the rise of the Third Reich.
A. For the judges before the advent of the Third Reich, the principle which I have already cited, and which was contained in the constitution of every legal Reichstag, was that the judge should be independent and only subject to what was applicable to them. The methods, in accordance with the methods of the National Socialists, the maintenance of this principle even during the Third Reich was simulated; a mask of independence was put on the judge; however, the mask was rigid and was muddled by National Socialism Already the education of a young student of law was done in such a manner no was schooled in the principles and the so-called ideology of National Socialism. I have noted several points in this connection from decrees of the Prussian ministry of Justice of 1934; that was before everything was centralized in the Reich Ministry of Justice; a general decree of the Pru** Ministry of Justice of Hay 16, 1934, about the education of legal assistant and referent rs in German justice, page 636. It describes the following principles laid down; the following basic principles, I quote: "Thu task every aspiring legal student who is receptive to the great ideas of the new times, to cooperate in the building up of National Socialist justice, to the principle the following arc to serve: Education and labor cooperatives; it says expressly that the loaders of these cooperatives have to be convinced National Socialists." according to the Prussian Minister of Justice of the time, Kerrl -- the camp was named after him --- served this purpose in parti lar, and I have frequently been told by young law students who had been in this camp, the kind of propaganda, lectures and so-called schooling they received there, and which they had to listen to there.
Further more, I have written down a general decree of the Prussian Ministry of Justice of May 11, 1934, German Justice, page 632, in which clarity cannot be misunderstood; it said that all legal assistants and assessors, especially future judges and prosecutors, that the minister expects of them that they put themselves at the service of the Nazi movement with pleasure, which is the backbone of the National Socialist State. In my resent capacity, as Presiding Judge of the District Court, in which capacity I have to do with donazification matters of younger judges and assessors, almost all young lawyers tell me that the threat which were almost open, and the pressure of activities in the organization of the party, or the SA, caused them to report there and to become members, in order not to lose their future profession.
Q. Doctor, did the judge himself, after 1933, with reference to his previous independence under civil service and his previous rights against indiscriminate disciplinary matters, did that change any after 1933 from what it had been prior to 1933?
A. Also the judges were under constant pressure and a considerable number of judges who resisted this pressure and their activities, objected to the principles and ideals of the state of law of the Reichsstaat, and tried to apply them further. They, under constantly growing worry, and under constantly growing pressure, legal characters, in the course of years, after a while, submitted to this pressure.
Q. Doctor, I will ask you whether or not there was a tine after the rise of the Nazi to power, in 1933, and at the beginning of the war with Poland, September 1, 1939, that if it was necessary for the judges of the courts to wear any distinctive mark on their judicial robes?
A. Yes, something that I saw from the outside which I regard as one of the most despicable acts, that is, the so-called Fuehrer's decree of 19 June 1936 to one German judges and prosecutors, the so-called sovereignty insign** which had as its most important symbol the swastika, a symbol of racial hatred, oi persecution; that is something absolutely opposite to the meaning of the functions of a judge.
Q. Excuse me, Doctor, may I interrupt you a second. This was after the Hamburg laws of 1935?
A. Yes.
Q And, I think you said it was opposite to the standard of the judges, you are referring, are you not, to the training and understanding which the German jurist had prior to the advent of the Nazi? It is in conflict with the training you had prior to 1933, is it not, Doctor?
A. Yes, that is it.
Q. So I ask you whether or not, in your opinion, this subordination of the bench to the Government and the influence of racial policy of the Nazi Government, and the series of oppressions through a judicial process were foreign to the traditional training of the German judicial system from the time of 1870 on down to 1933?
A. It w s absolutely foreign to the legal education which I and all the of my generation, and the generation proceeding it, and even of a later one, before 1933 had received, yes. And the fuehrer's decree about having to wear this sovereignty insigna, the State Secretary, Freislor, at that time published a note of thanks in a German Justice, and I think that one sentence from it is particularly remarkable:
"In us there is nothing of neutral justice." This is a rather roundabout expression. Neutral justice is a rather unclear expression, and can only have the meaning of objective justice
Q. I ask you then, Doctor, now with reference to the establishment after 1933 of the unification of the administration of justice in Germany, in the Reich, as distinguished from the power prior to that time of the Reichsstaat to try and pass certain national laws; that the administration of justice which took place after 1933' from the rise of the Nazi in the administration of justice, if anything was different to that which existed prior to that of 1933. Was there a unification throughout the Reich. Before 1933 tine law had its own administration?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you explain what happened after that and to what extent, and whether it was known in Germany before that?
A. As I have already stated, in the year 1935, the entire administrative of justice was taken over by the Reich and was now administered by the Reich, directed by the Reich Ministry of Justice in a centralized fashion. In addition to it and under it, there were not further judicial authorities of the provinces. These existed no longer.
A. Who, if any one, appointed the judges?
A. The judges were appointed by Hitler, and before that the Ministry of Justice or provinces had appointed them. It has been noticeable that the National Socialist party soon was cooperative in the appointment of the judges, getting permission to cooperate by the decree, about the participate of the Deputy of the Fuehrer in the appointment of the civil servants of 24 September 1935. He decreed that a copy of the subject for the advancement for promotion, that statements about the personalities of the civil servants had to be shown to the Deputy of the Fuehrer, and that he had to be given an adequate period to state his opinion on the matter.
Q. Doctor, may we address ourselves, then, to the question of German criminal law and procedure, as it existed prior to the Spring -- late February, early March 1933, prior to that date and subsequent to that date -Excuse me just a moment.
MR. LA FOLETTE: May I say, your Honor, I am a little tired, and I have to stand mere, and I know it is not time for a recess, but I would appreciate a recess at this time.
THE PRESIDE: It is a very appropriate time in my judgment.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May I also say that I am advised that a rule was passed in Tribunal I that during the intermission, at least during cross-examination of a witness, he may not be with his counsel during any intermission of this sort. New I don't know whether this Court wants it to apply to direct examination. At this particular time I have no desire to confer with the witness during the intermission, and I think perhaps we had better not make a precedent, but I am willing at this time--It is another one of the procedural natters that I think we will want to talk about.
DR. SCHILF (Counsel for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): I believe what was just suggested by the prosecutor would not be correct if now, during the recess, we would not have an opportunity to talk to our clients about one thing or another. That would not be correct.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No, I am sorry, the witness.
DR. SCHILF: Oh, I misunderstood that. I an sorry, I understood that during the recess we were net allowed to speak to our clients. I ask to be excused; I misunderstood.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I don't know what, eventually, the Court will rule. It is a rule that counsel very often conference with their witnesses in the States during an intermission, but until we make a rule, I am perfectly willing to restrict myself to sitting down some place.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. LaFOLLETTE:
Q I assume there will be no objection if I repeat the last question before we recessed. Doctor, having regard now to the subject of the substantive criminal law and the criminal procedure which existed in Germany prior to late February and early March 1933 and that which existed after that date, will you discuss that question from your knowledge and give us the differences and changes, if any, which took place, please?
A Soon after January 1933 the principles of the criminal code of procedure were changed and turned upside down. The so-called law van der Luebbe which after the Reichstag fire was promulgated, after the Reichstag fire the principle hitherto completely alien to German law nulla poena sine lege, was replaced by introducing the death penalty for crimes which hitherto had not been punished by the death penalty, but which, committed before that law came into force, were threatened with the death penalty. This was a preparation for the trial on the Reichstag fire and, so to speak, a hint for the court which would have to try this case. After the so-called Roehm putsch the law of 3 June 1934 was promulgated, the sole clause of which concerned the squashing of attacks concerning treason or high treason during the three days from 30 June to 2 July 1934. This clause declared these measures legal on account of the legislator who, without legal procedure, without judgment, had arrogated himself to the position of hangman. The public did not know to what extent that self-amnesty was carried out in practice. At any rate, after the commission of criminal deeds the so-called "squashing" of high treason and of treasonable attacks simultaneously meant the elimination of adversaries and persons who had knowledge of such things, that in fact the two went together -- of that the public did hear. There is also this case which I can only mention as far as I have heard of it through rumors, in which in which a journalist was killed by mistake because he was being confused with somebody who was supposed to have played a part in the Roehm putsch. He had the same name as that man.