dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SCHLEGELBERGER: As a result of the transfer of the adminis-tration of Justice to the Reich, strong efforts were soon made by the Party to exert influence on the Ministry of Justice, first by way of personnel policy. The legal situation was such that according to an order of the Fuehrer the Party had to be heard before a judge or a high legal official was appointed. The Party did not limit itself to commenting on the Ministry of Justice's candidates, but vigorously advocated candidates of its own. As soon as the mini§ter, and later, I myself, became convinced that the Party wanted to have an unsuitable man in a position, we took recourse to obstruc-tion by keeping the position open. Later it was filled by another man who was more suitable, at least in our opinion. Repeatedly, we observed that in civil trials Party agencies approached the judges and tried to persuade them that in the public interests this or that decision was necessary. In order to spare the judges these painful discussions, at the suggestion of the Minister of Justice, the law on the co-operation of the State Prose-cutor in civil cases was issued, according to which the judge to whom such a request was made could tell the Party agency, "Apply to the prosecuting authority, it is competent to assert the public interest." I recall further a case in which the then Gauleiter Adolf Wagner announced at Munich that he was going to appear uninvited at a civil trial and make a speech in order to convince the court that this Party member enjoyed Party rights in a civil trial. On behalf of the Reich Minister of Justice, I then visited the Defendant Hess and asked him to prevent the appearance of Gauleiter Wagner and this wish was fulfilled. Another means to influence justice was to criticize sentences of judges that they did not like. This criticism was made by the SS newspaper Schwarzes Korps.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. How does this evidence bear on the Reich Cabinet?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness is particularly familiar with conditions in the Ministry of Justice, from his own activities. I am limiting myself to a few very significant cases in which the situation in the ministry is explained. I have no more questions on this point and I believe the witness is almost finished with his answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
SCHLEGELBERGER: The Schwarzes Korps repeatedly promised to stop the criticism but did not keep its promises. The Ministry of Justice took every opportunity at conferences with the presidents of the provincial appellate courts and the chief prosecutors to tell them they should point out to the justices that they were inde-pendent and should reject every attempt at intimidation and report all difficult cases to the minister.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In cases of ill-treatment and excesses in concentration camps which- became known to you, did the Ministry of Justice take steps to intervene?
SCHLEGELBERGER: According to my information the Minister of Justice intervened in all cases of which he obtained knowledge. As early as 1933 he employed two lawyers in the Ministry of Justice for the express purpose of investigating on the spot an cases which were reported, and to follow them up with great energy. Prosecution ensued and in many cases sentence was passed. Since the introduction of the special jurisdiction of the SS in 1939 these matters were withdrawn from the competence of the Ministry of Justice.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What were the personal relations of the ministers to Hitler?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I believe one must make a distinction between Hitler's relations to the Party ministers and the non--Party ministers. Ministers who were not members of the Party, kept their distance; he likewise displayed distrust. Even with regard to the Party ministers I got the impression that the rela-tionship varied greatly. I believe, for example, that Ministers Rust and Darré were not nearly as close to him as Göring and Goebbels. But even Party ministers were viewed by Hitler with distrust. This is already indicated by the fact that, as far as I know, there were even Party ministers who for years were not admitted to report personally to the Fuehrer.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Was Hitler's circle of close confidants from cabinet circles comparatively small?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes, very small. To my knowledge it was limited to a few persons.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Hitler take measures to prevent co-operation of the members of the Cabinet or even personal contact between ministers?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Hitler's point of view was that frequent meetings of the Cabinet members were undesirable. From 1938 on he firmly prevented all attempts to return to the form of Cabinet meetings; he even expressly prohibited unofficial meetings such as "beer evenings."
DR.KUBUSCHOK: Did you and Minister of Justice Guertner, before the outbreak of the war or before the beginning of any of the later hostile actions, know anything about Hitler's plans?
SCHLEGELBERGER: No. I may remark that I had the inten-tion in the late summer of 1939 to take a cure in Marienbad. For that reason, as the situation was tense, I asked the Minister of Justice what he thought about it, and he said, "Go right ahead. I consider it out of the question that there will be any hostilities." Upon that I went to Marienbad, and returned only at the beginning of September when the war broke out.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have finished the examination.
DR. KEMPNER: Is it true, Dr. Schlegelberger, that the Reich ministers, which means the members of the Reich Cabinet, had the highest rank, had the highest responsibility, and the highest pay of all German officials?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
DR. KEMPNER: Is it correct to state that the appointment as a member of the Reich Cabinet was a completely voluntary act?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
DR. KEMPNER: Is it correct to state that a member of Hitler's Cabinet had the right to resign if he did not agree with Hitler's policy?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I believe not.
DR. KEMPNER: Do you know any Cabinet members or state secretaries like yourself who resigned?
SCHLEGELBERGER: One minister resigned.
DR. KEMPNER: What was his name?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Von Eltz-Ruebenach.
DR. KEMPNER: Do you know a state secretary who resigned?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I do not remember.
DR. KEMPNER: What about yourself, Dr. Schlegelberger, did you not resign?
SCHLEGELBERGER: This question is not so easy to answer.
DR. KEMPNER: When did you leave your office?
SCHLEGELBERGER: In August 1942 I was dismissed by the Fuehrer.
DR. KEMPNER: Is it a correct statement if I say you were dismissed because you did not like the policy of the Fuehrer concerning the judges?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes, that is true.
DR. KEMPNER: Now, you remember that the Minister o Economics, Dr. Kurt Schmitt, resigned?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I do not know from my own knowledge whether Dr. Schmitt resigned or whether he was dismissed.
DR. KEMPNER: Then I should like to refresh your memory, and I show you an affidavit, a new document, a short one, which I give to the Court. And this document will become Exhibit 922.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to object to the admission o this affidavit. It deals with questions concerning the resignation of the witness which concern him personally and in which he is greatly interested personally. I believe that if this question, which in my opinion is not relevant, is to be discussed at all, we cannot avoid calling the witness who made the affidavit himself; he live near Munich. I also believe that this affidavit is not suitable to prove the credibility of the witness Schlegelberger in any way. The details of the resignation of a minister need not be known to the state secretary of another ministry. The witness stated he did no know anything further about it. I believe, therefore, that the examination to test the credibility of this witness is not fulfilled by this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kempner, the Tribunal thinks you should submit the facts of the resignation to the witness. Have you heard? That you should submit the facts of the resignation to the witness
DR. KEMPNER: You know that another minister, Minister Ku Schmitt, resigned? Do you remember now?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes, I remember that, of course, but I do not know whether he resigned or whether he was dismissed. That I do not know.
DR. KEMPNER: Do you know that Minister Schmitt resigned because he knew that Hitler's policy would lead to war?
SCHLEGELBERGER: That is unknown to me.
DR. KEMPNER: Now, another chapter. Is it true, that the Reich Cabinet became a legislative body of Nazi Germany through the Enabling Act?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes, through the Enabling Act.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kempner, the Tribunal thinks you could put the first part of the affidavit to the witness.
DR. KEMPNER: I come back to the question of the resignation of Minister Schmitt and ask you whether the following is true or not: "As Minister of Economics I was a member of the Reich Cabinet from 30 June 1933 until the beginning of January 1935. I resigned from the Cabinet 28 June 1934, formally for reasons of ill-health but factually because of deep differences of opinion with the policy of the Hitler Cabinet." Are you informed about this, Dr. Schlegelberger?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I can only repeat, I know only that Herr Schmitt was Reich Minister of Economics and that he left the Cabinet. In what way he left, whether he was dismissed, whether he wanted to be dismissed, or whether he was dismissed for sickness or differences of opinion, I do not know.
DR. KEMPNER: But now you agree with me that you knew two ministers who resigned and who were neither killed nor put in con-centration camps?
SCHLEGELBERGER: That is certainly true ...
DR. KEMPNER: That is enough, that answers my question. Is it true that the Reich, Cabinet exercised its legislative powers continuously?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
DR. KEMPNER: Is it true that the Reich Cabinet had more than 100 meetings and passed numerous laws? Is that correct?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
DR. KEMPNER: Is it true that the Cabinet continued to pass and promulgate laws even without formal session, by circulating drafts of the laws among the Cabinet members? Is this correct?
SCHLEGELBERGER: It is true that when the Cabinet meetings stopped, laws and decrees were issued after being circulated.
DR. KEMPNER: Now, do you know. how many laws were passed by the Reich Cabinet by means of this circulation method in the year 1939 for instance?
SCHLEGELBERGER: No, I cannot answer that.
DR. KEMPNER: If I tell you that in the year 1939 alone the Reich Cabinet passed the following laws ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kempner, you can state what the fact is.
DR. KEMPNER: If I tell you that they passed 67 laws, would you say that is the correct statement?
SCHLEGELBERGER: If you say that it is true, Dr. Kempner, I accept it as such.
DR. KEMPNER: Do you know that the Reich Cabinet had also the duty of approving the Reich budget?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes. DR.KEMPN`ER: Would you say that the members of the Reich Cabinet were informed about the things which were going on in Germany because they had to approve the budgets of all ministries?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I believe that very much can be gathered from the Reich budget but not necessarily everything.
DR.KEMPNER: Do you know...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kempner, you are asking the next ques-tion a little too quickly. We did not hear the answer come through. I think the witness said that important matters were to be derived from the budget or something of -that sort.
DR. KEMPNER: Would you repeat the answer please?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I believe that very much can be gathered from the Reich budget but not everything.
DR.KEMPNER: You know that the Reich budget had special provisions about concentration camps?
SCHLEGELBERGER: No, I do not know that.
DR. KEMPNER: When you were a Minister of Justice and acting Minister of Justice, did you have anything to do with the anti--Jewish legislation?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I believe that during the period in 'which I was active, one law or decree was issued in the year 1941. As far as I can recall, it concerned leases that affected Jews.
DR. KEMPNER: Do you remember that you yourself made up proposals, a legislative proposal, together with the Defendant Dr. Frick, to sterilize all half-Jews in Germany and the occupied territories?
SCHLEGELBERGER: No, I do not recall that.
DR. KEMPNER: Now I should like to show you a letter from the official files which has your signature, and you might remem-ber-you might be able to refresh your memory by reading this letter. This will be my last question. And this will become Exhibit Number USA-923. Do you remember now that you put you signature under this terrible document?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes, I remember; yes, I remember it.
DR. KEMPNER: You remember that the Party and that the Defendant Frick proposed to sterilize all Jews and all half-Jews?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
DR.KEMPNER: And you remember that the various Cabinet members, like the Defendant Göring, the Chief of the Four Year Plan, that the Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick (attention of his Secretary of State), that the Foreign Office. (attention of Under Secretary Luther) got copies of this legislative proposal?
SCHLEGEI.BERGER: Yes.
DR. KEMPNER: And you remember, on Page 1 of this document, that this legislative proposal to sterilize all Jews and all half-Jews should be submitted to Hitler?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I did not quite understand the question.
DR. KEMPNER: You remember that your and Minister Frick's proposal should be submitted to Hitler? [There was no response.]
DR. KEMPNER: Yes or no.
SCHLEGELBERGER: Dr. Kempner, I beg your pardon; I still have not quite understood your question. I do not know what I am to try to remember.
DR. KEMPNER: Whether your proposal should be submitted to Hitler?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I believe so.
DR. KEMPNER: And you remember what Hitler said?
SCHLEGELBERGER: No, I do not remember that.
DR. KEMPNER: Is it a true statement that your Secretary of State, Freisler, told you, "Hitler does not like this sharp measure of the Reich Cabinet at the present time; he will postpone it until after the war"?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I do not remember that.
DR. KE4PNER: You regret deeply your signature under this law?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I can say "yes." I should like to add one thing only. At that time, there was already a serious struggle to obtain this limitation ...
DR. KEMPNER: And you regret deeply these crimes; is that correct?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I regret greatly that I signed this.
DR. KEATPNER: Thank you. That is all.
DR. RUDOLF DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): I ask the Tribunal to permit me to ask three questions of the witness, because these questions arise from the cross-examination by Dr. Kempner, since the answers to these questions and the questions themselves concern the interests of the Defendant Schacht and his own testi-mony directly, and because the charge against the Reich Cabinet is now being discussed, and also because Schacht, in the period known to the Tribunal, was a member of the Reich Cabinet. For these reasons, I ask the Tribunal to make an exception and to permit me, after the cross-examination, although I am not a defendant's counsel for an organization, to ask questions of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. DIX: Dr. Schlegelberger, was Hitler's signature necessary for the dismissal of a minister?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
DR.DIX: Do you recall that not immediately after 1933, but later, perhaps during the war only, Hitler expressly prohibited Reich ministers from handing in their resignation?
SCHLEGELBERGER: I may say the following: Am order was issued changing the German civil servants law. According to this law, every official had the right to be released from his office. This right was abolished during the war. It was decreed that the release did not have to be granted, and as I recall, Hitler in following this decree actually did not accept resignations of ministers.
DR. DIX: Now, my third and last question: Herr State Secretary, in answer to Dr. Kempner's question about the departure of the former Minister, Von Eltz-Ruebenach, you said that he had resigned. To assist your memory, may I point out that we heard here from Göring on the witness stand a modified version of this event which agrees with the recollection of the Defendant Schacht. Of course, I do not have the transcript of the Göring case before me and there-fore I can only give Göring's testimony from memory. But I believe that in essence and effect I present it correctly. According to the testimony, this departure of Eltz, developed as a result of the presen-tation of the Golden Party Badge to various ministers, including Von Eltz-Ruebenach. When Hitler, with the idea of pleasing the ministers, had handed him this Golden Party Badge Eltz started and made some remark to the effect of whether he was thereby incurring any confessional obligations. Hitler was annoyed at this, and the upshot was that Von Eltz-Ruebenach left the Cabinet, which cannot exactly be termed a resignation on Von Ruebenach's own initiative. I believe that I have at least reproduced the sense of Göring's testimony correctly.
SCHLEGELBERGER: I know these events only from reports which I received from others. I myself was not present at the incident. I have no reason to believe that the Defendant Göring, who was present, did not describe the facts as they actually happened.
DR.DIX: You say you know the story only from reports; that is, actual reports from Herr Guertner, for example?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
DR.DIX: Do you still recall these reports, more or less? Or is what I have just said the first reminder?
SCHLEGELBERGER: No; I recall vaguely that according to Herr Guertner's report, as Dr. Dix just stated, Von Eltz-Ruebenach had put forward certain wishes for the Catholic Church, and that the Fuehrer was annoyed at the wishes he had made and everything else had resulted from that incident. I can only repeat, if it is put to me, I have no reason to deny the correctness of an eye-and-ear witness.
DR. DIX: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will adjourn now. [The Tribunal adjourned until 3 August 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, you have an application, I think, to make. Haven't you been told about it?
DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): No.
THE PRESIDENT: You wanted to apply for the witness Vice Admiral Buerckner; and also another request, that you should visit Vice Admiral Buerckner, and for three documents, a Pocket Book of the Fleets for the years 1908 to 1914 and a Handbook of Seapower and Prestige at Sea for the years 1906, 1912, and 1914; and thirdly, a historical work on the German Navy.
DR. SIEMERS: That is correct, Mr. President. I made these appli-cations to the General Secretary for information purposes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that application is very late in the day unless there are special reasons for it. The Tribunal has already indicated that they propose only to hear or to grant applications for witnesses and documents for very special reasons and therefore they would like to hear you as to what the special reasons are.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I cannot yet see how far it will be necessary to go into some points in the course of the evidence for the General Staff. There are a few points which I would like to check and that is why I made this application to the Tribunal, but I requested it in order to be given the possibility of obtaining information for myself in the course of the Trial.
THE PRESIDENT: You are asking to go on a long journey to see Vice Admiral Buerckner before any evidence is called which makes it necessary.
DR. SIEMERS: As far as I know, Buerckner is in Ansbach.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't it a fact that Vice Admiral Buerckner was here when he was summoned as a witness for the Defendant Jodl and that then he was not called and therefore left Nuremberg?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I do hope that this will not become necessary. The testimony for the General Staff  - however, was only just now given before the Commission, and several questions arose which I would like to discuss, because these are matters which did not come up in the earlier testimony for the individual defendants
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the application
DR. SIEMERS: I would like to add one thing, Mr. President had previously asked and I had been told by the General Secretary that no difficulties would arise from this and that if I wanted t( speak to Admiral Buerckner again I could do so. So I did not think at the time that such great difficulties would be met with. I request the Tribunal, if it be possible, to grant me this opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. [The witness Schlegelberger resumed the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Does Counsel for the Reich Cabinet want to re-examine this witness?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, a letter was shown to you yester-day, a letter which you had written to Reich Minister Dr. Lammers. How did you come to write that letter?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Of this letter to Dr. Lammers I wish to say the following: On 6 March, at the request of the, SS racial office, a conference took place concerning the treatment of part-Jews. I no longer know where the conference took place. In any case, it was not in the Ministry of Justice. At this conference proposals were made, which I considered absolutely impossible. The part-Jews were, without distinction, to be treated like Jews and deported to labor camps in Poland. In order to prevent decisions which I thought absolutely intolerable I applied to Reich Minister Lammers. I should like to emphasize here that to the Ministry of Justice this matter was only of secondary importance insofar as compulsory divorce was also suggested in connection with these proposals-a measure which was certainly very important but was a question of only secondary importance compared with the problem as a whole.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yesterday another one of your letters was then shown you, which was dated 5 April 1942 and which had been sent to various Party offices. The contents of this letter seem to be connected with the advisers' conference of 6 March. Can you say something more specific about these connections?
SCHLEGELBERGER: When I consider both letters, I can only say the following: Apparently, I had not been given the necessary support by Reich Minister Lammers. But under all circumstances, I wanted to have the proposal defeated. I realized that no progress would be made by a purely negative attitude, and, therefore, I had to make a positive proposal with the aim of limiting the number of people affected as much as possible. Therefore, I proposed to exclude the following persons completely: First, part-Jews of the second degree, that is, part-Jews who had only one non-Aryan grandparent; also to be excluded were, secondly, those of the part--Jews of the first degree who were not capable of reproduction and, thirdly, part-Jews of the first degree who still had children living who were not half-Jews themselves. There still remained, there-fore, only a limited number of part-Jews of the first degree. With regard to these, I proposed that they be given the opportunity to escape deportation by being sterilized. Finally, I opposed the compulsory divorce. Today I should only like to repeat what I said yesterday in my conclusion: I deeply regret that because of the juris-dictional conditions prevailing at that time and due to the forces- at work at the time, I could not make a better proposal.