the unlawful territorial gains of that war by the promulgation and enforcement of Nazi criminal laws in occupied countries.77 Both foreigners and Germans, once sentenced to death by the People's Court and Special Courts, were formally sent to the rope and guillotine by his execution orders78 which he himself described as "absolutely essential" items in this march of death79. As agent of the People's Court in a typical case, Hettgenberg ordered the defendant Lautz' office to execute the Pole Zinser, sentenced to death for undermining the German fighting morale by defeatistic remarks to fellow workers.60 Zinser had been a Pole by birth and resided in Poland until the German invasion. To such a man, the People's Court said:81 "To him (Zinser) nothing was sacred, neither the glory of a Field Marshal Rommel nor the honor of a German soldier.
He who, like the defendant, undermines the home front in 1943, at a time when the 77.
Pros. Ex. No. 252, III L I; 376 Bk. V D 323; 455 Bk. V Sup. 1; 469 Bk. III A Sup. 20; 547.
78. Pros. Ex. No. 244 - III D 115; 449 - VII Sup. 1; 493 - III B Sup.32; 548.
79. Tr. 6324.
80. Pros. Ex. 140, III C 88.
81. Ibid.
9665 (A) German nation is fighting a severe battle for its existence, deserves death."
It was for such victims that Mettgenberg issued his "absolutely essential "execution orders. Such orders of his, particularly affecting foreign nationals, implemented the indefensible practice of double jeopardy.82 Nor did his authority stop there. He toured prisons and execution points from Berlin to Frankfurt am main inspecting and arranging guillotines and gallows to effectuate the decisions of the Courts. Apparently to learn how Himmler managed such things, he with the much-maligned Vollmer inspected infamous Mauthausen Concentration Camp in 1942-43. Despite his denials from the stand that he had even heard of the place, his visit and activities there have been flatly affirmed by documentary84 and testimonial85 evidence. As early as 1937, incident to the institution of "the closest possible collaboration" between the Prosecution and the Gestapo, he handled reports to the Ministry concerning "executions when escaping from concentration camps, suicides in concentration camps upon arrival, etc.86 His trip to mauthausen was no isolated junket, for Ex. 310, 2571 PS, VI 31 shows that in August 1942 it was designated as a receiving point for Nacht und Nebel prisoners. His protests here of complete ignorance are 82.
Pros. Ex. No. 541/542.
83. Pros. Ex. No. 252 - III L 1; 286 - VIII A 102; 289 - VII A 142; 294 - VII B 37; 295 - VII B 39; 366 - VC 207.
84. Pros. Ex. No. 543: "Upon returning from his inspection of Mauthausen Concentration Camp, Mettgenberg described to Suchomel in detail what he had seen , e.g. The was told that prisoners had to work very hard - - - and that when good work was performed they were not beaten.'" 85.
Tr. 7768.
86. Pros. Ex. No. 32, I B 41.
themselves revealing of the horrors therein described by witnesses here,87 yet reports of which excited Mettgerberg to no move by the Justice Administration to stop them. Every fact in this record leads to the inference that mettgenberg made a trip to Mauthausen in line of duty. Dr. Suchomel did not lie.
His uniquely exclusive responsibility, together with the defendant von Ammon, for the internationally reprehensible Nacht und Nebel program, is obvious from the overwhelming evidence appended hereto by brief.88 From it, and the foregoing recital of Mettgenberg's official activities, his status is plain: no mere civil service hireling who routinely practiced the decisions of others, but the deputy director of criminal procedure on a Ministry level throughout German's conception 87.
E.G. Testimony of the witness Hach, Tr. 2643-50.
88. See Appendix No. 5 9666 (A) of her territory, and who prefaced his enforcement of Nazi policies by an important role in their promulgation.
89 89.
Pros. Ex. No. 510, I Sup. See particularly pages 16-18.
Von Ammon, the arms and legs of the Nacht und Nebel program risked treason to force the Nazis into power. Testifying on his own behalf he characterized his political career thus:90 "Before 1933 I was not a member of any political party.
As a high school student and university student I belonged to patriotic youth organizations and Nationalist fraternities. After this time, since about 1924, I was no longer active politically."
But under cross-examination it emerged that he stood by with a gun, on November 9, 1925, when Hitler sought to govern via a Munich beer hall, 91 and he has polished the Nazi apple ever since.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me. We were trying to follow you. What page are you?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: I am sorry but there is one page missing from the mimeographed -
THE PRESIDENT: Will you supply It later?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Yes, we will do that, your Honor.
An officially commended follower of the Nazi Party and member of the SA and Nazi Jurists League from the beginning,92 von Ammon proved to be Hitler's willing tool in the Reich Ministry of Justice. After Hitler, on 7 December 1941, conceived the Nacht und Nebel policy,93 von Ammon describes his career thus:94 "From 1942 on I dealt mainly with Nacht und Nebel cases in the occupied territories.
In my capacity as consultant for nacht und Nebel cases I made several duty trips to the occupied territories and took part in discussions in Paris and Holland which dealt with Nacht und Nebel proceedings."
At least 25 documents and testimony of several witnesses, all presently in evidence, specifically show just what that Nacht und Nebel career entailed. Every facet of this 90.
Tr. 6377.
91. Tr. 6440-3, 6469; Bros. Ex. No. 544.
92. Pros. Ex. No. 544, supra. To von Ammon's denials, Tr. 6378, see cross-examination, Tr. 6443-3.
93. Pros. Ex. No. 303, IV 1.
94. Pros. Ex. No. 55.
monstrous war crime, for which von Ammon shares undenied responsibility only with Mettgenberg, is set forth in a brief appended hereto. 95 It is only necessary here to emphasize the magnitude of this war crime, in terms of numbers of foreign nationals abducted to Germany and murdered pursuant thereto. Captured records are fragmentary, out we do know, for example, that during one 12 months period from January 1944 to January 1945, von Ammon personally reported 161 Nacht und Nebel death 96 It sentences to either Thierack or the defendant Klemm. It was undoubtedly with these and greater figures in mind that von Ammon wrote the Munich Prosecution, in late 1944 after the NN program terminated, that "execution of NN prisoners in large numbers can no longer be expected." 97 Despite his preoccupation with making the Nacht und Nebel program work during the war years, von Ammon had time for other projects involving foreign nationals that are reached by the indictment.
After the unlawful annexation of Austria in 1938, 98 he was described by Mettgenberg as an "indispensable" official 99 in charge of criminal procedure concerning Austrians, and his handling of the Loewenstein case illustrates how this unlawful extension of German criminal procedure to occupied countries actually 95.
Appendix No. 5.
96. Pros. Ex. No. 252- III L 1, the total figure being compiled from 91, entries therein on pp. 32, 44, 53, 56, 64, 79, 84, 94, 105, 108-9, 112, 117, 126, 130 139-40, 145, 148, 153, and 160. See also Pros. Ex. 280 -VII A 12, for additional 17 NN death sentences reported by von Ammon.
97. Pros. Ex. No. 546.
98. IMT Final Judgment, p. 16831-32.
99. Pros. Ex. 544, supra; Tr. 6443-4.
worked out.100 Foreign laborers within the Reich also claimed his attention; in a conference attended by him and Mettgenberg together with representatives of Sauckel, the slave labor Czar, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner and others in October 1943, he carefully wrote up notes of their collective decisions creating discriminatory criminal procedures against such foreigners, with particular emphasis on death sentences.101 Von Ammon, like Mettgenberg, was no more Ministerial paper-schuffler obscurely passing on the decisions of others.
Save for official subordination to Mettgenberg, he was the sole legal official in charge of the who, when and how concerning Nacht und Nebel abductions which spread from Norway to France. As sole fulltime leg man for these wholesame kidnappings with intent to murder he travelled, conferred, inspected, decided and directed, to his everlasting international dishonor.
The defendant Joel as Chief Prosecutor for the Court of Appeal in Hamm covering all of Westphalia and the District of Essen took office on 17 August 1943, which ho continued to hold until the end of the war. In this position he was in charge of the Nacht und Nebel Program for the special Courts in Hamm and Essen until March 15, 1944, when these courts were transferred further east to Opelln in the Kattowitz District. The defendant Joel would have us believe that the letters which he signed, the reports which he made and the conferences which he attended both in Hamm and in Belgium on Nacht und Nebel matters rendered him in no way responsible for carrying out the program. We are even told that at no time during the period did the defendant Joel 100.
Tr. 6444-5.
101. Pros. Ex. No, 545; Tr. 6445-50.
over turn a Nacht und Nebel prisoner over to the Gestapo, that he never prosecuted a case nor attended a Nacht und Nebel trial.
Let us examine the kind of position which this defendant held during the six-months period in question. The district for which he was the highest and therefore most responsible prosecuting authority is by area and population one of the largest in Germany. He had under his supervision the Senior Public Prosecutors and their staffs at the Special Court in Essen. It was his task to supervise the work of these men. One will search the record in vain to find a complaint from the Reich Justice Ministry or from any other source that Joel neglected this assignment. In fact the Gauleiter of Westphalia pointed out in a letter which is in evidence before this Court that Joel's work had been praiseworthy and he requested that he be deferred from military service. Neither would one get the impression that Joel was not equal to his task from the introduction into office which was delivered by his co-defendant Rothenberger.
The Special Court in Essen tried more Nacht and Nebel cases than the combined total of the other Special Courts and the People's Courts. We submit that the defendant Joel cannot be heard to say that of these he had no responsibility. Examination of certain of the exhibits will make it clear that such a statement is not borne out by the evidence.
On 21 January 1944, a letter was addressed to Joel stating that in the future all Nacht und Nebel prisoners who were up on trial acquitted or who had served their sentences must be turned over for custody to the Gestapo. 102 On 26 January 1944, Joel wrote to the Reich Justice Ministry and complained about the slowness with which the defendant Lautz, 102.
Pros. Ex. 328.
Chief Prosecutor for the People's Court, returned files. Joel pointed out that there were 84 Nacht und Nebel prisoners who had been held near Hamm from October 1941, a period of nearly two years and a half, even ante-dating the effective date of the Nacht und Nebel decree itself. In mid November 1945 the defendants von Ammon and Mettgenberg came to Hamm enroute back to Berlin from a conference in Holland to determine whether space was available for keeping additional Nacht und Nebel prisoners to be brought from the Netherlands. Joel gave assurances that more prisoners could be accomodated and even opposed the views on the matter by his Oberlandesgericht President who also attended the conference. In late December 1945, Joel attended a conference in Brussels, which he reported in detail after his return to Hamm, on matters pertaining to Nacht und Nebel prisoners from Belgium. Then there is in evidence a number of other documents either addressed to Joel or written by him which show the responsibility which the Reich Justice Ministry delegated to him and which he, in his high position, accepted. Even the assertion, if it is true, that Joel actually tried no Nacht und Nebel cases himself is of no significance because it is clear that he supervised the men who did try them. There is no validity in the argument that the director of a murder is less guilty than the trigger man. Ye believe it is impossible to analyze the evidence in this case without reaching the conclusion that Joel bears a tremendous responsibility for the trial of Nacht und Nebel prisoners which were conducted in Hamm and Essen no less brutally and no less violative of international law than in other Nacht and Nobel courts throughout German.
Despite the fact that we have been told by his counsel that Joel is not a great legal scholar, he could not have been without knowledge that the Nacht und Nebel Program literally from the beginning to the end violated every precept of international law, We submit that the defendant Joel is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of taking a principle part in the unholy nightmare that was Nacht und Nebel.
The defendant Altstoetter came into the Minister of Justice in January 1945. Although he stated in his testimony that his appointment came from Thierack, no one can doubt from the reading of the record that he was Himmler's candidate for a position in the Reich Ministry of Justice, and that he was in fact Himmler's man in that ministry. Before he came in,103 numerous concentration camps including Mauthausen, Auschwitz, Flossenburg, Dachau, and Buchenwald, had been established as receiving points for Nacht und Nebel prisoners, removed from other countries to Germany. That order was made in August 1942.
The secrecy connected with Nacht und Nebel matters which, in itself is the gravamen of the offense, required that even deaths and births and wills and testimonial dispositions should be kept secret. For this reason the Reich Ministry of Justice circulated instructions to Divisions III, V, VI and IV as to the precautions which should be taken in these cases. This draft 104 dated 6 March 1943 shows on its fact that it refers to;
"criminal procedures on account of punishable offenses against the Reich . . . in the occupied areas (socalled Nacht und Nebel cases). I request observance of the following directives in order not to endanger the necessary top-secrecy of the procedure, particularly regarding the executions of death sentences and other cases of death among prisoners."
This draft of instructions, circulated to the defendant Alstoetter's Department VI, and he testified that he had 103.
Ex. 310, 2521 PS, VI p. 31.
104. Ex. 319, NG 269, VI 88.
knowledge of this draft and of its proclamation and that he instructed his department to act pursuant to the instructions given. At this state of the proof, he cannot be heard to say that he did not understand that deaths were taking place, either by judicial procedure or otherwise, among foreign nationals who were brought into the Reich under conditions of secrecy, in a proceeding designated as Nacht und Nebel, and that there must be complete secrecy in connection with the proceedings even to the point of protecting the records concerning their deaths.
THE PRESIDENT- We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. III, Case No. III.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Before continuing with the reading, I would like to for purposes of the record to make clear a correction which I made in reading on page 64. At three points we refer in the printed copy to special courts in Hamm and Essen. These should be corrected to read special courts in Essen. There are three such places on page 64 and one reference on page 66.
THE PRESIDENT: One on page 66?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Yes, on the fourth line, page 66.
THE PRESIDENT: You delete the words "Hamm and".
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Yes. And now continuing. Whatever he must have testified about his lack of knowledge of what Nacht und Nebel meant, this document in itself out any lawyer on notice, particularly a lawyer who had sat on the Reich Supreme Court, that foreign nationals were being held and tried in the Reich under conditions of complete secrecy, and that under all provisions of international law this was a violation of the Hague Conventions governing the treatment due to inhabitants of an occupied country, by the power which was occupying it.
Furthermore, we point out to the Court that those prisoners were being received in concentration camps and sent back to concentration camps so that the notices of their deaths, which Department VI had to register, must have come to that Department from these concentration camps. There was no provision of International Law which authorized the Reich to bring foreign nationals from France, Norway, Holland, Belgium, into the German Reich in time of war and place them in concentration camps. The defendant, as a soldier, knew that prisoners of war went to prison camps, not to concentration camps, under international law. Therefore, it is a fact that when this defendant received the notices of deaths of foreigner, or notices of births of children, to foreign females, from concentration camps, he knew that civilians of foreign nations, were being held in Germany by the Reich illegally.
It follows therefore, that from the provisions of Ex. 319 itself and from the facts in this record, it is inferable beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant was charged with knowledge that foreigners were in the German Reich under conditions which were prohibited under international law, and being subject to trials under conditions prohibited by international law.
We do not believe that the courts believe the defendant when he said that he did not know what Nacht und Nebel meant, even though he was one of the highest officials in the Reich Ministry of Justice. But his denial can only react adversally against him, affecting his credibility as a witness not only on this issue but upon the issue of his membership in the SS and his knowledge of the activities of the SS, which we shall treat later in this argument.
We conclude from the record that this defendant, with full knowledge that a crime was being committed, consented to take part in the successful operation of that crime by keeping the records of deaths and births secret and marking the records so, that no one could give any information with reference to this matter. He also made similar provisions with reference to keeping secret the fact that these judicially murdered Nacht und Nebel prisoners had left last wills and testimonies. This action was of material benefit to the program, to its successful operation and to its essential element of criminality, namely the secrecy inherited in the whole proceeding. It follows therefore, that this defendant is guilty of taking a consenting part in and being connected with the war crimes, committed through the instrumentality of the Nacht and Nebel program.
The defendant offered no defense, except the defense that he had no knowledge that a crime had been committed. Upon the fact of the record this defense has been rejected for the reason that it is based upon the testimony which is palpably false, that it is not entitled to be believed.
The offense is sufficiently alleged in Count 2, paragraphs 8, 9, and 13.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Mr. Buchthal will continue with the reading.
MR. BUCHTHAL: Crimes of Prosecution and Conviction of Foreign Nationals for Alleged Acts of Treason and High Treason against the Reich.
The corpus delicti of this crime lies in the trial, sentencing, Imprisonment and execution by the People's Court in concert with and approval by the Reich Justice Ministry of non-German and foreign nationals for alleged acts of treason against Germany. This action was in violation of the Hague Conventions, particularly Articles 23, 43, and 45, 105 ....
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you to speak a little slower, please?
MR. BUCHTHAL: ....principles of international law long recognized and respected by all civilized countries, and in violation of German national law itself.
Proof of the fact that hundreds of foreigners were tried before the People's Court in Germany and in the occupied countries on charges of treason and high treason, that death sentences were executed and prison terms imposed as a result of these trials is established by numerous case records in evidence before this Court 106 and by the 105.
See Appendix 4 of this statement.
106. See Pros. Exs. 125, 128-137 inclusive; Exs 184, 491 512, 513, and 514.
Czechoslovakian State report. 107 Victims of this crime were either residents of countries which Germany occupied as a result of aggressive war or of Germany under conditions which were an outgrowth of aggressive war such as, for instance, the slave labor program.
108 either case under any recognized principles of international law these persons owed to the Reich no degree of allegiance, in fact, or in law, upon which charges of treason or high treason against Germany could be predicated. On the question of allegiance owed to Germany by resident nationals of countries occupied by her we need but look for the answer to Article 45 of the Hague Convention. This article forbids the compulsory swearing of allegiance to a hostile power by the inhabitants of an occupied country. Thus it is clear that absent a voluntary oath of allegiance by a resident national of a wrongfully occupied country he cannot commit treason against the occupier. Without allegiance there can be no treason.
As to foreign nationals within the boundaries of Germany, there is admittedly precedent for the argument that aliens owe to the sanctuary nation an allegiance which continues during their residence. We have found no precedent, however, for the proposition that one who becomes the resident of a country under duress, or against his will under conditions created by aggressive war through acts of that Country's government, owes even a temporary allegiance, the violation of which would render him liable to prosecution for treason.
It does not admit of argument that foreign nationals resident of countries occupied by Germany as a result of 107.
See Pros. Ex. 378, p. 8891, received for Judicial Notice, Tr. pp. 2568-2578.
108. See for example testimony of witness Havemann, Tr. p. 1918-19. Also Pros. Ex. 516, an excerpt from the IMT Judgment received for judicial notice, Tr. 3449-3451.
aggressive war came voluntarily to Germany to accept the protection of the Reich as the sancturary nation. This would be the equivalent of asserting that the Poles, the Czechs, the French and the Dutch sought sanctuary from the oppressor by fleeing into her arms, We must not close our eyes to obvious inferences to be drawn from Germany's attitude for all her neighbors for a decade prior to the collapse.
It is true that a foreigner cannot say that he is not bound to obey the laws of the state wherein he is sojourning. But, if the defendant under prosecution for disobedience of these laws is convicted in violation of the law of nations, the same international authorities proclaiming the above general rule here recognize the duty of the executive to interfere with a pardon and, if that is impracticable,109 the question is one for international adjustment.110 That aliens within Germany were prosecuted and convicted, for contravening Nazi laws in violation of the law of nations is easily demonstrable. It is established international law that the planning and waging of aggressive war is a violation of the law of the community 109.
For how impracticable an executive pardon was from Hitler, rendering international adjustment necessary by the present Military Tribunals, see Pros. Ex. No. 279 (Hitler's delegation of the right to deny clemency authority to Thierack): Pros. Ex. No. 252 (Insistence upon denial the of clemency in virtually and every capital case during the war years by Thierack and his deputy Klemm); Pros. Ex. No. 26 (Insistence upon similar harshness by Rothenberger, Thierack's deputy prior to Klemm); and Pros. Ex. No. 259 (eventually, in the later war years, delegation to the the political Gauleiters, of provinces concerned, of the right to review all clemency recommendations of the RJM before submission to Hitler. Hitler refused to consider request which had not been so submitted for the Gauleiters' recommendation.
110. Moore, supra, p. 15, citing Wharton, International Law Digest, Vol. II, p. 509; Wharton, Conflict of Laws, section 819, 820; Wharton, Criminal Law, 8th Ed., sections 268, 281.
of civilized nations.111 German prosecutors and courts, at least of the political types charged in the indictment, directly aided, abetted and took a consenting part in the waging of aggressive war by exterminating or otherwise eliminating civilian opposition thereto both within and outside the Reich. Such was the avowed purpose not only of enormously expanded Nazi treason laws,112 but also of the myriad close corollaries of treason that mushroomed after the seizure of power and particularly after the beginning of the Polish campaign in 1939.113 The direct relation of a stringent enforcement of these laws to Germany's waging of the war, through whipping the civilian populace into terrified political quiescence and sacrificial armament production, is too obvious to admit of argument. It is also admitted by the present defendants; for example, the defendant Lautz has stated:114 "Just as I think it is a good thing that no one today can claim that this war was lost only through treason, I must also say that I regret that because of this war and through these death sentences (i.e., for undermining German defensive strength-Wehrfraftzersetzung-) many people who were otherwise all right, had to loose their lives."
And the defendant Rothaug testified that, in his view, the severest measures were necessary where a defendant:115 111.
IMT Final Judgment, mimeographed edition, pp. 16831-2 (Austria); 16836-7 (Czechoslavakia); 16846-7 (Poland); 16954 (Denmark and Norway); 16855-6 (The Low Countries); 16859-60 (Greece and Yugoslavia); and 16863 (Russia). Each of these campaigns was held to be a crime against Peace.
112. See amendments (1934) to #80-92 of Reich Criminal Code: Pros. Ex. No. 112 (Doc. Bk. II) pp. 6-8a.
113. E.g.: Law for Protection of People and State (1933): Law against Undermining German Defensive Strength (1939); Law Against Conduct Detrimental to War 18, 19, 23, and 32. These statutes, all of which as their stated raison d'etre the complete subjugation for civilian activity to that of the military for the waging of total war.
114. Pros. Ex. No. 126, p. 11.
115. Tribunal III, Transcript p. 7548.
"...was aware that he affected the attitude of the people working in an armament plant and that he was exploiting their weariness to make remarks which would undermine their morale. That was the first consideration that guided me."
Specifically in this connection, Rothaug referred to any defendant who intended:116 "...to undermine confidence in the conduct of the war and the chances of winning the war in his surroundings."
It is unnecessary to belabor this conclusion that, in general, German prosecution and conviction of aliens in the Reich for any real or imputed interference with the waging of aggressive war, violates the law of nations and thereby bars the legal vulnerability of aliens as a defense.
116. Ibid, p. 7549.
The defendant Schlegelberger, of course, is chargeable with knowledge of the statutes with reference to high treason, preparation for high treason and treason which were enacted while he was in the Ministry of Justice, on 24 April 1934. Also the People's Court was established by the same legislation.117 He also knew the character and purpose of the People's Court, for as early as 1934 we find him submitting a list of names of lay judges to the military heads of what was then the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht. He, of course, is not a foolish man -- he knew that the purpose of the legislation establishing the People's Court, and the purpose which required approval of the lay judges was to stack the court against any reasonably possibly acquittal of any decent German brought before that Tribunal because he opposed the Nazi policies, which, oddly enough, this defendant claims he opposed -- but never effectively did anything against.
We also find him lauding the achievements of the People's Court on the 14th of July 1939.118 As a self-professed profound student of the law, and particularly the law relating to international problems, he is bound to know, that which every Landkreis lawyer must have known, namely, that a defendant cannot be charged or convicted for treason, high treason or preparation to commit high treason in the absence of some facts or situation which imposes upon him a duty of allegiance. Normally, this allegiance arises out of citizenship. It may be held to arise out of an obligation to a sanctuary power which in turn arises out of a factual situation in which the defendant may be held to have accepted the benefits bestowed upon him by the sanctuary power, its government laws and establishment of a civilized order. Of course, he must in law be held to have known that no factual situation upon which such allegiance 117 Pros.
Ex. 112, NG 715, Bk II 6.
118 Pros. Ex, 602, NG 2004.
could be predicated existed in the cases of Czechs and Poles or any of the defendants who went before the courts as Nacht and Nebel prisoners for, indeed, the bulk of them were charged with committing high treason or preparation for high treason.
A passing glance at the law of 24 April 1934, Section 80, will disclose the complete lack of legal basis for any of the charges of high treason or preparation for high treason which were brought during the defendant's regime. This section, among other things, says: "Anyone attempting to detach from the Reich territory belonging to the Reich will be punished by death." Practically every Pole and Czech tried for high treason was charged with violating this provision. Even a stupid man knew in Germany from 1939 on, if he had heard any of Hitler's speeches, that Czechoslovakia and Poland were not territories which "belonged to the Reich". They were at best, territories, which had been stolen by the Reich through aggressive military action. You do not acquire valid title to stolen property even if it is another man's country. Certainly this profound student of the law, and also all of the other defendants involved in high treason cases, who were equally profound men - meaning the defendants Lautz, Barnickel, Nebelung, Rothenberger, Klemm, von Ammon, Joel, Cuhorst and Oeschey - knew that such indictments were bases on factual grounds which were known to them to be fictitious. The defendant Petersen is also liable even though not a legal expert because he knowingly, willingly, end according to his own affidavit, maliciously, with an intent to exterminate, occupied a position where he was required to administer law with reckless disregard to the facts. This assuming, of course, that we believe his defense, that he knew no law.
With reference to the defendant Schlegelberger, the evidence is clear that the ministry of Justice in the first instance controlled the policies of prosecution before the People's Court, and in the second, passed upon clemency appeals of every case tried. This being true, we point out, furthermore, that the evidence discloses ten119 cases beginning with June 1, 1940 and ending June 24, 1942 in which defendants were indicted, convicted, sentenced to death or imprisoned, and their sentences executed while this defendant was in charge of the Ministry of Justice.