Section 16_Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume III

(1) The provisions of sections 8 to 15 are not applicable to--

1. German nationals, ethnic Germans and nationals of the Protectorate

of Bohemia and Moravia.

2. Nationals of states which are not participating in the present war

against Germany.

(2) The Reich governors and provincial presidents are authorized to

exempt from the regulations of sections 8 to 15 other ethnic groups too.

* * * * * * *

Berlin, 6 June 1940

Reich Minister of the Interior

FRICK

Reich Minister of Justice

DR. GUERTNER

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-144

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 199

LETTER FROM DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER TO LAMMERS, 17 APRIL 1941,

CONCERNING “PENAL LAWS FOR POLES AND JEWS IN THE INCORPORATED EASTERN

TERRITORIES”

[Handwritten] submitted (last time)

Reich Chancellery

4.79 blb BBT 740 to 419/140

[Stamp] Reich Chancellery 5850 B 17 Apr. 1941

One Enclosure

The Reich Minister of Justice

9170 Eastern Territories 2-II a 2 996/41

Berlin W 8, 17 April 1941

Wilhelmstr. 65

Telephone 11 00 44

Long distance 11 65 16

To: The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery

Subject: Penal laws against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated

Eastern Territories

[Handwritten] see statement of 22 April

Reply to letter of 28 November 1940

Reich Chancellery 17 428 B

1 Enclosure

I worked on the premise that special conditions in the Incorporated

Eastern Territories also require special measures for the

administration of the penal laws against Poles and Jews. As soon as

the decree issued on 5 September 1939 by the Commander in Chief of the

Army had introduced the Special Courts in the Incorporated Eastern

Territories, I tried to make these courts, with their particularly

prompt and energetic procedure, centers for combating all Polish and

Jewish criminals. That I succeeded is shown by the very impressive

numbers of cases dealt with by the Special Courts during the first 10

months of their activity in the Incorporated Eastern Territories. The

Special Court in Bromberg, for instance, has sentenced 201 defendants

to death, 11 to penal servitude for life, and 93 to terms of penal

servitude amounting to 912 years in all, thus an average 10 years’

penal servitude for each individual. Only crimes of lesser significance

were indicted at the local courts. On the other hand, the criminal

courts were eliminated as far as possible as an appeal to the Reich

Supreme Court against their judgment is permitted, and I wanted to

prevent courts which were not entirely familiar with the special

conditions in the eastern territories--even though it be the highest

court in Germany--from giving a decision in these matters.

The aim of creating a special system of law [Sonderrecht] for Poles

and Jews of the eastern territories was systematically pursued by the

decree of 6 June 1940,[329] which formally introduced the German penal

law applied in the eastern territories from the very beginning. In the

sphere of the code of criminal procedure, compulsory prosecution no

longer exists; the public prosecutor prosecutes only such acts which

he thinks it necessary to punish in the public interest. The procedure

of compulsory prosecution (arts. 172, et seq., of the Code of Criminal

Procedure) was rescinded as it seems intolerable that Poles and Jews

should in this way compel the German prosecutor to issue an indictment.

Poles and Jews were also prohibited from raising private actions and

accessory actions.

In article II of the introductory decree [of 6 June 1940], special

cases for action [Sondertatbestaende] were annexed to the special

system of law in the sphere of legal proceedings--cases which had been

agreed upon with the Reich Minister of the Interior because they had

become necessary. It was intended from the beginning that such special

cases for action should be increased as soon as necessity arose. The

decree for the execution and completion of the introductory decree

mentioned in the letter from the Fuehrer’s deputy was meant to meet

the requirements which had become known in the meantime; whereas the

decrees mentioned also in said letter concerning the introduction of

the right of extradition, and of the law concerning the use of weapons

by persons entitled to the protection of forestry and game laws, are

only remotely connected with the criminality of Poles and Jews, and

are intended exclusively to develop the general coordination of law in

the eastern territories. I shall try to bring about an agreement with

the Fuehrer’s deputy in regard to both the last mentioned decrees, as

well as the decree for the execution of the law for the cancellation of

sentences, and the decree concerning criminal records.

On being informed of the Fuehrer’s intention to discriminate basically

in the sphere of penal law between the Poles (and probably the Jews

as well) and the Germans, I prepared--after preliminary discussions

with the presidents of the district courts of appeal and the attorneys

general of the Incorporated Eastern Territories--the attached

draft[330] concerning the administration of the penal laws against

Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories and in the

territory of the former Free City of Danzig.

This draft amounts to a special system of law both in the sphere of

actual penal law and that of criminal procedure. In this connection,

the suggestions made by the Fuehrer’s deputy were taken into

consideration to a great extent. Paragraph (3) of No. 1 contains a

statement of facts in general terms, through which penal proceedings

can be taken in future against any Pole or Jew belonging to the eastern

territories who is guilty of punishable activities directed against the

German race, and every kind of punishment is provided. This ordinance

is supplemented by No. 1, paragraph (2), which is already contained in

the preliminary ordinance, and which threatens the death sentence in

cases of violence committed against a German by reason of his belonging

to the German ethnic group. Furthermore, the cases in No. 1, paragraph

(4) which are also contained in the preliminary ordinance, are only

complements, which would perhaps no longer have been necessary in

view of the new general statement of facts, but which I have included

in order not to arouse a false impression that the scope of the acts

liable to punishment according to this draft is more restricted than

in the existing legislation. Finally, No. 2 makes it clear that a Pole

will in any case also be punished for such acts as are punishable

if committed by a German. Furthermore, the ordinance admits a wider

application of the law in a manner appropriate to the requirements of

the eastern territories. (Art. 2, Penal Code.)

I have already been in agreement with the opinion held by the Fuehrer’s

deputy, that a Pole is less sensitive to the imposition of an ordinary

prison sentence. Therefore, I had taken administrative measures to

insure that Poles and Jews be separated from other prisoners and

that their imprisonment be rendered more severe. No. 3 goes still

further and substitutes for the terms of imprisonment and hard labor

prescribed by Reich law other prison sentences of a new kind, viz, the

prison camp and the more rigorous prison camp. For these new kinds of

punishment, the prisoners are to be lodged in camps outside of prisons

and are to be employed there on hard and very hard labor. There are

also administrative measures which provide for special disciplinary

punishment (imprisonment in an unlighted cell, transfer from a prison

camp to a more rigorous prison camp, etc.).

The new kinds of punishment in No. 3 apply to all offenses committed by

Poles and Jews, thus also to cases when the criminal commits a crime

specified by the Penal Code. On the other hand, No. 3, paragraph (3),

insures that the minimum penalty prescribed by German penal law and a

mandatory penalty may be lessened if the crime was directed entirely

against the criminal’s own nation.

The part concerned with procedure contains first the special

regulations of the preliminary decree existing up to now. In addition,

Poles and Jews sentenced by a German court are not to be allowed in the

future any legal remedy against the judgment; neither will he have a

right of appeal, or be allowed to ask for the case to be reopened. All

sentences will take effect immediately. In future, Poles and Jews will

also no longer be allowed to object to German judges on the grounds of

prejudice; nor will they be able to take an oath. Coercive measures

against them are permissible under easier conditions. Furthermore, an

important point is that according to No. 10, paragraph (2), the locally

competent court of appeal decides concerning a nullity plea, which

insures that no court outside the eastern territories has anything

to do with proceedings against Poles and Jews. Further, No. 12 gives

the court and the prosecution an independent position, meeting all

requirements, with regard to the law concerning the constitution of the

courts and the Reich law of criminal procedure.

No. 13 makes the factual special legislation against Poles and Jews and

the elimination of compulsory prosecution apply also in cases where

the Polish or Jewish criminal does, in fact, reside in the eastern

territories, but the crime has been committed in another part of

greater Germany.

In my opinion, a special penal law against Poles and Jews in such a

form would neither restrict the liberty of action of German offices and

officials, nor allow Poles and Jews to profit from its introduction

insofar as they would be able then to lodge unwarranted actions and

complaints against German officials. Factual penal law provides for

such an increase in severity in the penalties threatened that these

will act as the strongest possible deterrent. Any hole in the law

through which a Polish or Jewish criminal might slip is also closed.

In the sphere of criminal procedure, the draft shows clearly the

difference in the political status of Germans on one side and Poles and

Jews on the other.

The introduction of corporal punishment, as discussed by the Fuehrer’s

deputy, has not been included in the draft, either as a criminal

sentence or a disciplinary measure. I cannot agree to this form of

punishment as in my judgment it would not correspond to the level of

civilization of the German people.

Criminal proceedings based on this draft will accordingly be

characterized by the greatest possible speed, together with immediate

execution of the sentence, and will therefore in no way be inferior to

civilian court martial proceedings. The possibility of applying the

most severe penalties in every appropriate case will enable the penal

law administration to cooperate energetically in the realization of the

Fuehrer’s political aims in the eastern territories.

I intend to have the draft submitted to the Ministerial Council for the

Defense of the Reich for approval. I should like, however, to discuss

the matter verbally with you prior to that, and to request you if

possible to get the Fuehrer’s decision as to whether he agrees with the

essentials of the intended regulations.

Acting Minister of Justice

[Signed] SCHLEGELBERGER[331]

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-331

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 343

DRAFT OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE CONCERNING PENAL LAW FOR POLES AND

JEWS IN THE INCORPORATED EASTERN TERRITORIES, PREPARED BY DEFENDANT

SCHLEGELBERGER AND SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF OF THE REICH CHANCELLERY ON

17 APRIL 1941[332]

_Ordinance concerning the administration of justice regarding

Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories_

Of....................1941

The Ministerial Council for Reich Defense decrees the following law:

1. _Substantive Penal Law_

(1) Poles and Jews living in the Incorporated Eastern Territories

have to conduct themselves according to the German laws and to the

instructions issued for them by the German authorities. They have to

refrain from every act detrimental to the sovereignty of the German

Reich or to the prestige of the German people.

(2) They will be punished by death if they commit an act of violence

against a German on account of his membership in the German ethnic

community.

(3) They will be punished by death, in less severe cases with an

imprisonment, if they manifest an attitude hostile to Germany by

hateful or inflammatory activity. Especially, if they talk in a way

which is inimical to Germany or if they tear down or damage public

announcements posted by German authorities or offices. Also, if they

lower or damage the prestige or the welfare of the German Reich or the

German people by their conduct in general.

(4) They will be punished by death, in less severe cases with

imprisonment--

_1._ If they commit an act of violence against any member of the

German armed forces or its auxiliaries, the German police including its

auxiliaries, the Reich labor service, a German authority or office or

an organization of the NSDAP;

_2._ If they deliberately cause damage to installations of the

German authorities, or offices, or to things which are used in the

course of their work or are established for the public interest;

_3._ If they encourage or stimulate disobedience against a decree

or ordinance issued by the German authorities;

_4._ If they enter a conspiracy for committing any action

punishable according to paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 No. 1–3. Also if they

enter into earnest conferences about such actions or declare themselves

willing to commit such or if they accept any such offer. Or, if they

get reliable information about such an action or plan at a time when

danger still can be averted and fail to report it in time to the

authorities or to the threatened person;

_5._ If they are found in illegal possession of a firearm, of

a hand grenade, of a weapon for stabbing or hitting, of explosives,

munitions, or other war equipment. Also, if they receive reliable

information about a Pole or Jew being in illegal possession of such

things and fail to report this fact without delay to the authorities.

Poles and Jews will also be punished if they violate the German penal

laws or if they commit an action which deserves punishment according

to the basic principles of German penal law, in accordance with

the requirements of national existence in the Incorporated Eastern

Territories.

III

(1) Punishment will be meted out to Poles and Jews in the form of

prison terms, fines, or confiscation of property. Prison terms will be

meted out in the form of prison camp terms ranging from 3 months up

to 10 years. In serious cases prison terms will consist of aggravated

prison camp terms ranging from 2 to 15 years.

(2) The death penalty will be imposed whenever the law threatens such

punishment. Also in cases where the law does not provide for the

death sentence, this penalty will be imposed, if the committed action

testifies to an exceptionally vicious character or if for other reasons

the crime is a very serious one. In such cases the death penalty will

be permissible also in the case of juvenile criminals.

(3) A lesser punishment than the minimum term of a penalty as

prescribed by the German penal code and any degree of punishment

mandatorily prescribed are not to be imposed except in cases where

the crime is directed exclusively against the ethnic group of the

perpetrator himself.

(4) _Any fine which cannot be collected will be replaced by a prison

camp term ranging from 1 week to 1 year._

2. _Penal Procedure_

The public prosecutor will prosecute crimes committed by Poles and

Jews, the punishment of which he thinks necessary in the public

interest.

(1) Poles and Jews are to be judged by the Special Court or by the

district judge.

(2) The public prosecutor is authorized to bring about indictment in

all matters before the Special Court. He may file a suit before the

district judge if no severer punishment than 5 years prison camp or 3

years aggravated prison camp is to be expected.

(3) The competency of the People’s Court remains untouched.

(1) Each sentence has to be executed immediately. The public

prosecutor, however, may appeal to the Oberlandesgericht from sentences

passed by the district judge. The period set for motions in arrest of

judgment is 2 weeks.

(2) Also, the public prosecutor alone is entitled to the right of

complaining. Complaints are decided upon by the Oberlandesgericht.

VII

Poles and Jews cannot refuse German judges as being prejudiced.

VIII

(1) Arrest and preliminary custody are always permissible if there is a

strong suspicion of the accused having committed the crime.

(2) In the course of the preliminary proceedings the public prosecutor

also may order arrest and the use of other permissible means of

coercion.

Poles and Jews serving as witnesses do not take the oath during

proceedings. To all untrue, unsworn evidence presented in court

regulations regarding perjury and unwittingly false oath are to be

applied, according to their sense, to false depositions in court not

made under oath.

(1) The reopening of the proceedings can only be ordered by the public

prosecutor. Request for reopening of the proceedings contrary to a

sentence passed by the Special Court are decided upon by the latter.

(2) The nullity plea is up to the public prosecutor, it is decided upon

by the Oberlandesgericht.

Poles and Jews neither can file private suits nor bring about action as

coplaintiffs.

XII

The proceedings are conducted by court and public prosecutor on the

basis of the German law for penal procedure in full accordance with

their sense of duty. They may deviate from the regulations given in the

law about the constitution of courts and in the legal principles for

Reich penal proceedings, in all cases where it seems practical for the

carrying through of the proceedings rapidly and energetically.

3. _Civilian Court Martial Proceedings_

XIII

As far as the Incorporated Eastern Territories are concerned, the

Reichsstatthalter (Oberpraesident), with the consent of the Reich

Minister of the Interior and the Reich Minister of Justice, for the

area under his jurisdiction or single parts of it, may order that

Poles and Jews be sentenced, until further notice, by a civilian court

martial. This will take place in cases of serious violence committed

against Germans as well as on account of other crimes which seriously

endanger the German construction work.

As sentence, sentence of death will be imposed by the civilian court

martial. The civilian court martial may also refrain from punishment

and may instead pronounce transfer to the Secret State Police.

All details regarding the members of the civilian courts martial

and their procedure will be settled by the Reichsstatthalter

(Oberpraesident), with the consent of the Reich Minister of the

Interior.

4. _Extent of the Area of Jurisdiction_

XIV

(1) The regulations I to IV of this ordinance will equally affect Poles

and Jews, who had their place of residence, or permanent abode, within

the territory of the former Polish state on 1 September 1939, and who

have committed the crime within any other territory of the German Reich

outside the Incorporated Eastern Territories.

(2) In addition, the court of the place of residence or abode at the

respective time, is locally competent. For that court the regulations,

given under V-XII, also apply.

(3) Paragraphs 1 and 2 are not applicable to crimes which are sentenced

by courts of the Government General.

5. _Concluding Regulations_

Poles in the sense of the ordinance are all proteges and stateless

persons who belong to the Polish racial community.

XVI

Article II of the ordinance of 6 June 1940,[333] concerning the

introduction of German penal law into the Incorporated Eastern

Territories, (Reich Law Gazette I, p. 844) does not apply any more to

Poles and Jews.

XVII

The Reich Minister of Justice, in full accord with the Reich Minister

of the Interior, is authorized to issue the legal and administrative

instructions necessary for the carrying through and supplementation

of this ordinance. Dubious questions, regarding the administrative

procedure, are to be decided by him.

XVIII

This decree comes into force on the fourteenth day after its

publication.

Berlin, the....................1941

The Chairman of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the

Reich

The Plenipotentiary General for the Administration of the Reich

The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-130

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 200

FILE NOTE OF THE REICH CHANCELLERY, 22 APRIL 1941, CONCERNING

SCHLEGELBERGER’S DRAFT OF A PROPOSED DECREE ON PENAL LAW FOR POLES AND

JEWS IN THE INCORPORATED EASTERN TERRITORIES

Berlin, 22 April 1941

Reich Chancellery 5850 B

Subject: Penal Law for Poles and Jews in the Incorporated

Eastern Territories

1. _Note_--The Minister of Justice transmits a draft of a decree

of the ministerial council on criminal law applicable to Poles and Jews

in the Incorporated Eastern Territories and in the city of Danzig.[334]

Through the decree of 6 June 1940 the German criminal law has been

introduced in the eastern territories to its fullest extent. On 20

November 1940 the Fuehrer’s deputy, in a detailed statement, took

the position that this was a mistake, in as much as the Poles would

thereby be placed under the German criminal law. The Fuehrer’s deputy

demanded that a special criminal law and a special criminal procedure

be provided for Poland. The particulars are contained in the note of 26

November 1940.

The proposals, contained in the draft of the decree of the Minister of

Justice and explained in the letter accompanying it, are far-reaching

in compliance with the wishes of the Fuehrer’s deputy.[335] The draft

establishes a draconic special criminal law for Poles and Jews, giving

a wide range for the interpretations of the facts of the case, with the

death penalty applicable throughout. The conditions of imprisonment

are also much more severe than provided for in the German criminal

law. (Instead of imprisonment in jail or in penitentiary--prison camps

and special prison camps.) Beside this special criminal law, in a

subsidiary way, the German criminal law is applicable. (II.) Provisions

of criminal law which might be used to obstruct the procedure have been

eliminated (the opportunity of the defendant for an appeal, compulsory

indictment, the challenge of a judge, compare also art. XII, S. 2). The

Minister of Justice differs only in two points from the suggestions of

the Fuehrer’s deputy--

_a._ The Fuehrer’s deputy considered it more appropriate to

authorize the Reich governors [Reichsstatthalter] (and therefore also

the two provincial presidents) to introduce the special criminal law,

whereas the Minister of Justice provides for its introduction by a

Reich decree.

_b._ The Fuehrer’s deputy considers the introduction of corporal

punishment--the Minister of Justice declines to do so. The Minister

of Justice intends to introduce this draft and have it passed by the

ministerial council. Under Secretary Schlegelberger desires to discuss

this matter first with the Reich Minister and would be pleased if the

Reich Minister would secure the Fuehrer’s decision concerning the

principal features of the intended regulation.

[Illegible handwriting]

[Initial] F [Ficker]

[Stamps] resubmitted office 3/5

2. Submitted to the Reich Minister.

[Initial] L [Lammers]

25 April

This matter should be first discussed with Under Secretary

Schlegelberger, [Handwritten] who would be ready to come to [Hitler’s]

headquarters. On information of Ministerial Counsellor Schaefer,

(Reich Ministry of Justice), Under Secretary Schlegelberger will at

this meeting also have some information on the Governor General’s

attitude.[336]

[Initial] L [Lammers] 3 May

[Stamp] Resubmitted

Office 5/5

[Initial] L [Lammers] 12 May

[Stamp] Resubmitted

Office 12/5

1. A report to the Fuehrer is not to be considered. First of all a

discussion with Under Secretary Schlegelberger is necessary.

[Initial] L [Lammers] 13 May

[Stamp] Resubmitted

Office 20/5/41

[Initial] L. [Lammers] 22 May

In the meantime an opinion of the Reich Leader H [Himmler] has been

received.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-136

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 345

MEMORANDUMS OF THE REICH CHANCELLERY, 27 MAY 1941, CONCERNING CRIMINAL

LAW TO BE INSTITUTED IN THE INCORPORATED EASTERN TERRITORIES, INCLUDING

COPIES OF LETTERS TO DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER, BORMANN, AND HIMMLER

[Handwritten] see Rk. 8621 B.

To Rk. 7592 B, 7760 B

Fuehrer Headquarters, 27 May 1941

After the report to the Reich Minister

Subject: Civilian court martial and right of pardon in the Warthegau.

Administration of criminal law in the Incorporated

Eastern Territories

1. Remarks:

[Handwritten marginal note.] To Rk 7592 B:

It may be pointed out in completion that a ruling in regard to the

Warthegau will bring about not only a corresponding ruling for the Gau

Danzig-West Prussian but also for the new territories of East Prussia

and Silesia. Thus, for example, in the last named territories the

right of pardon for capital crimes also must be transferred to the

Provincial president.

[Handwritten marginal notes.]

Rk 7760 B1b

blue[337]

In the meantime a letter from the Reich Leader SS (signed Heydrich) on

this subject has been received here. The Reich Leader SS agrees to the

special penal code for Poles in material matters--as provided for in

the draft of the decrees submitted by the Minister of Justice--but in

addition he asks for civilian court martial under police jurisdiction

and requests that this be presented to the Fuehrer when the Reich

Minister makes his intended report.

[Handwritten marginal notes.]

pink

yellow

The introduction of civilian courts martial in the Incorporated

Eastern Territories is an old desire of the Reich Leader SS and was

proposed in the draft of a decree of the ministerial council of the

General Plenipotentiary for the Reich administration, dated 21 February

1940--compare Rk 3215 B-40--; see note of 27 February 1940. The

introduction was rejected at the time on the basis of objections made

by the Reich Marshal to civilian courts martial--compare Rk. 5026 B of

21 March 1940.

[Handwritten marginal note.]

Justice 3

(Copy number 2) (copy number 2)

(to Rk 7411 h40 letter 13) (Justice 12)

pale violet

The Fuehrer’s decision corresponds to the desire of the Reich Leader

SS as far as the Warthegau is concerned in the meantime. It is not

considered advisable to report this to the Reich Leader SS unless the

minister in charge has been notified of the Fuehrer’s decision. The

Reich Leader SS further requests a copy of the comments of the Minister

of Justice dated 17 April 1941--Rk. 5850 B.[338] He should be referred

to the Minister of Justice concerning this request.

[Handwritten marginal note.] pale violet

[Initial] F [Ficker]

The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery

Fuehrer Headquarters, 27 May 1941

Rk. 7760B

[Handwritten notes]

see Rk 8621 B

No. 934 29/5

2/4 written Ho

2/3 read Ho Hi/

4/ forwarded Ho 28/5

2/3 forward 29.5. Km

to 2 m. 1 photo copy of Rk 7760 B

to 3 m. 1 copy of 2 and

1 photo copy of Rk 7760 B

_Urgent!_

2. To the Reich Minister of Justice.

(Copy for 2.)

Subject: Administration of criminal law in the Incorporated

Eastern Territories

In reference to your letter of 17 April 1941

--9170 Eastern Territory 2-II a-2-996/41

[Handwritten marginal note.] pale violet

The Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter Greiser reported to the Fuehrer

that an increasing number of acts of sabotage were committed in his Gau

by Poles. In the Landkreis Lódz it even happened a few days ago that

while the Reichsstatthalter was speaking in an old Swabian settlement,

a German policeman was stoned to death in a neighboring village.

In this case the Reichsstatthalter, according to his report to the

Fuehrer, gave orders that not only the culprits but 12 hostages as

well should be executed on the spot and under the eyes of the entire

village population, who were assembled at the spot. In view of these

sabotage acts the Reichsstatthalter asked the Fuehrer for authority to

reestablish civilian courts martial. He proposed to appoint the local

representative of authority as president, with police officer and a

security police leader as members of the court. No sentences other than

death or concentration camp are to be given by these civilian courts

martial. There must be no possibility of appeal. The Fuehrer decided

that Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter Greiser be given authority as

requested to set up the civilian courts martial which he had proposed.

The Reichsstatthalter further reported to the Fuehrer that he had

asked you to delegate to him the right of pardon in regard to Poles

punished by the courts. The Fuehrer has decided that this desire of the

Reichsstatthalter is also to be complied with.

I beg to inform you of these decisions taken by the Fuehrer and to ask

you to take the necessary implementing steps without delay. I leave

it to you to consider whether it is advisable to include this ruling

on the basis of the above-mentioned decisions of the Fuehrer, in

whole or in part, in the draft of the decree which you have prepared

concerning the administration of criminal law against the Poles and

Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories and in the territory of

the former Free City of Danzig. I ask you to report to the Fuehrer, for

my attention, on the measure you have taken. [Handwritten] as soon as

possible

A photo copy of a letter received here from the Reich Leader SS and

Chief of the German Police in the Ministry of the Interior is enclosed

for your information.[339] May I leave it to your discretion to send

to the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police a copy of your

comments, as requested in the last sentence of the letter.

[In margin] Bzf. Photo copy

of Rk. 7760 B

(Name of the Reich Minister)

3. To Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, at present Obersalzberg.

Subject: Administration of criminal law in the Incorporated

Eastern Territories

In answer to the letter of 24 May 1941--Bo/Si--.

Esteemed Mr. Bormann!

For your information I beg to submit herewith a copy of my letter

of today’s date to the Reich Minister of Justice, concerning the

establishment of civilian courts martial and the transference of the

right of appeal in the Reichsgau Wartheland.

_Bzf. copy of_

also photo of

Rk 7760 B

Heil Hitler!

Respectfully

(Name of the Reich Minister)

4. To the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police, Reich

Ministry of the Interior,

Berlin SW 11

Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse 8

Subject: Administration of criminal law in the Incorporated

Eastern Territories

Reference: Letter of 16 May 1941-S-II A 2 (new) No. 127/41-173-1

I have forwarded a photo copy of your letter of 16 May 1941 to the

Reich Minister of Justice for his information. I have asked him to

forward to you a copy of his comments as requested in the last sentence

of your letter.

(name of the Reich Minister)

5. After sending it off

Min. Dir. Kritzinger for information.

6. Follow up after 1 month.

[Initial] L [Lammers]

(name of the Reich Minister)

[Initial] F [Ficker]

27 May

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-1615

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 521

DECREE OF 31 MAY 1941 CONCERNING THE INTRODUCTION OF

THE NUERNBERG RACIAL LAWS IN THE INCORPORATED

EASTERN TERRITORIES

1941 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART I, PAGE 297

By virtue of article 8 of the Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich

Chancellor, of 8 October 1939 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 2042), it is

hereby ordered:

Article 1

In the Incorporated Eastern Territories the following are applicable:

(1) The Reich Citizenship Law of 15 September 1935[340]

(Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1146).

(2) Article 2, paragraph 2; article 4, paragraphs 1 and 3; article 5;

article 6, paragraph 1; and article 7 of the first amendment of the

Reich Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.

1333).

* * * * * * *

Article 3

In the Incorporated Eastern Territories the Law for the Protection

of German Blood and German Honor of 15 September 1935[341]

(Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1146), and the first decree concerning the

execution of this law of 14 November 1935 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.

1334), as well as the decree supplementing the first executive decree

for the Law for the Protection of German Blood, of 16 February 1940

(Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 394) shall be applicable.

Article 4

(1) This decree shall take effect 1 week after promulgation.

(2) Part I, article 7 of the Decree concerning the introduction of the

German Criminal Law in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, of 6 June

1940[342] (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 844), shall be applied to violations

of the provisions for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor.

Berlin, 31 May 1941

The Reich Minister of the Interior

As deputy: DR. STUCKART[343]

The Chief of the Party Chancellery

M. BORMANN

The Acting Reich Minister of Justice

DR. SCHLEGELBERGER[344]

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-715

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 112

SECOND EXECUTIVE DECREE, 31 MAY 1941, FOR THE EXECUTION OF

THE LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF GERMAN BLOOD AND HONOR

1941 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART I, PAGE 297

By virtue of article 6 of the Law for the Protection of German Blood

and German Honor of 15 September 1935 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, 1935, p.

1146), the following is hereby decreed:

Article 1

The protection afforded to German blood or to blood racially related

to German blood by the Law for the Protection of German Blood and

German Honor of 15 September 1935 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1146), and

its first executive decree of 14 November 1935 (Reichsgesetzblatt

I, p. 1334), as amended by the supplementing decree of 16 February

1940 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 394), shall not extend to former Polish

nationals, unless they have acquired German nationality or have been

entered in the list of German nationals [deutsche Volksliste] by virtue

of the decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor concerning the

organization and administration of the eastern territories of 8 October

1939 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 2042).

Article 2

(1) This decree shall be applicable in the Incorporated Eastern

Territories, too.

(2) It shall take effect one day after promulgation.

Berlin, 31 May 1941.

The Acting Reich Minister of the Interior

As deputy: DR. STUCKART

The Chief of the Party Chancellery

M. BORMANN

The Acting Reich Minister of Justice

DR. SCHLEGELBERGER

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-505

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 71

CIRCULAR LETTER FROM DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER TO THE PRESIDENTS OF THE

COURTS OF APPEAL AND ATTORNEYS GENERAL, 24 JULY 1941, ENTITLED “MILD

SENTENCES AGAINST POLES”

The Reich Minister of Justice

9170 Eastern territories 2-III

4 1137.41

Berlin W 8, 24 July 1941

Wilhelmstrasse 65

1. To the Presidents of the Courts of Appeals and the Attorneys General

(with the exception of Prague).

2. Through the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia to--

The Presidents of the Courts of Appeals and the Attorney General in

Prague.

Subject: Mild sentences against Poles

Attached: 1 compilation

8 additional copies for the Chief Public Prosecutors

Despite my constant allusions to this matter during conferences and

in individual instructions, I am time and again notified of sentences

by which Poles in the Reich proper are given entirely insufficient

prison sentences for sexual and other serious crimes. Such sentences

reveal an incomprehensibly lenient attitude toward the Polish nation

which confronts us with implacable enmity. They constitute a danger

to the security of the German people and justify the reproach that

the administration of criminal law has not proved adequate to the

necessities of war.

To make this point clear, the attachment lists a few of such

sentences against Polish criminals which have been changed by special

instructions or which I had to have altered by way of the nullity plea.

I want to express my firm expectation that the officials of the justice

administration will not fail to recognize the serious danger this

constitutes for our people; and, last but not least, for the stability

of the administration of criminal law. I, therefore, expect that from

now on measures will be taken against Polish criminals in the Reich

proper with all the necessary firmness and with the heaviest sentences

in accordance with article 4 of the decree against public enemies.[345]

Elements clearly criminal and sexual criminals of Polish nationality

must, as a rule, be punished by death. That the application of article

4 of the decree against public enemies is principally justified in

the case of crimes committed by Poles in the Reich proper has been

recognized by the Reich Supreme Court in its decision C 258. 41 of 19

June 1941 with the following explanations:

“If * * * it is noted that entire groups of culprits * * *

possess fewer inhibitions with regard to certain crimes than

the German people in general, the protection of law and order

demands greater watchfulness as to the resulting dangers.

The demand for retribution and the deterrent effect would be

seriously impaired if the administration of justice would grant

such culprits any right of obtaining mild penalties.

The established fact that the defendant, a Pole, sexually

assaulted a German girl should have caused * * * the court to

examine the question of whether or not the characteristics of

a crime, as defined in article 4 of the decree against public

enemies, were present. There is reason to assume that the

defendant in his assault on a juvenile female fellow worker made

use of the absence, caused by war conditions, of male workers

who might otherwise have been able to come to her aid, and

that the circumstances of his crime, in addition, are of such

reprehensible kind that they reveal a criminal possessing the

essential characteristics of a public enemy * * *.”

In addition to this, it must be considered that Poles are now entering

Germany only as a result of the wartime shortage of German labor and

that as a result of the decrease of police forces, likewise due to the

war, the necessary police supervision over Poles which would have been

possible under normal peacetime conditions is no longer guaranteed.

The Acting Minister

[Typed signature] DR. SCHLEGELBERGER[346]

Certified: [Signed] BIERWITH

Administrative Assistant

[Ministerialskanzleiobersekretaer]

[Stamp]

Ministry of Justice

Office of the Minister

-------------------------------+---------------+---------------------+--------------------------+------------------+-------------------------------

-------------------------------+---------------+---------------------+--------------------------+------------------+-------------------------------

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

-------------------------------+---------------+---------------------+--------------------------+------------------+-------------------------------

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-715

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 112

DECREE OF 4 DECEMBER 1941 CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION

OF PENAL JUSTICE AGAINST POLES AND JEWS IN THE

INCORPORATED EASTERN TERRITORIES[347]

1941 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART I, PAGE 759

The Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich

herewith decrees:

1. _Substantive Criminal Law_

(1) Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern Territories are to

conduct themselves in conformity with the German laws and with the

regulations introduced for them by the German authorities. They are to

abstain from any conduct liable to prejudice the sovereignty of the

German Reich or the prestige of the German people.

(2) The death penalty shall be imposed on any Pole or Jew if he commits

an act of violence against a German on account of his membership in the

German ethnic community.

(3) A Pole or Jew shall be sentenced to death, or in less serious cases

to imprisonment, if he manifests anti-German sentiments by malicious

or inciting activities particularly by making anti-German utterances,

or by removing or defacing official notices of German authorities or

agencies, or if he, by his conduct, lowers or prejudices the prestige

or the well-being of the German Reich or the German people.

(4) The death penalty or, in less serious cases, imprisonment, shall be

imposed on any Pole or Jew--

_1._ If he commits any act of violence against a member of the

German armed forces or its auxiliaries, of the German police force or

its auxiliaries, of the Reich labor service, of any German authority or

agency or of an organization of the NSDAP;

_2._ If he purposely damages installations of the German

authorities or agencies, objects used by them in performance of their

duties, or objects of public utility;

_3._ If he solicits or incites another person to disobey any

decree or regulation issued by the German authorities;

_4._ If he conspires to commit an act punishable under paragraphs (2),

(3), and (4), subparagraphs _1_ through _3_, or if he enters into

serious negotiations about committing such an act, or if he offers to

commit such an act, or accepts such an offer, or if he obtains credible

information of such act, or of the intention of committing it, and

fails to notify the authorities or any person threatened thereby at a

time when danger can still be averted; and

_5._ If he is found to be in unlawful possession of a firearm, a

hand grenade, or any weapon for stabbing or hitting, of explosives,

ammunition or other implements of war, or if he has credible

information that a Pole or a Jew is in unlawful possession of such an

object, and fails to notify the authorities forthwith.

Punishment shall also be imposed on Poles or Jews if they act

contrary to German criminal law or commit any act for which they

deserve punishment in accordance with the fundamental principles of

German criminal law and in view of the interests of the State in the

Incorporated Eastern Territories.

III

(1) Penalties provided for Poles and Jews are--imprisonment, fine, or

confiscation of property. The term of imprisonment is to be not less

than 3 months and not more than 10 years in a penal camp; for more

serious offenses, imprisonment consists of 2 to 15 years in a penal

camp in which a more severe regimen is enforced.

(2) The death sentence shall be imposed in all cases where it is

prescribed by the law. Moreover, in those cases where the law does not

provide for the death sentence, it shall be imposed if the act shows

a particularly base attitude or is particularly serious for other

reasons; in these cases the death sentence may also be passed upon

juvenile offenders.

(3) The minimum penalty or a fixed penalty prescribed by German

criminal law cannot be reduced unless the criminal act is directed

against the offender’s own people exclusively.

(4) If a fine cannot be recovered, it shall be substituted by

imprisonment in a penal camp from 1 week to 1 year.

2. _Criminal Procedure_

The public prosecutor shall prosecute a Pole or a Jew if he considers

that punishment is in the public interest.

(1) Poles and Jews shall be tried by a Special Court or by the local

court.

(2) The public prosecutor can file the indictment with a Special Court

in all cases. He can file the indictment with the local court if the

punishment to be imposed is not likely to be heavier than 5 years in a

penal camp, or 3 years in a more rigorous penal camp.

(3) The jurisdiction of the People’s Court remains unaffected.

(1) Every sentence will be carried out without delay. The public

prosecutor may, however, appeal from the sentence of the local court to

the court of appeal. The appeal has to be lodged within 2 weeks.

(2) The right to lodge complaints is also reserved exclusively to the

public prosecutor. Complaints will be decided upon by the court of

appeal.

VII

Poles and Jews cannot challenge a German judge on account of alleged

partiality.

VIII

(1) Arrest and temporary detention are allowed whenever there are good

grounds to suspect that a punishable act has been committed.

(2) During the preliminary investigations, the public prosecutor may

also order arrest and any other coercive measures permissible.

Poles and Jews are not sworn in as witnesses in criminal proceedings.

If the unsworn deposition made by them before the court is false, the

provisions as prescribed for perjury and false sworn statements shall

be applied accordingly.

(1) Only the public prosecutor may apply for the reopening of

proceedings. In a case tried before a Special Court, the decision on an

application for the reopening of the proceedings rests with this court.

(2) The right to lodge a nullity plea rests with the attorney general.

The decision on the plea rests with the court of appeal.

Poles and Jews neither can file private suits nor bring about action as

coplaintiffs.

XII

The court and the public prosecutor shall conduct proceedings within

their discretion according to the principles of the German Law of

Criminal Procedure. They may, however, dispense with the provisions of

the Judicature Act and the Law of Criminal Procedure, whenever this may

be expedient for the rapid and more efficient conduct of proceedings.

3. _Civilian Court Martial Proceedings_

XIII

(1) Subject to the consent of the Reich Minister of the Interior and

the Reich Minister of Justice, the Reich governor (or provincial

governor) may, until further notice, enforce martial law in the

Incorporated Eastern Territories, either in the whole area under his

jurisdiction or in parts thereof, upon Poles and Jews guilty of grave

excesses against Germans or of other punishable acts which seriously

endanger the German work of reconstruction.

(2) The courts established under martial law impose the death sentence.

They may, however, dispense with punishment and refer the case to the

Secret State Police (Gestapo).

(3) Subject to the consent of the Reich Minister of the Interior, the

constitution and procedure of the courts established under martial law

shall be regulated by the Reich governor.

4. _Extent of Application of this Decree_

XIV

(1) The provisions contained in sections I-IV of this decree apply also

to those Poles and Jews who, on 1 September 1939, were domiciled or had

their residence within the territory of the former Polish state, and

who committed the punishable act in any part of the German Reich other

than the Incorporated Eastern Territories.

(2) The case may also be tried by the court within whose jurisdiction

the former domicile or residence of the perpetrator is situated.

Sections V-XII apply accordingly.

(3) Paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply to punishable acts tried by the

courts in the Government General.

5. _Concluding Regulations_

Within the meaning of this decree, the term “Poles” includes protected

and stateless persons who belong to the Polish racial community.

XVI

Article II of the decree of 6 June 1940, concerning the introduction

of German Criminal Law in the Incorporated Eastern Territories

(Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 844) no longer applies to Poles and Jews.[348]

XVII

The Reich Minister of Justice is authorized to issue rules and

administrative regulations concerning the execution and implementation

of this decree and to decide in all cases of doubt, in agreement with

the Reich Minister of the Interior.

XVIII

This decree shall come into force on the fourteenth day after its

promulgation.

Berlin, 4 December 1941

The President of the Ministerial Council

for the Defense of the Reich

REICH MARSHAL GOERING

The Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the Reich

FRICK

The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery

DR. LAMMERS

SCHLEGELBERGER DOCUMENT 61

SCHLEGELBERGER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 27

EXTRACTS FROM AN ARTICLE BY DR. ROLAND FREISLER, UNDER SECRETARY IN

THE REICH MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, JANUARY 1942, CONCERNING CRIMINAL

JURISDICTION FOR POLES[349]

The German Criminal Code for Poles by Dr. jur. Roland Freisler, State

Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Justice, member of the Presidency of

the Academy for German Law.

* * * * * * *

The objective Criminal Jurisdiction for Poles

* * * * * * *

It is not contradictory to justice if criminal jurisdiction for

Poles is different from the German criminal jurisdiction. Even if

_one_ people within a state can be subject to _one_ [system

of] law only, it is yet quite possible that for another nationality

within the same state another [system of] law is applicable. Whether

this condition should be brought to bear must be determined by the

necessities of the State. It is essential of course that the other

national group can perceive the law in force for its members in order

to be able to abide by it.

For there must be a standard whereby it can regulate its behavior. By

this standard the conduct of its nationals can be judged fairly. There

is nothing contrary to justice if the one criminal law in its general

aspect is milder, the other, viewed as a whole is severer. After all

there is justice in a sphere of severity as well as in a sphere of

leniency.

If the administration of criminal justice for Poles devotes exactly

the same care to the investigation of the facts of a case, as does

the administration of criminal justice for Germans, viz, avoiding

everything which even very remotely might resemble a judgment on

suspicion, if, besides, it judges the established facts just as

conscientiously according to the law applicable to Poles, as it judges

the established facts in the case of Germans according to the general

German penal law, and if, finally, it endeavors to render the right

judgment in the award of punishment within the compass of the penal law

applicable for Poles, as within the compass of the penalties pursuant

to the general German penal law for Germans, the criminal jurisdiction

for Poles is just, regardless of the different evaluation of actions

of Germans and Poles, which might be necessary in many cases. The

political task of the administration of criminal jurisdiction is not at

all incompatible with justice.

The directives for arriving at a just decision, especially in the case

of the law pursuant to Number II, in the criminal jurisdiction for

Poles are deprived by viewing the German people and Reich as a whole in

regard to the necessities of the State, the judicial comprehension of

which is given by the political aim of German work in the Incorporated

Eastern Territories. Looking at the individual Poles who have been

committed for trial it follows from the general, legally established

subordination law to which he is subject pursuant to Number I, and

which should dominate and guide his whole conduct. By considering both

points, i.e., State necessity and the duty of subordination, no divided

result can be arrived at in any individual case, because the duty of

subordination of the Pole in the Incorporated Eastern Territories is

a State necessity, and because on the other hand the extent of this

duty of subordination in itself is determined by the aim of the German

construction work, i.e., by State necessity.

The German administration of criminal jurisdiction for Poles exercised

in the fulfillment of the Polish task of the German folkdom in the

Incorporated Eastern Territories will be characterized by justice just

as it is in every other German administration of justice.

* * * * * * *

The penal code for Poles has only one form of detention--the punitive

camp. Therefore, this takes the place of confinement in a fortress,

imprisonment, penal servitude as provided by the general German penal

code. In the penal registers the punitive camp term will be recorded as

“penitentiary” [Zuchthaus]. This does not mean, however, that it will

be like penitentiary [service] in every respect. Thus not every term

in a punitive camp will be regarded as “penitentiary”; only a term of

increased severity in a punitive camp in the meaning of the regulations

for the noninclusion of the period of detention in custody in the

term of imprisonment for the duration of the war, will be regarded as

“penitentiary.” However, where no special ruling is applicable, it will

have to be concluded from the recording of the term in a punitive camp

in the penal register that its legal status is that of penitentiary

[service], as far as this can be applied to the State legal status of a

Pole.

The judge may also pronounce a sentence of detention of increased

severity in a punitive camp. In doing so, however, he does not choose

another method of punishment. Legally the sentence of increased

severity term in a punitive camp has to be considered as being the same

as pronouncement of punishment of increased severity in a legal system,

which allows the judge the possibility of sentences of increased

severity.

* * * * * * *

From the much increased minimum duration of terms of increased severity

in a punitive camp (2 years) and from its increased limit (15 years) it

follows that the judge is expected to make use of it in serious cases,

which is also especially emphasized in the decree.

In case of death sentences the same methods of execution are in force,

as applied by the German Criminal (Penal) Code.

By adding fines, confiscation of property, imprisonment, and capital

punishment the penal code for Poles intends to complete the punitive

methods applicable to Poles.

III

Law of procedure against Poles

d. Preliminary proceedings.

* * * * * * *

By the general principle of every German administration of criminal

jurisdiction, viz, that it must serve to establish actual facts and

their true judgment--a principle which is adhered to without exception

and unalterably the freedom of judgment in the arrangement of the

preliminary proceedings finds its unchangeable limit (the same has to

be said with regard to the trial). From this it follows as a matter of

course that the public prosecutor in the preliminary proceeding will

have to examine all evidence, extenuating as well as aggravating, and

investigate it.

It is just as self-evident that in the place of preliminary

proceedings by the public prosecutor and the decision of the public

prosecutor concerning the indictment and abatement there can be no

Klageerzwingungsverfahren[350] on the part of a private person in

consideration of the principle of liberty of decision with regard

to prosecution or nonprosecution, just as prosecuting authority

no private person can appear as prosecutor, replacing the public

prosecutor neither independently nor as coprosecutor; consequently

the Pole can be neither plaintiff nor coplaintiff. In order to avoid

any misinterpretation in this direction this has been expressly

stated already in the decree establishing a penal code. In the

decree establishing the penal code for Poles it is stated expressly:

“The public prosecutor prosecutes crimes of Poles and Jews * * *.”

(Number IV) “Poles and Jews can take neither civil action nor act

as coplaintiffs.” (Number XI). From the first of these two legal

provisions it follows also that against the Pole no civil action nor

action as a coplaintiff can be taken; the public prosecutor alone is

competent to prosecute.

If the liberty of decision in determining the procedure as well as

the main trial is stressed time and again, on the other hand it must

nevertheless be emphasized that the establishment of the true facts

of the case is the purport and the rendering of a just verdict the

aim of every criminal proceeding against Poles. Therefore, nothing

may be disregarded which may serve to establish the truth and to

arrive at a just verdict. For this it is essential that the accused

is heard,--as long as he does not use this possibility granted him

for propaganda--and that he can defend himself in connection with

the accusation, that he may offer evidence of any kind, that he can

express himself with regard to the findings of the evidence heard,

and that he may have the last word. In cases where difficulties

arise from difference of language it is of course essential that the

possibility of understanding is secured, if necessary with the help of

an interpreter. The judge and all the officials of the administration

of justice always and without exception will speak German. Likewise

all evidence, as far as it is not declared with certainty as being

unsuitable right away, must be fully investigated.

The giving of the opportunity to the public prosecutor and the judge to

use their own discretion in the arrangement of proceedings was possible

only because it may be assumed that no German public prosecutor and

no German judge in any proceeding conducted by him will ignore these

principles.

Should that happen, however, in an isolated case, it is to be

expected that the public prosecutor will appeal against a decision

arrived at during a trial exhibiting such fundamental defects with

the legal measures at his disposal. The senates of the four district

courts of appeal, which are the highest authority in Polish matters,

guarantee that they display in these cases by the way in which they

deal with appeals that such high principles may not be left out of

consideration and that they express this clearly in the reasons given

for the verdict, although this is not absolutely necessary for the

establishment of the sentence itself, because it is not a revised

judgment but a sentence on appeal * * *.

f. Execution of a sentence.

* * * * * * *

Even if every sentence can be carried out immediately nevertheless it

is self-evident that the authority carrying out sentences will not

proceed to the execution if in a specific case the possibility exists

that the condemning verdict can undergo a substantial change by legal

measures to the advantage of the condemned person or even be changed

into acquittal. It is completely self-evident that the severest penalty

will not be put into effect before it has the force of law; this is

also impossible because the decision of the supreme authority as to the

execution or nonexecution can only be brought about after the sentence

becomes valid. It has also to be expected that the executing authority

will stay the execution of the penalty if that authority or the public

prosecutor--perhaps because of new evidence--later arrives at the

conclusion that the condemning sentence cannot be upheld, or at least

reckons with the not too distant possibility of such a result of an

appeal or of a retrial.

The decree contains no specification that the court of appeal, or

court of retrial, or its president can order a stay of execution of

a sentence. The legislator believed he could abstain from such a

specification, because the attorney general will see to it in the way

of administration that such a stay is brought about at the suggestion

of the president. It is not necessary that everything should be ordered

in the way of legislation that can be safeguarded in the way of

administration.

g. Legal means--The public prosecutor can “lodge an appeal against

sentences passed by the judge of a local court with the district court

of appeal. The period of time within which an appeal is to be lodged

is 2 weeks.” (Number VI) The extension of the time limit is explained

not only by the poor rail and postal communications which are sometimes

even worse in the Incorporated Eastern Territories than in other parts

of the Reich. Its explanation is to be found above all in the fact that

it is also the duty of the public prosecutor to examine whether an

appeal is to be lodged on behalf of the condemned person. The condemned

person will quite often suggest this to him. The public prosecutor will

then require a certain amount of time in order to examine whether the

new statements and evidence, which the defendant has perhaps given him

when he suggested such an appeal. For that the summary examination of

evidence offered will often be necessary and will take a few days. Just

when the public prosecutor is confronted with the question whether he

is to lodge an appeal on behalf of the condemned person he will do well

to hold himself more than ever aloof from the bad custom of lodging an

appeal “as a precaution.” For in this case he would raise false hopes

and in addition, even if he does not subsequently maintain the appeal,

would in the eyes of the condemned divest the judgment of some of its

authority. He must therefore have time for a summary examination. From

this resulted the extension of the time limit for the lodging of an

appeal.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-665

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 346

SUPPLEMENTARY DECREE, 31 JANUARY 1942, CONCERNING THE

ADMINISTRATION OF PENAL JUSTICE AGAINST POLES AND JEWS

IN THE INCORPORATED EASTERN TERRITORIES

1942 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART I, PAGE 52

Pursuant to article XVII of the decree concerning the Administration

of Penal Justice against Poles and Jews in the Incorporated Eastern

Territories of 4 December 1941[351] (Reichsgesetzblatt Part I, page

759), the following is decreed:

Article I

Articles I to III of the decree of 4 December 1941 (Reichsgesetzblatt

I, p. 759) may be equally applied with the consent of the public

prosecutor to offenses committed before the decree came into force.

Article II

(1) The court may rule in every case that Poles and Jews be

interrogated by a commissioned or requested judge; article 251,

paragraph 2, of the Reich Code of Criminal Procedure and article 252,

paragraph 3, of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure will remain

unchanged.

(2) This regulation equally applies to Poles and Jews who, on 1

September 1939, resided or were abiding in the territory of the former

Polish State and who are interrogated as witnesses in other parts of

the German Reich.

Berlin, 31 January 1942

The Acting Reich Minister of Justice

DR. SCHLEGELBERGER

The Reich Minister of the Interior

As deputy: PFUNDNER

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-1106

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 462

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF A CONFERENCE BETWEEN DEFENDANT ROTHENBERGER

AND THREE JUDGES OF THE HAMBURG COURTS, 23 JANUARY 1942, CONCERNING THE

EXEMPTION OF DESTITUTE JEWS FROM COURT FEES

Notes on a discussion held on 23 January 1942

* * * * * * *

II. Present: Senator Dr. Rothenberger, Local Court Judge Dr.

Schwarz, Presiding Judge Korn of the District Court, Judge Dr.

F. Priess of the District Court of Appeal

[Marginal note] copy made out for: 3715-1b 1/17 a-c

extract

The senator [the defendant Rothenberger] reported that the question of

the Armenrecht[352] concerning Jews has come into the foreground again.

With the district court there were two cases pending. He requested that

contacts with the judges of the district court and of the local court

be taken up at once so that a uniform line is followed to the effect

that the Jews be denied the benefits of the Armenrecht. It would be

entirely out of the question that Jews be granted the benefits of the

Armenrecht subsequent to the present development. This would apply

especially to Jews who had been evacuated, but in his opinion also to

those who had not been evacuated. With regard to the matter it had to

be considered whether or not any material claims of the Jews could

still be answered in the affirmative. Concerning this question, it

might, however, be practical to maintain a certain reserve.

Presiding Judge Korn of the district court had raised certain

objections to the denial, because up to now it was lacking any legal

basis.

Hamburg, 27 January 1942

For information--1. To Councillor of the Local Court for information

and further action (with regard to II)

2. To High Judicial Inspector Bellair for further action 27 January 1942

[Illegible initials]

323-1b 2/1

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-589

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 372

UNDATED REPORT FROM THE DISTRICT COURT IN HAMBURG CONCERNING GRANTING

OF BENEFITS FOR DESTITUTE PERSONS TO A JEW, TOGETHER WITH TWO LETTERS

OF DEFENDANT ROTHENBERGER AND AN INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM, 13 FEBRUARY-22

MAY 1942

Excerpts from the File Prenzlau against Behrens and Lundin--

2 0.84/41

The Jewish plaintiff Israel Prenzlau proposed that Armenrecht be

granted him in an intended lawsuit against Karl Behrens and Paul Lundin

in consideration of a claim which is supposed to have arisen from

the withdrawal of the Jewish co-associate from the G.m.b.H. [limited

liability company].

On 30 June 1937 the plaintiff withdrew from the Prenzlau, Behrens, and

Lundin G.m.b.H. The firm is now continuing its business as a trading

company with unlimited liability of the partners. At the time of the

withdrawal, it had not yet been ascertained that a former employee had

defrauded the firm for the amount of 80,000 reichsmarks. He maintains

that he retains his share of the claim against Hahn, or rather those

firms which by default have rendered possible the loss to the G.m.b.H.

of so large an amount. The defendants, in the course of the Armenrecht

proceedings, have offered 3,000 reichsmarks in settlement of the claim,

subject to approval by the Gau economic adviser. The Gau economic

adviser, after only a preliminary short comment, gave the following

interpretation on 6 November 1941:

“In reply to your inquiry I state my point of view in detail.

“In a lawsuit between a German national and a Jew I consider

the settling of a dispute by legal measures inadmissible for

political reasons. The German national as party in the lawsuit,

pursuant to his clearly defined legal standard derived from

his political training since 1933, can expect that the court

will decide the case by a verdict that is to meet a conclusive

decision on the case. What is expected is a decision which was

arrived at not from purely legal points of view, as result of

a legal trend of thoughts, but which is an expression of the

way in which National Socialist demands, concerning the Jewish

question, are realized by German lawyers. Evading this decision

by a compromise might mean encroaching upon the rights of a

fellow citizen in favor of a Jew. This kind of settlement would

be in contradiction to the sound sentiments of the people, I

therefore consider it as inadmissible.”

The defendants thereupon refused a settlement with the plaintiff and

now deny they owe him anything.

On 6 December 1941 the district court [Hamburg] granted Armenrecht.

Subsequently, action was brought in as follows:

1. To disclose to the plaintiff what the payments have been, which have

been made so far to the parties entitled to redress pursuant to the

claim against Hahn.

2. To pay defendant 22 percent of the total amounts received, with 4

percent interest from the day the action was filed.

The court intends now to issue a conclusion based on evidence.

3715-1b 1 17 13 February 1942

To the President of the District Court

Hamburg

1 Document

With regard to the pending case Prenzlau against Behrens and Lundin I

do not intend to approach the economic adviser of the Gau for the time

being, seeing from the documents that the ultimate beneficiary of the

claim--the son of the plaintiff--emigrated in the year 1938 and his

property has therefore surely been confiscated. I fail to understand

why the court granted Armenrecht to the assignee, a Jew, without

first consulting the authority for sequestration of property. The

cession most probably will become meaningless as it was transferred in

trusteeship by the son to the father shortly before his emigration.

Please discuss the matter with the judge.

[Typed signature] DR. ROTHENBERGER

Written: 13 February 1942

Read:

Mailed: 14 February 1942

_Note_

The senator discussed in Berlin the question of granting Armenrecht

to Jews. A ruling will probably be issued shortly. Every case coming

on hand must first be submitted to the senator. President Korn and

President Dr. Segelken have been informed by me to this effect.

Hamburg, 24 February 1942

[Illegible initial]

[Handwritten notes]

Local Court Judge Dr. Bartsch for information.

25 February 42

Seen 25 February 1942

[Signed] SEN

22 May 1942

3715-1b/1/17/

To the President of the District Court

Hamburg

Subject: Granting of Armenrecht to Jews

Reference: Your letter A.R. 53/42

1 Document

I hereby return the document Prenzlau against Behrens and Lundin

2648/41-20 H 28/41 sent to me with report of 7 May.

With his circular ordinance of 5 March 1942--3715 IV b 3 332, with

which you are familiar, the Reich Minister of Justice has annulled

his circular ordinance of 23 June 1939--3740 IV b 1118, stating that

the granting of Armenrecht to Jews could be taken into consideration

only in such cases where the carrying out of the lawsuit is in the

common interest. In consequence thereof I consider it adequate that the

Armenrecht granted to plaintiff Prenzlau be cancelled.

Please have this taken into consideration by the court in a form which

you deem appropriate.

[Typed signature] DR. ROTHENBERGER

22 May 1942

Written: 22 May 1942

Read:

Mailed: 23 May 1942

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 4055-PS

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 401

LETTER FROM DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER TO LAMMERS, 12 MARCH 1942,

EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT CONTEMPLATED ANTI-JEWISH MEASURES; REPLY FROM

LAMMERS, 18 MARCH 1942; LETTER FROM SCHLEGELBERGER TO SEVEN GOVERNMENT

AND PARTY AGENCIES ON “THE FINAL SOLUTION OF THE JEWISH PROBLEM,” 5

APRIL 1942; FILE NOTE ON SITUATION OF BERLIN JEWS, 21 NOVEMBER 1941

Berlin, 12 March 1942

The Acting Reich Minister of Justice

Dear Reich Minister Dr. Lammers:

I have just been informed by my Referent about the result of the

meeting of 6 March regarding the treatment of Jews and descendants of

mixed marriages. I am now expecting the official transcript. According

to the report of my Referent, decisions seem to be under way which I

am constrained to consider absolutely impossible for the most part.

Since the results of these discussions are to constitute the basis for

the decision of the Fuehrer, and since a Referent from your Ministry

participated likewise in these discussions, I urgently desire to

discuss this matter with you on time. As soon as I have received the

transcript of the meeting, I shall take the liberty in calling you to

ask you if and when a discussion may take place.

With sincerest regards and Heil Hitler!

Yours devotedly

[Typed signature] DR. SCHLEGELBERGER

To the Reich Minister and Chief of the Party Chancellery

Dr. Lammers,

Berlin

01/108

The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery

Berlin W 8

Vosstrasse 6

18 March 1942

Pk 3614 B at present Fuehrer Headquarters

Under Secretary Professor Dr. Schlegelberger,

Acting Reich Minister of Justice

Subject: Total solution [Gesamtloesung] of the Jewish question

In reply to the letter of 12 March 1942

Dear Dr. Schlegelberger:

I will be very glad to comply with your request and to discuss this

question with you. I shall probably be visiting Berlin again toward the

end of the month and will then have you informed about a suitable date.

Heil Hitler!

yours sincerely,

[Signed] DR. LAMMERS

The Acting Reich Minister of Justice

Berlin W 8, 5 April 1942

Wilhelmstrasse 65

_Secret Reich Matter_

IV b 40 g RE

To:[353]

1. The Chief of the Party Chancellery

Attention: SS Oberfuehrer Klopfer

2. The Reich Minister of the Interior

Attention: Under Secretary Dr. Stuckart

3. The Chief of the Security Police and the SD

SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich

4. The Deputy for the Four Year Plan

Attention: Under Secretary Neumann

5. The Foreign Office

Attention: Under Secretary Luther

6. The Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories

Attention: Gau Leader and Under Secretary Dr. Meyer

7. The Race and Settlement Main Office of the Reich Leader SS

Attention: SS Gruppenfuehrer Hofmann

Subject: Final solution [Endloesung] of the Jewish problem

1. The final solution of the Jewish problem presupposes a clear-cut and

permanently applicable definition of the group of persons for whom the

projected measures are to be initiated. Such a definition applies only

when we desist from the beginning from including descendants of mixed

marriages of the second degree in these measures. The measures for the

final solution of the Jewish problem should extend only to full-blooded

Jews and descendants of mixed marriages of the first degree, but should

not apply to descendants of mixed marriages of the second degree.[354]

2. With regard to the treatment of Jewish descendants of mixed

marriages of the first degree, I agree with the conception of the

Reich Minister of the Interior which he expressed in his letter of

16 February 1942, to the effect that the prevention of propagation

of these descendants of mixed marriages is to be preferred to their

being thrown in with the Jews and evacuated. It follows therefrom that

evacuation of those half-Jews who are no more capable of propagation,

is excluded from the beginning. There is no national interest in

dissolving the marriages between such half-Jews and a full-blooded

German.

Those half-Jews who are capable of propagation should be given the

choice to submit to sterilization or to be evacuated in the same

manner as Jews. In the case of sterilization, as well as in that of

evacuation of the half-Jew, the German-blooded partner will have to

be given the opportunity to effect the dissolution of the marriage. I

see no objection to the German partner’s obtaining the possibility of

divorcing his or her sterilized or evacuated partner in a simplified

procedure without [having to observe] the limitation of article 53 of

the marriage law.

3. An exception might be worthy of consideration with respect to those

half-Jews whose descendants are becoming members of the German national

community, and who are finally absorbed by it. If these descendants are

to be incorporated into the German national community as full fledged

members--which has to be the aim in case of a genuine final solution

of the Jewish question--it seems advisable to protect them from being

treated as inferiors or from having feelings of inferiority which

could arise easily out of the knowledge and the bad conscience that

their immediate ancestors have been affected by the planned defensive

measures of the national community. For this reason, it should be

considered whether or not half-Jews whose living descendants are not

half-Jews should be spared from evacuation as well as sterilization.

4. I have no scruples against facilitation of divorce of marriages

between racial Germans and Jews. This facilitation should also be

extended to marriages with persons who are considered as Jews. The

divorce will have to be granted upon the request of the German-blooded

partner in a simplified procedure. I have considerable scruples about

compulsory divorces, for instance, on motion of the public prosecutor.

Such compulsion is unnecessary because the partners will be separated

in any case by the deportation of the Jewish partner. An enforced

divorce, moreover, is without avail, because, though it cuts the

marriage ties, it does not cut the inner tie between the partners;

moreover, it does not relieve the German partner from the scorn to

which he is exposed by clinging to his marriage. Finally, a clinging to

marriage on the part of the German-blooded partner is to be expected

only in the case of older marriages which have endured throughout

many years. In cases in which the Jewish partner, as a rule, is not

evacuated but confined to an old people’s ghetto, the German-blooded

partner who disclaims his membership in the German community should not

be prohibited from being admitted to the ghetto.

[Typed signature] DR. SCHLEGELBERGER

_Note_--In view of the present position of the Jews, discussions

are pending in the building whether Jews are to be deprived of the

right to participate in a lawsuit and whether some other ruling

is to be made concerning their representation before court. The

decisive factor is whether the immediate removal of all Jews can be

counted upon. About 77,000 Jews live in Berlin alone. About 7,000

of these have been removed so far. The Labor Exchange for Jews, 15

Fontane-promenade--Government Counsellor Epphaus--and the Secret State

Police (Dept. Burgstrasse--official in charge, Pruefer) have “reserved”

the Jews, who at present are difficult to replace, who are working in

armament factories and other war essential concerns. Furthermore, Jews

living in privileged mixed marriages have not so far been removed.

On the other hand, all Jewish legal consultants [Konsulenten] in

Berlin have been ordered to leave. These Jews are today “reserved.”

Accordingly, it must be assumed that a considerable number of Jews will

remain on Reich territory, and particularly in Berlin, for some time to

come.

Berlin, 21 November 1941

[Typed signature] LUTTERLOH

Ministerialdirigent

Senior Government Counsellor Dr. Gramm

Please inform the Under Secretary.

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-270

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 155

EXTRACTS FROM AN ARTICLE IN STREICHER’S[355] “DER STUERMER,”

2 APRIL 1942, CONCERNING THE KATZENBERGER TRIAL

AND JUDGMENT

Der Stuermer

DEATH TO THE RACE DEFILER

A Trial before the Nuernberg Special Court

_Race defiler Katzenberger_--13–14 March 1942--page 2, column 1

* * * * * * *

The prosecutor reads the charge. The Jew Katzenberger had committed

“race defilement” with the now 31-year-old business proprietress Irene

S., of Nuernberg, of German blood, from 1932 until the year 1940 (!) by

exploiting this woman’s financial difficulties. He did not even shrink

back from exploiting--for his Talmudic practices--the conditions caused

by the war and the absence of the husband S. who has been conscripted

for military service. Irene S. is charged with attempting to withhold

the deserved punishment from the Jew by committing perjury in the

pretrial interrogation.

_How Katzenberger defends himself_ (p. 2, col. 1)

* * * * * * *

How will Katzenberger try to deceive the Court and escape avenging

justice?

The Jew Katzenberger developed special tactics of his own. He pretends

not to have engaged in “race defiling,” but to have entertained merely

“fatherly” relations with Irene S. * * * Only out of “pure fatherly”

sentiment has he thrown cigarettes to her through the window and given

her lots of shoes.

* * * * * * *

_Before the verdict_ (p. 2, col. 4)

After the presentation of evidence has been concluded, the prosecutor

rises. With sharp words he characterizes the defendant as a criminal,

who did not even shrink back from exploiting war conditions for his

shameless activities. As a race defiler and public parasite in the

sense of the law, Katzenberger has forfeited his life. Therefore, the

death sentence should be pronounced against him. The other defendant,

Irene S., should be sentenced to 2 years’ hard labor and loss of civil

rights for 2 years.

* * * * * * *

In his final statement the Jew Katzenberger eventually tries at least

to save what can be saved.

Once more he tries to act the “benefactor,” in order to appeal to the

pity of the judges. With an impudence which only a Jew can muster, he

characterizes all that has been presented against him, as “backstairs’

gossip” and finally even wants to claim Frederick The Great as his

principal witness. But the president does not permit a Jewish race

defiler to soil the figure of the great Prussian King. The court then

adjourned for deliberation.

_Sentenced to death!_ (p. 3, col. 1)

When the court reenters the courtroom to announce the verdict one can

already see from the earnest looks of the judges that the fate of the

Talmudic criminal has been sealed.

As a race defiler and public parasite Katzenberger is sentenced to

death.

The codefendant Irene S. gets 2 years’ hard labor and loss of civil

rights for perjury. President of the District Court of Appeal R.

points to words in the findings of the verdict, which prove to what

extent the German judges are imbued with the tremendous importance of

the racial laws. The president brands the depravity of the defendant

and stamps him as an evil public parasite. “Racial defilement is

worse than murder! Entire generations will be affected by it into the

remotest future!” President of the district court of appeal R. in his

speech also refers to the guilt of Jewry in this war. “If today German

soldiers are bleeding to death, then the guilt falls upon that race

which from the very beginning strived for Germany’s ruin, and still

hopes today that the German people will not emerge from this struggle.”

In the case of Katzenberger the court had to pronounce the death

sentence. The physical destruction of the perpetrator was the only

possible atonement.

_The end_ (p. 3, col. 1)

With the findings of the verdict the sentence of the Special Court has

become effective.

_Why the “Stuermer” describes the Katzenberger trial in detail_

(p. 3, col. 2)

* * * * * * *

The Jew Katzenberger was sentenced to death as a race defiler and

public parasite. This sentence (it is not the first of this kind in

the Reich) was pronounced in Nuernberg and thus honors the city whose

name was bestowed upon the racial laws of 15 September 1935. For the

“Stuermer” however, this sentence signifies a special satisfaction,

because it was the “Stuermer” which, in a special edition of the year

1938, had demanded the death penalty for race defilers.

* * * * * * *

If today Jewish race defilers are really sentenced to death, then this

proves that the “Stuermer” has been a good prophet for many years.

_Race defilers are public parasites_ (p. 3, col. 4)

* * * * * * *

Jewish race defilers therefore will have to take care in the future.

They do not risk their freedom only but also their heads and necks.

The patience of the German people has become exhausted. It does not

treat Jewish public parasites more tenderly any longer than the public

parasites from our own ranks. In this sense the Katzenberger trial has

received a significance which goes far beyond the Nuernberg courtroom.

_Everything for the German people_ (p. 3, col. 4)

The world Jewry will discover that Germany knows how to defend herself

with the severe measures against Jewish race defilers. Now it will

again write using the old long-tried tactics, about the “medieval

conditions” prevailing in Germany. It will again glorify those “poor,

deplorable, harmless Jews,” who become the victims of National

Socialist legislation. It will give vent to spite and malice toward

Germany.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-154

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 152

OPINION AND SENTENCE OF THE NUERNBERG SPECIAL COURT IN

THE KATZENBERGER CASE, 13 MARCH 1942, IN WHICH DEFENDANT

ROTHAUG WAS PRESIDING JUDGE[356]

Sg No. 351/41

_Verdict_

In the name of the German People

The Special Court for the district of the Court of Appeal in Nuernberg

with the District Court Nuernberg-Fuerth in the proceedings against

Katzenberger, Lehmann Israel, commonly called Leo, merchant and head of

the Jewish religious community in Nuernberg, and Seiler, Irene, owner

of a photographic shop in Nuernberg, both at present in arrest pending

trial the charges being racial pollution and perjury--in public session

of 13 March 1942, in the presence of--

The President--Dr. Rothaug, Senior Judge of the District Court;

Associate Judges--Dr. Ferber and Dr. Hoffmann, Judges of the

District Court;

Public Prosecutor for the Special Court--Markl; and

Official Registrar: Raisin, clerk,

pronounced the following verdict:

Katzenberger, Lehmann Israel, commonly called Leo, Jewish by race and

religion, born 25 November 1873 at Massbach, married, merchant of

Nuernberg; Seiler, Irene, née Scheffler, born 26 April 1910 at Guben,

married, owner of a photographic shop in Nuernberg, both at present in

arrest pending trial have been sentenced as follows:

Katzenberger--for an offense under section 2, legally identical with

an offense under section 4 of the decree against public enemies in

connection with the offense of racial pollution to death and to loss of

his civil rights for life according to sections 32–34 of the criminal

(penal) code.

Seiler--for the offense of committing perjury while a witness to 2

years of hard labor and to loss of her civil rights for the duration of

2 years.

The 3 months the defendant Seiler spent in arrest pending trial will be

taken into consideration in her sentence.

Costs will be charged to the defendants.

_Findings_

1. The defendant Katzenberger is fully Jewish and a German national; he

is a member of the Jewish religious community.

As far as his descent is concerned, extracts from the birth registers

of the Jewish community at Massbach show that the defendant was born

on 25 November 1873 as the son of Louis David Katzenberger, merchant,

and his wife Helene née Adelberg. The defendant’s father, born on 30

June 1838 at Massbach, was, according to an extract from the Jewish

registers at Thundorf, the legitimate son of David Katzenberger,

weaver, and his wife Karoline Lippig. The defendants’ mother Lena

Adelberg, born on 14 June 1847 at Aschbach, was, according to extracts

from the birth register of the Jewish religious community of Aschbach,

the legitimate daughter of Lehmann Adelberg, merchant and his wife,

Lea. According to the Thundorf register, the defendant’s parents were

married on 3 December 1867 by the district rabbi in Schweinfurt. The

defendant’s grandparents on his father’s side were married, according

to extracts from the Thundorf register, on 3 April 1832; those on his

mother’s side were married, according to an extract from the register

of marriages of the Jewish religious community of Aschbach, on 14

August 1836.

The extracts from the register of marriages of the Jewish religious

community at Aschbach show, concerning the marriage of the maternal

grandparents, that Bela-Lea Seemann, born at Aschbach in 1809, was

a member of the Jewish religious community. Otherwise the documents

mentioned give no further information so far as confessional

affiliations are concerned that parents or grandparents were of Jewish

faith.

The defendant himself has stated that he is certain that all four

grandparents were members of the Jewish faith. His grandmothers he

knew when they were alive; both grandfathers were buried in Jewish

cemeteries. Both his parents belonged to the Jewish religious

community, as he does himself.

The court sees no reason to doubt the correctness of these statements,

which are fully corroborated by the available extracts from exclusively

Jewish registers. Should it be true that all four grandparents belonged

to the Jewish faith, the grandparents would be regarded as fully

Jewish according to the regulation to facilitate the producing of

evidence in section 5, paragraph 1 together with section 2, paragraph

2, page 2 of the ordinance to the Reich Civil Code of 14 November 1935

Reichsgesetzblatt, page 1333. The defendant therefore is fully Jewish

in the sense of the Law for the Protection of German Blood.[357] His

own admissions show that he himself shared that view.

The defendant Katzenberger came to Nuernberg in 1912. Together with his

brothers, David and Max, he ran a shoe shop until November 1938. The

defendant married in 1906, and there are two children, ages 30 and 34.

Up to 1938 the defendant and his brothers, David and Max, owned the

property of 19 Spittlertorgraben in Nuernberg. There were offices and

storerooms in the rear building, whereas the main building facing the

street was an apartment house with several apartments.

The codefendant Irene Seiler arrived in 1932 to take a flat in 19

Spittlertorgraben, and the defendant Katzenberger has been acquainted

with her since that date.

2. Irene Seiler, née Scheffler, is a German citizen of German blood.

Her descent is proved by documents relating to all four grandparents.

She herself, her parents, and all her grandparents belong to the

Protestant Lutheran faith. This finding of the religious background is

based on available birth and marriage certificates of the Scheffler

family which were made part of the trial. As far as descent is

concerned therefore, there can be no doubt about Irene Seiler, née

Scheffler, being of German blood.

The defendant Katzenberger was fully cognizant of the fact that Irene

Seiler was of German blood and of German nationality.

On 29 July 1939, Irene Scheffler married Johann Seiler, a commercial

agent. There have been no children so far.

In her native city, Guben, the defendant attended secondary school and

high school up to Unterprima [eighth grade of high school], and after

that, for 1 year, she attended the Leipzig State Academy of Art and

Book Craft.

She went to Nuernberg in 1932 where she worked in the photographic

laboratory of her sister Hertha, which the latter had managed since

1928 as a tenant of 19 Spittlertorgraben. On 1 January 1938, she took

over her sister’s business at her own expense. On 24 February 1938, she

passed her professional examination.

3. The defendant Katzenberger is charged with having had continual

extra-marital sexual intercourse with Irene Seiler, née Scheffler, a

German national of German blood. He is said to have visited Seiler

frequently in her apartment in Spittlertorgraben up to March 1940,

while Seiler visited him frequently, up to autumn 1938, in the offices

of the rear building. Seiler, who is alleged to have got herself in

a dependent position by accepting gifts of money from the defendant

Katzenberger and by being allowed delay in paying her rent, was

sexually amenable to Katzenberger. Thus, their acquaintance is said to

have become of a sexual nature, and, in particular, sexual intercourse

occurred. They are both said to have exchanged kisses sometimes in

Seiler’s flat and sometimes in Katzenberger’s offices. Seiler is

alleged to have often sat on Katzenberger’s lap. On these occasions

Katzenberger, in order to achieve sexual satisfaction, is said to have

caressed and patted Seiler on her thighs through her clothes, clinging

closely to Seiler, and resting his head on her bosom.

The defendant Katzenberger is charged with having committed this act

of racial pollution by taking advantage of wartime conditions. Lack of

supervision was in his favor, especially as he is said to have visited

Seiler during the black-out. Moreover, Seiler’s husband had been called

up, and consequently surprise appearances of the husband were not to be

feared.

The defendant Irene Seiler is charged with having, on the occasion of

her interrogation by the investigating judge of the local Nuernberg

Court on 9 July 1941, made deliberately untrue statements and affirmed

under oath that this contact was without sexual motives and that she

believed that to apply to Katzenberger as well.

Seiler, it is alleged, has thereby become guilty of being a perjuring

witness.

The defendants have said this in their defense--

_The defendant Seiler_--When in 1932 she arrived in the

photographic laboratory of her sister in Nuernberg, she was thrown

completely on her own resources. Her sister returned to Guben, where

she opened a studio as a photographer. Her father had recommended her

to the landlord, the defendant Katzenberger, asking him to look after

her and to assist her in word and deed. This was how she became closely

acquainted with the Jew Katzenberger.

As time went on, Katzenberger did indeed become her adviser, helping

her, in particular, in her financial difficulties. Delighted with the

friendship and kindness shown her by Katzenberger she came to regard

him gradually as nothing but a fatherly friend, and it never occurred

to her to look upon him as a Jew. It was true that she called regularly

in the storerooms of the rear house. She did so after office hours,

because it was easier then to pick out shoes. It also happened that

during these visits, and during those paid by Katzenberger to her flat,

she kissed Katzenberger now and then and allowed him to kiss her. On

these occasions she frequently would sit on Katzenberger’s lap which

was quite natural with her and had no ulterior motive. In no way should

sexual motives be regarded as the cause of her actions. She always

thought that Katzenberger’s feelings for her were purely those of a

concerned father.

Basing herself on this view she made the statement to the investigating

judge on 9 July 1941 and affirmed under oath, that when exchanging

those caresses neither she herself nor Katzenberger did so because of

any erotic emotions.

_The defendant Katzenberger_--He denies having committed an

offense. It is his defense that his relations with Frau Seiler were of

a purely friendly nature. The Scheffler family in Guben had likewise

looked upon his relations with Frau Seiler only from this point of

view. That he continued his relations with Frau Seiler after 1933,

1935, and 1938, might be regarded as a wrong [Unrecht] by the NSDAP.

The fact of his doing so, however, showed that his conscience was clear.

Moreover, their meetings became less frequent after the action

against the Jews in 1938. After Frau Seiler got married in 1939, the

husband often came in unexpectedly when he, Katzenberger, was with

Frau Seiler in the flat. Never, however, did the husband surprise

them in an ambiguous situation. In January or February 1940, at the

request of the husband, he went to the Seiler’s apartment twice to

help them fill in their tax declarations. The last talk he ever had

in the Seiler apartment took place in March 1940. On that occasion

Frau Seiler suggested to him to discontinue his visits because of the

representations made to her by the NSDAP, and she gave him a farewell

kiss in the presence of her husband.

He never pursued any plans when being together with Frau Seiler, and he

therefore could not have taken advantage of wartime conditions and the

black-out.

The court has drawn the following conclusions from the excuses made

by the defendant Katzenberger and the restrictions with which the

defendant Seiler attempted to render her admissions less harmful:

When, in 1932, the defendant Seiler came to settle in Nuernberg at

the age of 22, she was a fully grown and sexually mature young woman.

According to her own admissions, credible in this case, she was not

above sexual surrender in her relations with her friends.

In Nuernberg, when she had taken over her sister’s laboratory in 19

Spittlertorgraben, she entered the immediate sphere of the defendant

Katzenberger. During their acquaintance she gradually became willing,

in a period of almost 10 years, to exchange caresses and, according

to the confessions of both defendants, situations arose which can by

no means be regarded merely as the outcome of fatherly friendliness.

When she met Katzenberger in his offices in the rear building or in her

flat, she sat often on his lap and, without a doubt, kissed his lips

and cheeks. On these occasions Katzenberger, as he admitted himself,

responded to these caresses by returning the kisses, putting his head

on her bosom and patting her thighs through her clothes.

To assume that the exchange of these caresses, admitted by both of

them, were on Katzenberger’s part the expression of his fatherly

feelings, on Seiler’s part merely the actions caused by daughterly

feelings with a strong emotional accent, as a natural result of the

situation, is contrary to all experience of daily life. The subterfuge

used by the defendant in this respect is in the view of the court

simply a crude attempt to disguise as sentiment, free of all sexual

lust, these actions with their strong sexual bias. In view of the

character of the two defendants and basing itself on the evidence

submitted, the court is firmly convinced that sexual motives were the

primary cause for the caresses exchanged by the two defendants.

Seiler was usually in financial difficulties. Katzenberger availed

himself of this fact to make her frequent gifts of money, and

repeatedly gave her sums from 1 to 10 reichsmarks. In his capacity as

administrator of the property on which Seiler lived and which was owned

by the firm he was a partner of, Katzenberger often allowed her long

delays in paying her rental debts. He often gave Seiler cigarettes,

flowers, and shoes.

The defendant Seiler admits that she was anxious to remain in

Katzenberger’s favor. They addressed each other in the second person

singular.

According to the facts established in the trial, the two defendants

offered to their immediate surroundings, and in particular to the

community of the house of 19 Spittlertorgraben, the impression of

having an intimate love affair.

The witnesses Kleylein, Paul and Babette; Maesel, Johann; Heilmann,

Johann; and Leibner, Georg observed frequently that Katzenberger

and Seiler waved to each other when Seiler, through one of the rear

windows of her flat, saw Katzenberger in his offices. The witnesses’

attention was drawn particularly to the frequent visits paid by Seiler

to Katzenberger’s offices after business hours and on Sundays, as well

as to the length of these visits. Everyone in the house came to know

eventually that Seiler kept asking Katzenberger for money, and they all

became convinced that Katzenberger, as the Jewish creditor, exploited

sexually the poor financial situation of the German-blooded woman

Seiler. The witness Heilmann, in a conversation with the witness Paul

Kleylein, expressed his opinion of the matter to the effect that the

Jew was getting a good return for the money he gave Seiler.

Nor did the two defendants themselves regard these mutual calls and

exchange of caresses as being merely casual happenings of daily life,

beyond reproach. According to statements made by the witnesses Babette

and Paul Kleylein, they observed Katzenberger to show definite signs

of fright when he saw that they had discovered his visits to Seiler’s

flat as late as 1940. The witnesses also observed that during the later

period Katzenberger sneaked into Seiler’s flat rather than walking in

openly.

In August 1940, while being in the air-raid shelter, the defendant

Seiler had to put up with the following reply given to her by

Oestreicher, an inhabitant of the same house, in the presence of all

other inhabitants: “I’ll pay you back, you Jewish hussy.” Seiler did

not do anything to defend herself against this reproach later on, and

all she did was to tell Katzenberger of this incident shortly after it

had happened. Seiler has been unable to give an even remotely credible

explanation why she showed this remarkable restraint in the face of so

strong an expression of suspicion. Simply pointing out that her father,

who is over seventy, had advised her not to take any steps against

Oestreicher does not make more plausible her restraint shown in the

face of the grave accusation made in public.

The statements made by Hans Zeuschel, assistant inspector of the

criminal police, show that the two defendants did not admit from the

very beginning the existing sexual situation as being beyond reproach.

The fact that Seiler admitted the caresses bestowed on Katzenberger

only after having been earnestly admonished, and the additional fact

that Katzenberger, when interrogated by the police, confessed only when

Seiler’s statements were being shown to him, forces the conclusion that

they both deemed it advisable to keep secret the actions for which they

have been put on trial. This being so, the court is convinced that the

two defendants made these statements only for reason of opportuneness

intending to minimize and render harmless a situation which has been

established by witnesses’ testimony.

Seiler has also admitted that she did not tell her husband about the

caresses exchanged with Katzenberger prior to her marriage--all she

told him was that in the past Katzenberger had helped her a good deal.

After getting married in July 1939 she gave Katzenberger a “friendly

kiss” on the cheek in the presence of her husband on only one occasion,

otherwise they avoided kissing each other when the husband was present.

In view of the behavior of the defendants toward each other, as

repeatedly described, the court has become convinced that the

relations between Seiler and Katzenberger which extended over a

period of 10 years were of a purely sexual nature. This is the only

possible explanation of the intimacy of their acquaintance. As there

were a large number of circumstances favoring seduction no doubt is

possible that the defendant Katzenberger maintained continuous sexual

intercourse with Seiler. The court considers as untrue Katzenberger’s

statement to the contrary that Seiler did not interest him sexually,

and the statements made by the defendant Seiler in support of

Katzenberger’s defense the court considers as incompatible with all

practical experience. They were obviously made with the purpose of

saving Katzenberger from his punishment.

The court is therefore convinced that Katzenberger, after the Nuernberg

laws had come into effect, had repeated sexual intercourse with Seiler,

up to March 1940. It is not possible to say on what days and how often

this took place.

The Law for the Protection of German Blood defines extra-marital sexual

intercourse as any form of sexual activity apart from the actual

cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex which, by the method

applied in place of actual intercourse, serves to satisfy the sexual

instincts of at least one of the partners. The conduct to which the

defendants admitted and which in the case of Katzenberger consisted

in drawing Seiler close to him, kissing her, patting and caressing

her thighs over her clothes, makes it clear that in a crude manner

Katzenberger did to Seiler what is popularly called “Abschmieren”

[petting]. It is obvious that such actions are motivated only by

sexual impulses. Even if the Jew had only done these so-called

“Ersatzhandlungen” [sexual acts in lieu of actual intercourse] to

Seiler, it would have been sufficient to charge him with racial

pollution in the full sense of the law.

The court, however, is convinced over and above this that Katzenberger,

who admits that he is still capable of having sexual intercourse,

had intercourse with Seiler throughout the duration of their affair.

According to general experiences it is impossible to assume that

in the 10 years of his tête-a-tête with Seiler, which often lasted

up to an hour, Katzenberger would have been satisfied with the

“Ersatzhandlungen” which in themselves warranted the application of the

law.

III

Thus, the defendant Katzenberger has been convicted of having had,

as a Jew, extra-marital sexual intercourse with a German citizen of

German blood after the Law for the Protection of German Blood came

into force, which according to section 7 of the law means after 17

September 1935. His actions were guided by a consistent plan which was

aimed at repetition from the very beginning. He is therefore guilty of

a continuous crime of racial pollution according to sections 2 and 5,

paragraph 11 of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German

Honor of 15 September 1935.

A legal analysis of the established facts shows that in his polluting

activities, the defendant Katzenberger, moreover, generally exploited

the exceptional conditions arising out of wartime circumstances. Men

have largely vanished from towns and villages because they have been

called up or are doing other work for the armed forces which prevents

them from remaining at home and maintaining order. It was these

general conditions and wartime changes which the defendant exploited.

As he continued his visits to Seiler’s apartment up to spring 1940,

the defendant took into account the fact that in the absence of more

stringent measures of control his practices could not, at least not

very easily, be seen through. The fact that her husband had been

drafted into the armed forces also helped him in his activities.

Looked at from this point of view, Katzenberger’s conduct is

particularly contemptible. Together with his offense of racial

pollution he is also guilty of an offense under section 4 of the

decree against public enemies. It should be noted here that the

national community is in need of increased legal protection from all

crimes attempting to destroy or undermine its inner solidarity.

On several occasions since the outbreak of war the defendant

Katzenberger sneaked into Seiler’s flat after dark. In these cases the

defendant acted by exploiting the measures taken for the protection in

air raids and by making use of the black-out. His chances were further

improved by the absence of the bright street lighting which exists

in the street along Spittlertorgraben in peacetime. In each case he

exploited this fact being fully aware of its significance, thus during

his excursions he instinctively escaped observation by people in the

street.

The visits paid by Katzenberger to Seiler under the cover of the

black-out served at least the purpose of keeping relations going.

It does not matter whether during these visits extra-marital sexual

intercourse took place or whether they only conversed because the

husband was present, as Katzenberger claims. The motion to have the

husband called as a witness was therefore overruled. The court holds

the view that the defendant’s actions were deliberately performed

as part of a consistent plan and amount to a crime against the body

according to section 2 of the decree against public enemies. The law of

15 September 1935 was promulgated to protect German blood and German

honor. The Jew’s racial pollution amounts to a grave attack on the

purity of German blood, the object of the attack being the body of a

German woman. The general need for protection therefore makes appear as

unimportant the behavior of the other partner in racial pollution who,

however, is not liable to prosecution. The fact that racial pollution

occurred at least up to 1939–1940 becomes clear from statements made by

the witness Zeuschel to whom the defendant repeatedly and consistently

admitted that up to the end of 1939 and the beginning of 1940 she was

used to sitting on the Jew’s lap and exchanging caresses as described

above.

Thus, the defendant committed an offense also under section 2 of the

decree against public enemies.

The personal character of the defendant likewise stamps him as a public

enemy. The racial pollution practiced by him through many years grew,

by exploiting wartime condition, into an attitude inimical to the

nation, into an attack on the security of the national community during

an emergency.

This was why the defendant Katzenberger had to be sentenced, both on

a crime of racial pollution and of an offense under sections 2 and 4

of the decree against public enemies, the two charges being taken in

conjunction according to section 73 of the penal code.

In view of the court the defendant Seiler realized that the contact

which Katzenberger continuously had with her was of a sexual nature.

The court has no doubt that Seiler actually had sexual intercourse with

Katzenberger. Accordingly the oath given by her as a witness was to her

knowledge and intention a false one, and she became guilty of perjury

under sections 154 and 153 of the penal code.

In passing sentence the court was guided by the following

considerations:

The political form of life of the German people under national

socialism is based on the community. One fundamental factor of the

life of the national community is the racial problem. If a Jew commits

racial pollution with a German woman, this amounts to polluting the

German race and, by polluting a German woman, to a grave attack on the

purity of German blood. The need for protection is particularly strong.

Katzenberger practiced pollution for years. He was well acquainted with

the point of view taken by patriotic German men and women as regards

racial problems and he knew that by his conduct the patriotic feelings

of the German people were slapped in the face. Neither the National

Socialist Revolution of 1933, nor the passing of the Law for the

Protection of German Blood in 1935, neither the action against the Jews

in 1938, nor the outbreak of war in 1939 made him abandon this activity

of his.

As the only feasible answer to the frivolous conduct of the defendant,

the court therefore deems it necessary to pronounce the death sentence

as the heaviest punishment provided by section 4 of the decree against

public enemies. His case must be judged with special severity, as he

had to be sentenced in connection with the offense of committing racial

pollution, under section 2 of the decree against public enemies, the

more so, if taking into consideration the defendant’s personality

and the accumulative nature of his deeds. This is why the defendant

is liable to the death penalty which the law provides for such cases

as the only punishment. Dr. Baur, the medical expert, describes the

defendant as fully responsible.

Accordingly, the court has pronounced the death sentence. It was also

considered necessary to deprive him of his civil rights for life, as

specified in sections 32–34 of the penal code. When imposing punishment

on the defendant Seiler, her personal character was the first matter

to be considered. For many years, Seiler indulged in this contemptible

love affair with the Jew Katzenberger. The national regeneration of

the German people in 1933 was altogether immaterial to her in her

practices, nor was she in the least influenced when the Law for the

Protection of German Blood and Honor was promulgated in September 1935.

It was, therefore, nothing but an act of frivolous provocation on her

part to apply for membership in the NSDAP in 1937 which she obtained.

When by initiating legal proceedings against Katzenberger the

German people were to be given satisfaction for the Jew’s polluting

activities, the defendant Seiler did not pay the slightest heed to the

concerns of State authority or to those of the people and decided to

protect the Jew.

Taking this over-all situation into consideration the court considered

a sentence of 4 years of hard labor as having been deserved by the

defendant.

An extenuating circumstance was that the defendant, finding herself in

an embarrassing situation, affirmed her--as she knew--false statement

with an oath. Had she spoken the truth she could have been prosecuted

for adultery, aiding, and soliciting. The court therefore reduced the

sentence by half despite her guilt, and imposed as the appropriate

sentence 2 years of hard labor. (Sec. 157, par. I, No. 1, of the Penal

Code.)

On account of the lack of honor of which she was convicted, she had

to be deprived of her civil rights too. This has been decided for a

duration of 2 years.

Taking into consideration the time spent in arrest pending trial:

Section 60, Penal Code. Costs: Section 465, Code of Criminal Procedure.

[Signed] ROTHAUG

DR. FERBER

DR. HOFFMANN

Certified:

Nuernberg, 23 March 1942

The Registrar of the Office of the Special

Court for the district of the Nuernberg Court

of Appeal with the District Court Nuernberg-Fuerth

[Stamp]

District Court [Illegible signature]

Nuernberg-Fuerth Justizinspektor

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-129

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 355

LETTER FROM DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER AND GREISER, REICH GOVERNOR OF THE

WARTHEGAU (POLAND) TO LAMMERS, 15 DECEMBER 1941, STATING THAT GREISER’S

AUTHORITY CONCERNING THE EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCES AND PARDONING OF

POLES AND JEWS IS NO LONGER RESTRICTED

Berlin, 15 December 1941

II a-2-3020/41

To the Reich Minister and Chief of the Chancellery of the Reich

Subject: Letter of the cosignatory Reichsstatthalter of the

Reichsgau Wartheland, dated 13 November 1941

Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume III · 第 10 / 22 章