At that time we even thought that that campaign was directed against a fairly large number of Jews, but we did think the matter only concerned individual Jews because we assumed that difficulties had occurred in Vienna, because after all there were very many Jews living in Vienna, and we realized that the Jews could not be the friends of the Third Reich; but that all Jews, or very nearly all Jews were to be deported, or had already been deported, of that we had no knowledge, and we certainly did not assume that on the basis of the letter, because at our special request the police had told us that they were willing to procure those witnesses who in our view were required. Therefore, it was obvious that those people were alive and that they existed. For the rest, the police and the SS, I would never have mentioned in the same breath that the SS as such had something to do with the deportation of Jews. I am referring to the general SS, that is the SS to which I am referring at the moment; that I don't know until now, as far as I know, one can only gather from the IMT verdict and it was the Gestapo which must be charged with carrying out of those deportations.
Q. The witness Behl testified that a high ranking official of the Reich Ministry of Justice, even if he came to Berlin only in October, 1943, must have heard of the incidents in the concentration camps -unless he lived like a hermit. What do you have to say to that?
A. I have already indicated that the same is true of Berlin that was true in Leipzig for me, but that testimony by Behl neglected mainly, to tell you briefly, hew in that most difficult time of the war I lived in Berlin, I may say without exaggeration that I lived almost like a commit. I lived all by myself in a furnished room, and the other tenants have not there. I had to take care of myself. All day I was in my office until late in the evening, sometimes it was nine or nine--thirty when I left. In August 1943, the department was evacuated and I was always going on trips to Boehnisch-Laipa where my department was, and I had to go on many official trips.
In November 1943 during an air raid, my apartment was completely destroyed, and afterwards whenever I was in Berlin I stayed in a hotel -- every time I went to a different hotel. Only from February, 1944, did I find another furnished apartment. May be it was two nights a week that I stayed at that apartment. The rest of the time I was away from Berlin. I never met anybody and therefore I had no opportunity to hear of those misdeeds; and I should like to say that I detest those deeds just as much as any other human being. For the rest, I should like to point out that the witness Behl in his testimony, unless I am wrong, said that for a long time he had worked with the police president's office in Berlin. Furthermore, he said that he was one of the most determined opponents of the regimes he also said that even with the police president, that is to say at the very source, if I may call it that, officially or otherwise, he heard nothing about concentration camp atrocities, if I may call them that.
Q. Witness, the Prosecution , however, maintains that you, as a department head at the Reich Ministry of Justice could not have remained in ignorance of the preparations made for the deportation of Jews, Poles, Russians, Gypsies and a.social delements from the ordinary prisons to concentration camps; that you could not have remained in ignorance of other measures taken by the SS either. Would you please comment briefly on that?
A. As to what is understood by other measures taken by the SS of which I should have heard as a department head at the Reich Ministry of Justice, I don't know what they are supposed to be. At the Reich Ministry of Justice I did not hear of any measures which justified and conclusion to be drawn that criminal acts were being committed. I did not hear of such acts on the part of the Reich Ministry of Justice or on the part of the SS. Of the many things which have been discussed at this trial, in particular, as concerns the transfers to the police and the great difficulties which prior to 1943 existed in the Reich Ministry of Justice in its relations with the SS, I heard only at this trial here.
The transfers which the Prosecution has mentioned, the transfers of the criminals who belonged to certain races, and of asocial elements, to the concentration camps in no way were the concern of my department. Therefore, I did not hear anything about them at all. Those matters were kept so secret that even a department head of a different department heard nothing about them. After I had been in the Reich Ministry of Justice for some considerable time, I heard for the first time that Herr Engert was working there, too. I made inquiries as to what Herr Engert's job was. I was told that he had a special mission, and that it was a secret mission. When I asked why, I was told that he was dealing with secret armament plans, and that is why his mission was being kept a secret. Therefore, I did not make any further inquiries. Of his assistants I met (ministerialrat) Ministerial counselor Huuperschwiller, in November 1944; that was when he came to talk to me. The other assistant, Herr Meyer, I have never net. I don't know him even by sight. I asked Herr Hupperschwiller at the time where he was working and he told me that he was working in Department IV. As for the work he did for the sphere of work of Herr Engert, he didn't tell me anything about that. As concerns the contents of the conferences held between Thierack and Himmler in September 1942, apart from what I have told you here about it, I heard nothing about it until the very end. It was only here, in Nurnberg, that I heard of it, and here, in Nurnberg, it was also that I heard for the first time of that extermination letter which Thierack wrote to Bormann in October, 1942. Secret matters were handled with such top secrecy at the Reich Ministry of Justice, and probably at other Ministries, too -- any way I must assume that they were -- that beyond the circle of persons who dealt with it, nobody ever heard anything about them unless one was one of those people who tried to get some information everywhere -- perhaps some of those sort of snoopers heard something about it, but it wasn't my business to snoop.
It isn't true, and I have to protest again that it isn't true as the Prosecution assumes, that I knew of Himmler's so-called program and that I was very well acquainted with it and that I had anything to do with the carrying out of that program.
Court No. III, Case No. III.
Q. The Prosecution in submitting Exhibit 451 says that Himmler during the conference at Kochem informed the leaders of the administration of justice about his criminal plans, is that true?
A. No, Himmler never touched upon that question at Kochem, and I think it is obvious. He didn't know of whom the committee to whom he was talking was composed, and Himmler would have been the last person to tell his secret plans publicly, to people he didn't know about.
Q. Now my last question, witness, and I am referring to the 15th decree concerning the Reich Citizenship Law. In spite of that decree were the Courts able to interpret the law of inheritance so that it held in favor of a Jew?
A. Yes, in my opinion they could.
DR. ORTH: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination? It appears that there is none. You may cross-examine.
Dr. Orth would you indicate for us please - have you any other witnesses?
DR. ORBH: No, Your Honor, I have no witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Only documents?
DR. ORTH: Yes.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. No you remember when Kaltenbrunner became head of the RSHA?
A. According to my memory that was in February 1943.
Q. And he was made head at the suggestion of Himmler, was he not?
A. I don't know, but I assume so.
Q. And had you lived near Kaltenbrunner in your youth?
A. No.
Q. You had written him in July of 1944, thanking him for a letter to you of the 5th of July 1944. Is you recall that correspondence? Let me -
A. Yes, I remember that correspondence. I met Kaltenbrunner in June 1944 on an official trip, and it was in the sleeper that we were introduced to each other. At that time a former schoolmate of mine - by the way he was a Catholic Priest -- had jest sent me a letter, and in that letter he asked me to do something with the police on behalf of his brother-in-law who was somewhere in the last as a Kriminalrat, and who for reasons of health, would like to get back home. I used that opportunity to ask Kaltenbrunner to be allowed to report to him on that matter, and he allowed ue to tell him about it. I then wrote a letter to Kaltenorunner in connection with that matter, and Kaltenorunner later told me that because he himself was not competent to deal with it he had transferred the matter to the Chief of the Police, I can't remember the name of the man. Anyway he passed it on to him.
Q. And then you wrote him on the 18th of July and said that State Secretary Klemm would participate during his absence at the conference concerning transmittal of information by the police to the civil courts. Did you ask him to send information from the police to the civil courts in that conversation that you had and the letters you wrote him?
A. Yes, in all probability I wrote that letter, but at the moment I cannot recall what that letter was concerned with, as far as particulars are concerned.
Q. It was concerned with the transmission of information by the police to the civil courts. That is correct, isn't it?
A. No, no.
Q. Will you read that letter? Isn't that what it says?
A. Do you want me to read it out?
Q. If you would please?
A. Obergruppenfuehrer: Thank you for your letter of the 5th of July 1944, and I should like mo inform you that on account of the fact that I have to stay away from Berlin on official duties for sometime, Under Secretary of State, Klemm, till attend the conference concerning information to be given by the police to the civil courts.
Q. And would you read the name and signature, the way in which you signed this letter, please?
A. On the basis of the ties of comradeship, Heil Hitler, yours most devotedly, signed Altstoetter.
Q. Then it did concern the matter of transmitting police information to the civil courts, didn't it?
A. If I remember correctly, quite a different question was under discussion here. The question under discussion was whether and through what channels the civil courts for the purpose of their forensic work, could obtain information from the police. In civil cases there occurred a number of things where police questions were of interest. In particular at that time the so-called Haftungsprozesse, arrest proceedings, against the Reich and neglect of official duty committed by members of the police were on the increase, and it was obvious that in this connection some police agency had to be appointed which was competent for the investigation of the facts of the case which were at the bottom of such events, and which was meant to be competent. I believe that letter was concerned with this particular problem.
Q. Thank you very much. The Prosecution offers Document NG-1976, as Prosecution Exhibit 585. May I ask you.
Did you have a regular habit of writing to people you had known less than a month as "in soldierly comradeship" and "yours most devotely", did you do that to each one you met on such short notice?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, well than is a custom which today is rather embarrassing. All I can say is I attached importance, from the point of view of the interest of my office, to having pleasant relations with the people whom I met.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. I hand you document NG 2162, which is a letter from Kaltenbrunner to you dated the 4th of December 1944. What was the occasion for you congratulating Kaltenbrunner?
A. I can't recall the occasion. Maybe he had just been awarded the Knight's Cross out I can't tell you for certain.
Q. The Prosecution offers Document NG 2162 as Prosecution Exhibit 586.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. Did you have any knowledge of the duties which Kaltenbrunner was carrying out at the time you had this correspondence with him?
A. I knew that Kaltenbrunner was the head of the RSHA.
Q. And did you have any idea of the activities of the RSHA, what their work was?
A. Yes, I knew that the heads of the political police were sitting there and that the heads of the regular police were also sitting there. Furthermore, I knew from the letterheads that Kaltenbrunner was also the Cheif of the SD. The police tasks which fell within the scope of those groups were dealt with there.
Q. Now I notice in the Prosecution Exhibit 421, which is NG 748, that you list under SS Insignia that you were the recipient of or authorized to wear the "Blood Badge. Will you describe what the Blood Badge was?
A. I am surprised to hear that, that is supposed to have been mentioned there. The Bolld Badge was an award which was awarded by the Party in recognition of the participation in the march to the Feldherrnhalle on the 8th of November 1923.
Q. That was for services rendered in November, 1923. Was that the date of the Hitler Putsch in Munich?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. What organization were you a member of at the time of the Hitler Putsch?
A. Until the 9th of November I belonged to the 7th District of the Inhabitants Home Guard in Munich.
Q. Did you participate against the Putsch or with the forces who were attempting to bring about the Putshh?
A. I did not participate in the Putsch in anyway.
Q. But isn't the Blood Badge only awarded for people who participated in the Putsch?
A. The bind Badge was never awarded to me.
Q. Well is the report of your activities in NG 748, which is Exhibit 421, in error?
A. May I see that? I can't remember it.
Q. I can only offer it to you in English. I am sorry. Would that help? Or perhaps we can get the exhibit, Exhibit 421, we could send for it.
A. May I say this: It seems to me that this list contains merely all of the avialable awards which could be awarded to members of the Party or the SS, out it does not refer to the actual number of badges awarded to the individual members. For example, the Coburg insignia is mentioned here.
Q. Well, did you obtain that?
A. No, and it even mentions the Hitler Youth Insignia in gold and I never possessed that either, because my youthful days were passed by that time.
Q. There is a list there of your promotions in rank in the SS. Is that accurate? Can you tell from the English there whether that is accurate?
A. Well, I should like to point out the following: The list is correct, but one cannot tell from this list tnat the promotions from Sturmbannfuehrer onward were all made all at once in the spring of 1943, with the exception of the promotion to Oberfuehrer. To that rank I was promoted only in June 1944.
Q. And that is a correct date it states there in that translation of the exhibit you have?
A. My promotions were anti-dated to those dates.
Q. But the one as Oberfuehrer is correct?
A. Yes, yes it is.
Q. All right, now then also you did receive the Totenkopfring, did you not?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And that was an insignia that the Totenkopfverbaende were entitled to wear, was it not?
A. No, that was a ring which the SS leaders received, after having been SS leaders for three years. That ring had nothing to do with the death head unit, (Totenkopfverbaende). The death head was, perhaps I may call it, a general symbol of the SS, which, for example, was worn also on the caps of the General SS and I believe that the Waffen SS wore it, too.
Q. Now, may I ask you, as a member of the SS, if the death head or skull was the general insignia of the SS, did tnat nave no significance to you as to the activities or purposes of the SS?
A. Unfortunately I am not informed with sufficient accuracy about the history of the SS, and, therefore I cannot tell you at the moment when the SS acquired that insignia. The way I explained it to myself was that it was meant to be a symbol for loyalty in to death, and, of course, one can argue about it as to whether Himmler kept that faith with his people.
Q. The IMT found, Dr. Altstoetter, at page 16951, that the SS originally contained two formations, the SS Verfuepungstruppe forces consisting of SS members who volunteered for four years armed service in lieu of compulsory service with the Army, and the SS Totenkopfveroaende, special troops employed to guard concentration camps which came under the control of the SS in 1934. When you had your conversation with Himmler in 1937, did he have any insignia on at all of the SS of any kind?
A. Himmler?
Q. Yes.
A. Himmler was in uniform.
Q. In 1937?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. What uniform was he in?
A. I suppose he was wearing the black uniform but I am not prepared to swear to it; I think it must have been the black SS uniform which was the normal uniform to be worn in peace time.
Q. Now why did you find it necessary in this first conversation with Himmler about the activities of the SS to say to him that you would not be required to do anything which would force you out of the Catholic Church? Will you please explain that a little more fully to me?
A, Yes. While in Leipzig, I had a friend who was a Roman Catholic and just before he had told me that he had a letter from his nephew in which his nephew complained that the head of his unit had compelled him to leave the Church and he told me that hadn't happened to him alone but to other people too. Tnat news had come to me from Westphalia and because of that letter I talked to Himmler about this matter, as I wanted to find out what it was all about and Himmler did tell me, "I, Himmler, never gave any orders and never shall give any orders for people to leave the Church."
Q. You weren't disturbed about their being any conflick between the activities of the SS and your beliefs as a churchman, were there?
A. I didn't quite get that question. I am so sorry.
Q. Did you have any question in your mind that your activities as a member of the SS might throw you into conflict with the teachings of your church, which you observed?
A. I was not concerned with the question as to whether my activities in the SS might bring me into conflict with the Church, but I was concerned with the basic question whether there was hope that the Party too would recognize Christianity as a basis of the State, would continue to recognize it as a basis, or would regain recognition for that principle. I was concerned with the question as to whether there was any hope that that would happen, or whether there was no hope at all.
Q. And you thought there was some hope about the Party following in the tenets and the teachings of the Catholic Church in 1937, after the Nuernberg Laws had been passed?
A. That brings up a very deep question, and a very basic question. At that time I had the hope that that would be possible. I hoped that one day moderate people would attain leadership. According to the experience which has been gained with revolutions in other countries and in other times, in my view the institutions of the state and public life, as such, had to be guided through the times of extreme National Socialism so that, when one day the moderate people would attain leadership, the basis for a moral renaissance, if I may call it that, would exist.
Furthermore, I believed that one would not have done enough by everybody withdrawing into themselves and by leaving those who were at the helm at the time to run the roost. I believed it would be better to try and see to it that the moderate elements received support.
Q. You were in office on the 1st of July 1943. Did you still have this belief that you have just described when the Thirteenth Regulation, amending the Reich Citizenship Laws, of 1 July 1943 was passed, which stated in Article 1, "Criminal actions committed by Jews shall be punished by the police"?
A. At that time my hopes received a severe blow. I admit that without any reservation, However, I must point out one thing.
At that time I was a terrible optimist, and because of that I believed that those transfers were transfers to police jurisdiction and not to the arbitrariness of the police. I also hoped that this too was merely a transitional phenomenon, and I did not ignore the fact that this Article I of the Law of the 1st of June 1943 related exclusively to criminal elements.
Q. In Prosecution Exhibit 453, which you discussed with your lawyer, there is a paragraph which begins: "In cases of Jews who were deported to Theresienstadt or to other places, a hearing as witness or hereditary biological examination is impossible for reasons of the Security Police, because persons to accompany them and means of transportation are not available."
Did you think that all of those people were criminal elements?
A. We were told that those people were Jews who, for security reasons on the part of the police, had been taken away from Vienna. As to whether and in what manner those people had turned criminal, I don't know, and I could not find out about that at the time. However, I should like to point out that a mistake has occurred, a mistake which you, Mr. Prosecutor, might have made --- that is, provided I got the translation through properly, You said that those Jews were needed for proceedings before the hereditary health courts. That is not true. They were needed for descent cases; that is to say, for litigation before the ordinary courts, and not for hereditary health court proceedings.
Q. "Hereditary biological examination" is what was read.
A. Yes, hereditary biological investigations were means of evidence in those proceedings.
Q. Yes. Now let me ask you this. Didn't it occur to you as a little unusual that every one of these witnesses who was sought for hereditary biological examinations was a criminal?
A. I did not assume that every one of those Jews was a criminal.
All I said before was that I did not know to what extent those people were criminals, or for what other reasons the police had removed them for security purposes, nor was I able to examine that question in every detail.
Q. Well, let me ask you a couple of questions. Maybe we will examine it together, yes? If they weren't criminals, why did they have to be brought to testify in the hands of the Security Police, and why did you think that only the Security Police knew where to find them?
A. We were referred to the Security Police by the letter which we had from the Security Police itself. It was that very letter from the Security Police that drew our attention to the fact that the Vienna courts were having those difficulties. The President of the District Court of Appeals, as far as I know, never knew anything about those matters.
Q. And no question was raised in your mind about the condition of these Jews who had to be brought back only by the Security Police, other than the fact that they were criminal elements?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I have already told you that I did not know whether they were criminals and to what extent they were criminal, but, after all, they might have become involved in some proceedings or other. One could imagine, for example, that in view of the accumulation of Jews in Vienna - that is, in comparison with the number of other inhabitants possibly the police, in war time, felt that that large proportion of Jews was a danger and therefore they might have thought it necessary to remove certain circles of Jews, that is to say, possibly leading circles, perhaps Jews of whom one knew that they had established contact among one another. Perhaps it was found necessary to remove those Jews from Vienna.
Q. Yes. As I remember, you testified that the prosecutors who brought these proceedings to establish the Aryan character of a man's heredity were considered to be friends of Jews because the cases were often successful. That being true, did you think that all of these friends of these Jews were criminals?
A. No. Why should they be criminals? These proceedings involved so-called marriage litigations, these proceedings which were instituted by prosecutors at the suggestion of Jews who asserted that they were not Jews. Those persons asked the prosecutor to institute proceedings to establish beyond all doubt that they were nob the progeny of the man who was supposed to be their father and who was a Jew. Those were the proceedings I have been talking about. As to why the prosecutor in the case should be criminal, I don't know. Those were orderly and properly conducted proceedings, and those proceedings were decided in favor of the person concerned, that is to say, in favor of the prosecutor, if no expert opinions on the basis of hereditary biological investigations could be produced, because in that case only such evidence was available which those concerned produced themselves.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a question about that. With reference to this rather high-sounding title of the hereditary biological specialist, I presume you know what form their speciality took, and I assume that it related to the comparison of blood types, did it not?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: It didn't
THE WITNESS: The examination of blood types was an. independent examination which went side by side with the expert opinion given by the hereditary biological specialist.
TEE PRESIDENT: Suppose than some one, through the aid of the prosecutor, was trying to prove that his putative Jewish father was not his father. Wouldn't it have been very much in his favor if he could have produced his putative father and had a blood type taken which night conclusively prove that they were not father and son?
THE WITNESS: Yes, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: But you said before that the absence of these witnesses invariably, or in general, operated greatly in favor of the person who was trying to prove his Aryan ancestry.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is the experience we gained.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. You said that you weren't too much disturbed about the Thirteenth Regulation under the Citizenship Law of 1 July 1943, because that provided that only criminal actions committed by Jews shall be punished by the Police. Now, what I am trying to ask you is this. Where you found, in every case where a request was made for a Jewish witness in one of these biological tests, that he was in the hands of the police, didn't you think it unusual that every one of these people was criminal?
A. No, no, those things don't fit together, Mr. Prosecutor. It is not necessary at all that every witness at such proceedings should be criminal, not even if the police said, "For reasons of security, the police have removed this nan from Vienna."
Q. Well, you did know, then, that the police punished Jews for other than criminal acts?
A. I don't know why the police are supposed to have punished noncriminal Jews. I never said so, and it never occurred to me. From what I have said here one cannot draw such conclusions either.
Q. Well, let me just ask this one more question about this. I read you two sentences and I ask you whether or not these didn't raise some question in your mind as to what had happened to the Jews who had been removed. Now let me read you the sentences:
"If the Residents' Registration Office or another police officer gives the information that a Jews has been deported, all other inquiries as to his place of abode as well as application for his admission to a hearing or examination are superfluous. On the contrary, it has to be assumed that the Jew is not attainable for the taking of evidence."
A. I have said that we were struck by those things, and that therefore, through the competent sub-department chief, we contacted the police. The police told us that the measures which they had taken had been taken for security reasons. Secondly, they said, "We cannot produce those Jews who are no longer in Vienna and who have been removed from Vienna, for technical reasons, because there is a shortage of transportation and also a shortage of escort personnel. However, as an exception, we are prepared to make these people available to you if you consider their presence really necessary in an individual case."
THE PRESIDENT: Will you remind me from which exhibit you are reading?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor. I am reading from Exhibit 453, NG-900.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Well, if you didn't think that all of these Jews were criminal, then why --- I beg your pardon; let me state it again. If you didn't think that all these Jews were criminal, then why did there have to be transport personnel with them?
A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, if, for reasons of the security police any person whatsoever had to be taken to any place whatsoever, one obviously could not let them travel by themselves, because otherwise those reasons for police security would have been foiled if such a person traveled on his own.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a question, please. As a matter of fact, what counsel is getting at is this. You knew--do you hear me?
THE WITNESS: I do not understand.
THE PRESIDENT: You knew that some of the Jews who were in protective custody were not criminals, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what he said.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. This first letter was in May 1944. When you met Kaltenorunner in June 1944, did it ever occur to you to ask him about this matter that pertained to the production of witnesses?
A. No, I didn't discuss that question with him. It was just by accident that we met, and we were only together for a very short time. It wasn't an official conference. I was introduced to him and we exchanged a few words. I then told him the story about my schoolmate, and that was all.
Q. Perhaps, I misunderstood you. I thought you said you met him coming back from a trip, and that you traveled together. Was I wrong about that?
A. I said that it was in the sleeper part of the train where we were introduced to each other, and that was on an official trip. However, if you are introduced to somebody, and particularly if it happens in a sleeper, well, as a rule if you don't know the man at all you only exchange a few superficial words with him.
THE PRESIDENT: We are only concerned with the particular instance and not the customs on sleepers.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. I want to ask you about these special places for the illegitimate children of foreign female workers. There were these nurseries in the Incorporated Eastern Territory, were there not?
A, I don't know.
Q. Well, am I mistaken? This morning, in answer to the presiding judge, didn't you say that these children were born both in the Altroich and in the expanded Reich?
A. That wasn't the way I put it. I was asked whether the term "Reich" referred only to the Altreich or to Greater Germany, and in reply I said that in accordance with the customs of those days, that is to say, in accordance with the legal views of those days, we meant Germany inclusive of the Incorporated Territories. However, I did not say that any children's homes were there. I don't even know anything about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me put it this way. If any such children were born in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, then the law applied to them?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, we are not concerned with a law here. The legal situation, such as it had existed before, remained the same This was merely a decree by the Minister of the Interior: it wasn't a decree by the Ministry of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I should hate said the "decree" and not the "law".
THE WITNESS: If children of foreign women workers-- who had come to the Reich to work there--were born in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, then the sane treatment was accorded to them in the Incorporated Eastern Territories as was accorded them in the Altreich. BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. That is exactly what I want to ask you. Now I want to know this. Then, if a Polish mother in the Incorporated Eastern Territories gave birth to an illegitimate child, was her child to be treated differently than the child of a German, an illegitimate child born in that territory?