MR. SCHUBERT: Document 190 will be Exhibit 126. This document contains extracts from the files in the Fuchsbauer case. The file consists of the indictment and the verdict. On page 71 of my document book we can see from the indictment that the prosecution filed the indictment against the defendant under Article I of the amended law.
Document 188 will be exhibit 127. It contains extracts from the Gruber case. The files contain the indictment and the verdict. I should like to refer you to page 1 of the indictment, where it is said that the prosecution intended to ask for the death sentence.
The last document in this book, No. 107, I am offering was Exhibit 128. These are extracts from the Hahn case. The files also contain the indictment and the verdict.
On page 1 of this indictment too, we can see that the prosecution intended to ask for the death sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: These exhibits are received. All of the exhibits arc received.
DR. SCHUBERT: May I now pass on to Document Book 5. The first document in this book is No. 171, which is offered as 129.
This contains the indictment from the Mahr case; on page 1 of the indictment we see that the prosecution again intended to ask for the death sentence. There follows the transcript from the trial.
On page 6 of the transcript, I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the defense counsel of the defendant himself asked that the defendant be taken to safety custody, that is to say, the defense counsel himself regarded his client as a dangerous habitual criminal.
I am offering this document as 129.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 136 deals with the same case. It will be exhibit 130 . This contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Court dealing with the Mahr case.
Document 55 will be Exhibit 131. It contains the verdict in the Pritschet case, and the opinion of the prosecution concerning the clemency plea to which the defendant Oeschey referred when he was on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 62 will become Exhibit 132. It concerns excerpts from the files of the Reigelbauer case. It contains the expert opinion of the expert.
Document 112 will become Exhibit 133. It contains excerpts from the files of the Strobel case which has been discussed here many times.
On page 29 and the following pages, it contains the transcript from the first trial. On page 32 and following pages, you will find the transcript from the second trial.
On page 35 and the following, there is the verdict, and finally, on page 44, you will find a report which was sent by the public prosecutor in between the first and the second trial.
I am offering this document as Exhibit 133.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: The next document, 147, which will be exhibit 134 also deals with the Strobel case. It contains the decision by the Reich Supreme Court to which the defendant Oeschey referred.
This dates back to the year 1383. At that time the Reich Supreme Court ruled that in a case of several trials being held, it is sufficient that at the end of the first trial, the attention of the defendant is drawn once to the fact that the legal point of view has undergone a change.
The next document, No. 33, relates to the same problem. It contains an excerpt from Loewe, on the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am offering this document as Exhibit 135.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 185; which will become Exhibit 136, also refers to the Strobel. case. It contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Court on the question as to whether it is necessary to explain finally that a defendant has a criminal inclination, or it is necessary to refer to offense which are not identical with the last offense by the defendant The following documents deal with the clemency of the W Dowen case.
Document 149, Exhibit 137, is the last document which I intend to offer. It contains police transcripts concerning the interrogation of Kaminska-Wdowen It also contains the opinion by the court expert. The transcripts of expert opinions were not contained in the extracts of the files the prosecution presented.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 136 and 137 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 109 will be Exhibit 138. This is an excerpt from the book on Criminal Law, and deals particularly with the question of what objects are regarded as identical with the weapons within the meaning of the law against violent criminals.
Document 105 deals with the same problem. The exhibit number will be 139.
This contains a decision by the Supreme Court of Breslau.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 138 and 139 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 104. which will be exhibit 140, also deals with the same problem. It contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Court according to which a hard blow with the fist may be regarded as equally dangerous as the use of weapons.
Document 129, which I am offering as Exhibit 142, also relates to the same problem.
THE PRESIDENT: 129?
DR. SCHUBERT: 129.
THE PRESIDENT: 129, 140, 141 and 142 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 100 will be exhibit 143. It is an excerpt from a decision by the Reich Supreme Court concerning Article 1 of the law against violent criminals.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: The decisions and extracts which I have introduced so far referred to the Kaminska case. The following two documents relate to the Wdowen case. Document 127, which will become Exhibit 144, contains an excerpt from German Criminal Law, which deals with the scope of the Public Enemy Law, and states that foreigners too are subject to the Public Enemy Law.
Document 134, which will become Exhibit 145, deals with the problem of exploiting wartime conditions. The following four documents contain affidavits which relate to the case of Wdowen.
Dr. SCHUBERT: Document 195, I am offering as Exhibit 146, Document 194, as Exhibit 147; Document 196 as Exhibit 148--
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Exhibits 144 to 148, inclusive are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Your Honor, Document 198 which I offered as Exhibit 149 has that been received?
THE PRESIDENT: 198?
DR. SCHUBERT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 149 is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 75 deals with the Art case. It contains excerpts from the files containing the indictment and the verdict. I refer to page 1 of the document which contains a note from the indictment according to which the prosecution asked for the death sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 52 will become Exhibit 151. It contains excerpts from the files of the Fischer case.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: It contains the verdict.
Document 94 will become Exhibit 152. This exhibit relates to a case which has been discussed here many times. It is the Therese Mueller case.
The prosecution has also introduced extracts from the files of that case.
The document which am now introducing relates above all to the question as to how far the Special Court was bound by the decision of the Reich Supreme Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: The following two documents relate to the von Praun case.
The first document I offer is Document 38, the exhibit number 153.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: The difference between the malicious acts and the undermining of the defense is exercised here.
Document 119 will become Exhibit 154. It contains a decree by the Reich Minister of Justice, according to which, in the von Praun case too, the court dealt with it accordingly by not transferring it, but merely discontinuing the proceedings and passing on the files to the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the Peoples' Court for his scrutiny.
The next document number 54, which will become Exhibit 155, relates to the Scheck case. It contains the indictment which shows that Scheck was regarded by the prosecution as having committed a particularly serious crime, and the prosecution referred to a provision which provided for the death sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Documents 155 and 156 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 144 will become Exhibit 156.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. 156 is received.
That is Document 144?
DR. SCHUBERT: 144, yes.
This document concerns the Guentner case, which has been discussed here, and particularly during cross-examination.
The last page of this document, shows that the prosecution intended to ask for the death sentence. There is one document which appears in a supplementary volume that belongs to Book V. I do not know whether it ought to go with this volume.
THE PRESIDENT: It has to go with this volume?
DR. SCHUBERT: This supplementary document, No. 199, contains an afidavit by Johann Dirscherl. The Civilian Court Martial had acquitted him. It was a case which was mentioned here. I am offering this document as Exhibit 157.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: I have another supplementary document which belongs with Book 1, and that is my last document. This is my document 200, This is an affidavit which relates to the letter which has been discussed here a great deal, concerning the Doebig affair.
I am offering my document 200 as Exhibit 158.
THE PRESIDENT:Exhibit 158 is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court I have now concluded presenting my evidence on behalf of my client, Oeschey.
THE PRESIDENT: The Oeschey case rests.
You may proceed with the next case.
Josef Alstoctter, a witness, for the defense, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Repeat this oath after me?
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. ORTH:
Q. I am calling the defendant, Altstoetter as a witness on his own behalf.
Where and when were you born?
A. I was born on the 4th of January, 1892, in Griesbach, Lower Bavaria.
Q. You have deposed an affidavit about your career?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that affidavit is correct concerning your career?
A. Yes, that affidavit is correct, but I interposed my memory, and it is possible that various dates concerning the day or the month are not absolutely accurate, but my personal files, which the prosecution has introduced as Exhibit 405, show the dates.
Q. Please tell the Tribunal, briefly, what your career was.
A. From March 1921, until July, 1927, I worked at the Bavarian Ministry of Justice. There I spent 50 per cent of my time and the remainder of my time I spent on cases of civil law, in particular in cases of law of procedure.
From July 1927 until November, 1929, I worked at the Reich Ministry of Justice, where I was an assistant. I worked in the division of both civil law and the administration of civil law.
From the 1st of December 1929 until the first of May 1931, I was Oberamtrichteratsenthofen in the Allgaeu.
From the 1st of May , 1931 until the fist of June, 1932 I was at the District Court Counsellor at the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, and I worked as a Clerk concerning notaries. I also gave some official courses to referendars.
From the 1st of June, 1932, until the outbreak of the war, I was a Judge at the Reich Supreme Court in Leipsiz. I belonged to that court until I was called to work at the Reich Ministry of Justice, that is, until I was appointed Ministerial Director.
During the war my part was purely formal because from the 21st of August, 1939 onward until the beginning of January, 1943, I served with the armed forces.
From February or perhaps March, 1943, until the collapse I was Ministerial Director and head of a department at the Reich Ministry of Justice. I was in charge of the department for civil law, and the administration of civil law.
Q. From 1932 until 1939 you worked at the Reich Supreme Court; is that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you work in the civil senates or the penal senates at the Reich Supreme Court?
A. From the 1st of June, 1932, until the first of April, 1933, I worked in various civil senates; sometimes I worked at three civil senates constantly. From the 1st of April, 1933, until the beginning of 1935, I first worked at the second penal senate for revision, and afterwards at the fifth senate fer revision. Since the beginning of 1935 I work as a member of the third civil senate of the Reich Supreme Court and that year I also become a member of the Reich Labor Court.
Q. Then, you spent about seven years with the Reich Supreme Court, and of those seven years about two years were spent in the penal senate.
A. Yes.
Q. It it correct if on the basis of that fact, and the remaining period of your professional corner, I assume that civil law is your special field.
A. Yes.
Q. Did that make itself felt during your entire professional career?
A. Yes, you can tell that from y careet because not doubt that local point was with the civil law, and it is also true, as shown from the fact that all the time, even before 1933, I had written books on that subject, had compiled a commentary on that subject of civil law.
Q. From the 1st of April, 1933, until the spring of 1935, you belonged to the penal senate. Were any political cases tried by those penal senates?
A. No, I cannot remember one case which in any way had a political coloring or any political flavoring whatsoever. Naturally, it all depended on what one understand by political.
Q. What were the tasks of the penal senate to which you belonged?
A. The penal senates had to decide about the legal recourse to be taken against verdicts passed by the court of assizes; every senate in connection with errors of the district court of appeal, which were allotted to each senate, and we dealt with the area of the District Court of Appeal Berlin. The fifth penal senate dealt mainly with the district of the District Court of Appeal of Duesseldorf. There were also some special cases such as embezzlement, monoply offenses, foreign currency offenses, etc.
Q. From 1933 you belonged to the third civil senate of the Reich Supreme Court. What cases did that civil senate deal with?
A. As from 1935 I belonged to the civil senate. The third civil senate dealt mainly with decisions concerning the legal recourse in the case of verdicts passed by the district courts of appeal all over Germany. It dealt with contracts, it dealt with the claim of civil servants for pay, pension, etc,; and in particular it dealt with claims for compensation in the case of public corporations. It dealt with negligence of official duty in the case of civil servants, etc.
Q. Did that senate deal with political penal cases which in the course of the trial were or been considered criminal?
A. No.
Q. What was the attitude of the Supreme Reich Court concerning the party, and did the Reich Supreme Court in any way allow itself to be influenced by party agencies or state agencies?
A. In the case of decisions by the Reich Supreme Court, the basis of the decisions always was the law which was in effect, and without paying any regard to political opinions of the day. I personally never saw anybody try to influence the Reich Supreme Court. I am firmly convinced that every senate of the Reich Supreme Court would have repudiated any attempt at influence.
Q. Did you take the same view concerning the independence of the Reich Supreme Court of political influence?
A. Yes, naturally; I always and successfully took yp the view that the law, that the decisions of the Reich Supreme Court must be supported by law alone.
Q. You were familiar with conditions in the Reich Supreme Court from 1932 until 1939 when many political excitements occurred in Germany. Please tell the Tribunal briefly what your political attitude was prior to 1933 and what your attitude was concerning the events of 1933.
A. Before 1933 I did not belong to a political party. Before 1933 I was never active for any political party. I did not join the Nazi party in 1933; but in November; 1933 I joined the Stahlhelm, the front soldier's league, because at that time we were hoping that the Stahlhelm, by its more conservative attitude, would exert a moderate influence on the Nazi Party.
Q. In 1934 you became a member of the SA; how did that happen?
A. As I told you judt now, in 1933 I joined the Stahlhelm. The Stahlhelm, at any rate in Leipzig where I was at the time, in the spring of 1933, in a body, joined the SA.
Q. When did you join the Nazi Party, and why did you join?
A. I joined the Nazi Party the 1st of Lay 1937 --- in the course of the civil servant's act, which has been discussed here a great many times.
Q. Concerning your joining the SS and your appointment to the honorable leader of the SS, and your work in the SS, I shall direct questions to you at a later time. Now, I am going over to another question. The witness Behl when he was examined here on the 18th of Larch, 1937, stated that according to the development of the administration of penal law in the years 1933 ta 1939, everybody who took a leading part, or any part at all, had to expect that the administration of penal law would degenerate, although he emphasized that this was only his opinion.
Now I ask you, did you play a leading or any part at all in the administration of penal law in the years from 1933 to 1939?
A. No. Apart from the brief period when I worked with the penal senate, the revision senates, I had nothing to do with penal law. At the time when I worked with the civil senates, any body expected a war at that time.
Q. The witness Behl took it for granted that the degeneration of administration of penal law would be expected by all those who had any idea whatsoever about the tendencies which prevailed with the leading men of the National Socialist movement. I am asking you if you were aware of that.
A. No. Statements by those leading personalities did come to my knowledge, but I thought they were merely propaganda, and therefore as I have to say today, unfortunately I did not take them seriously enough. On the whole I followed the development of the administration of justice with comparative calm and that because of the fact that Dr. Guertner, who was then the Minister of Justice, was a man whom I had know before, and whom I had known since 1933. I thought that he was a guarantor of the fact that the development would be constitutional.
Q. Witness, in summing up for the period until the outbreak of the war in 1939, I ask you did you have anything to do with the promulgation of any penal laws which have been introduced here or which have been discussed here at this trial?
A. No, nothing watsoever.
Q. Did you at that time have anything to do with any the reorganisation of the administration of justice which appears as evidence in an exhibit submitted by the prosecution?
A. No.
Q. In your affidavit, in Exhibit 5. NG-693, you have stated that from the end of August, 1939 until January 1943 you were with the armed forces:
is that right:
A. Yes it is. All that time I belonged to the 475th Infantry Regiment of the 255th Infantry Division, which was in Belgium, France and Russia at the front.
Q I shall revert later to your time in the army. Please tell me whether the Reich Ministry of Justice was instrumental for declaring you indispensable when you left the armed forces.
A Yes, during the second half of November, 1942, I was assigned to the legal reserve of the high command of the armed forces in Berlin. From there, in December, 1942, I was assigned to attend a course in Doeberitz for regimental commanders because the Wehrmacht did not agree with having me placed under the indispensable persons in accordance with the application by the Reich Ministry of Justice. Thierack, the Reich Minister of Justice, however, afterwards did get my name entered on the indispensable persons and on the 25th January, 1943, I was given the status of indispensable.
Q You say that it was due to Thierack that you were given the status of indispensable?
A Yes, quite.
Q According to Document, Exhibit 39. in Document Book I-3, and that is in accordance with No. 12 of the transcript, contained in that document dealing with the conversation between Thierack and Himmler on the 18th of September, 1942, it was Himmler who brought Thierack's attention to you. What do you know about that?
AAll I know about that conversation is this: Approximately at the beginning of October, I received a letter from Himmler while I was at the front, which said some thing like this. I assume that you have already followed the developments of the administration with interest in the press. I am able to tell you that the newly appointed Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack, recently with his under-secretary, Dr. Rothenberger, come to see me at my field headquarters and that in the course of the conversation, which lasted for several hours, discussed questions which were of mutual interest to us. If you should receive a request to assume a position in the administration of justice, I ask you not to offer any resistance to having you placed on the list of indispensable personnel. That was the letter from Himmler which I received at that time.
I did not hear from the Reich Ministry of Justice, but I gathered from that letter all I know about the conversation between Thierack and Himmler in September, 1942, and even at the time of the collapse I had not received any further information.
Q What steps did you undertake?
A I wasn't particularly happy about that letter. I was surprised, and, as a soldier, I did not feel I wanted to leave my troops. On the other hand, I didn't know whether perhaps it was a duty for me to comply with such a request. I discussed the matter with my military superiors and I told them what view I took of the matter. My military superiors altogether shared my view end promised me that they at their initiative would take steps against my being given the status of indispensable. However, they advised me not to give an open refusal to Himmler. Thereupon I wrote to Himmler and told him that I would not like to leave my unit, but that while there was a war on, if it was absolutely necessary, I would not refuse and I would do my duty wherever I was placed.
Q What were the further developments?
A For a few weeks I did not hear anything, and I certainly did not hear that the Reich Ministry of Justice had asked for me until suddenly at the middle of November, as I told you earlier, my transfer to the leader reserve of the high command of the army came through. My superior tried to have that transfer canceled, but they didn't manage that. At the end of November, I went to Berlin and reported to the competent personnel chief with the high command of the army. He was Colonel Marx. He told me that the Reich Minister of Justice wanted me placed on the list of indispensable personnel, but the high command of the armed forces did not want to comply with Himmler's wish. He told me that I had better try to have a personnel talk with Reich Minister of Justice Dr. Thierack, and to get him to take back his application.
Q And what was Thierack's attitude toward your request?
A To start with, Thierack was angry that I did not want to come, but then he told me that my resistance would be of no avail to me. Hitler himself, and Heitel, therefore, had promised him that a number of members of the judiciary who were at the moment at the front and otherwise in the service of the armed forces, at his application, would be given the status of indispensable personnel. I was among the men whom he wanted to join the administration of justice. He had to attach importance to the fact that he needed officials in the Ministry who had stood their test at the front in the armed forces. During that first talk with Thierack, I immediately asked him expressly and pointed out to him that my decision was above all dependent upon his reply to my question whether, as I was bound to assume according to Himmler's letter, I was appointed by Himmler or whether Thierack wished me to be given the status of indispensable personnel. Thierack said in reply that it was he who had called me. After all he knew me since the days in the Reich Supreme Court in Leipzig, but he had expected me to resist. From his own point of view he could see it because he himself twice during the war had his name placed on the indispensable list and every time that had been against his own will. And so as to break my resistance, he asked Himmler, by personal letter to me, to prevent me from offering any opposition.
Q Did you tell Thierack that you agreed to be given the status of indispensable?
A No, I didn't. I merely told him that to begin with I would have to report to Colonel Marx about the outcome of our conversation. I did not know -
THE PRESIDENT: Ultimately you were declared indispensable and took a position; did you not?
A No, not immediately. First I was transferred and it was at a later time that I was given the indispensable status.
THE PRESIDENT: The time we are interested in is when you went to work after you left the armed forces, of course.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q When did you join the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A In January, 1943.
Q What was your position at the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A To be in with I worked in Department VI; that was a department for civil law. Approximately at the middle of January - I can't tell you the exact date - I was placed in charge provisionally of the department; and when, on the 1st of March, 1943, I was promoted Ministerial Director, I took charge of that department. I have already pointed out what tasks that department dealt with, particularly as can be seen from the distribution of work plans which the prosecution has introduced.
Q Witness, I am now handing you a document. Will you tell us something about it?
A It contains the organization of Department VI of the Reich Ministry of Justice as it was in 1944. Do you wish any details?
Q Yes, please.
A There are four sub-sections. A, for civil law, without family law; B, family law and racial law; C, civil administration of civil law; D, the office for reorganization of German judicature; and there is also another column which shows those sections which were immediately subordinate to the head of the department.
I see that not all sections and sub-sections have been entered in this chart. This is just an outline.
Q. Your Honor, this plan shows the organization of department 6, which I should like to introduce for the purpose of information, when I present my documents, and I am offering it now for the purpose of identification as Altstoetter Exhibit No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked Exhibit I for identification.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May I ask? I think it indicates - here it is numbered as document No. 85.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 85?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Document 85.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank You.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q. Witness, when you joined the Ministry of Justice, did the minister lay down certain directives for your work?
A. I asked Minister Thierack whether he wished to lay down certain legal and political directives since he, the Minister, was in charge of the ministry, and I in charge of a department. Thierack said to me that he did not wish to lay down definite legal or political directives for the sphere with which I was going to be concerned. He then assigned to me three fields of work as being particularly urgent. No. I. was the preparation for the re-organization of the form of the administration of justice; two was the civilian courts investigation and civil permits; and three, the execution of measures for an early settlement of the many arrears that had accumulated with the Reich Patent office. Generally, Thierack referred me to under-secretary Rothenberger and told me that Rothenberger, in accordance with their agreement would be in charge of the various spheres that belonged to my department, whereas he, Thierack, to begin with would concern himself mainly with the penal department.
Q. Did under-secretary Rothenberger lay down any directives for your work?
A. No, he didn't. Under-secretary Rothenberger only discussed his own plans with me.
Q. A little while ago you said that Thierack told you he knew you from the days of the Reich Supreme Court. What was your personal relationship with Thierack?
A. I think it was in 1935, but I can't tell you for certain, that Thierack had been Vice President of the Reich Supreme Court. During that time I talked to him only once and then only for a short while. I had never met him before or afterwards, neither at the Supreme Court, nor until the time when I was assigned to the Reich Ministry of Justice did I have any official or private dealings with him. Thierack says he knew me from the days of the Reich Supreme Court, I think all he meant to say was he knew my name and reputation as a Judge of the Reich Supreme Court.
Q. From the fact that Thierack appointed you and the picture which had been established at the trial here one must draw the conclusion that he endorsed you and you seemed to him a suitable person to put into effect his plans?
A. As to what Thierack thought of me I can't tell you. He never discussed that point with me. If he considered me a man whom he could trust, and since you mentioned just now he must have noticed very soon that he had been wrong, for we had serious clashes, because I adhered to my point of view obstinately if the questions were of any significance. For the rest, even today, I lack all indication as to Thierack's plans, which in the course of this trial have come to light, in any way related to the work of department 6. On the contrary, Thierack at the very beginning of my taking over the office, I think it was during the second conversation he had with me, when I asked him whether he had any legal or political directives to give, I think he told me expressly that sphere of cases had no topical significance in war time.
Q. Did you ever hear of Thierack's plans in particular. Did you hear of his arrangement with Himmler or of his letter to Bormann written on the 13th of October 1942, which was discussed here repeatedly did you know of that before you started work for the Reich Ministry of Justice, or while you were working there?
A. No, not even by implication. I had nothing whatsoever to do with those matters in my sphere of work, and therefore such questions were never brought to my notice.
Q. As Exhibit No. 24 the Prosecution has introduced document No. 752. It contains the speech which Hitler made on the 26th of April 1942 before the Reichstag, and the resolution which the Reichstag passed subsequently. Do you remember this document?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear of that speech and that resolution which the Reichstag passed?
A. Yes.
Q. Did one regard those events as an anxious indication that the administration of justice was now to be handed over completely to the executive and would thereby be made a tool for the safeguarding of Hitler's regime?
A. I was at the front when I heard of that speech and naturally I was shocked. I couldn't quite imagine what had happened and what was the purpose of that speech, but naturally that speech and the resolution subsequently passed by the Reichstag caused me a great deal of worry as it did to all of the officials of the administration of justice. I did consider it a transgression of the executive against the guarantee of the constitutional state rights and I did realize that particularly in time of war it would not be easy to counter-act the transgression, if it was meant seriously, effectively. All the more so I considered it the duty of all exponents of the constitutional state to play a part in warding off that transgression. That inner obligation guided me when I joined the Reich Ministry of Justice and during the work I performed there.