Test Bank for Human Biology 11th Edition Starr

Chapter 02 - Chemistry of Life

Test Bank for Human Biology 11th Edition Starr
Full chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-human-
biology-11th-edition-starr/
Multiple Choice

1. A pure substance that cannot be broken down into another substance is known as a(n) .
a. proton
b. electron
c. compound
d. element
e. isotope
ANSWER: d
DIFFICULTY: Bloom’s: Remember
REFERENCES: 2.1 Atoms and Elements
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: HBIO.STMC.16.2.1 - Describe the relationship between atoms and elements.

2. Which element is not one of the four most common elements found in organisms?
a. hydrogen
b. oxygen
c. carbon
d. helium
e. nitrogen
ANSWER: d
DIFFICULTY: Bloom’s: Remember
REFERENCES: 2.1 Atoms and Elements
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: HBIO.STMC.16.2.1 - Describe the relationship between atoms and elements.

3. The atomic number denotes the number of in an atom of a particular element.

a. electrons
b. neutrons
c. energy levels
d. protons
e. isotopes
ANSWER: d
DIFFICULTY: Bloom’s: Remember
REFERENCES: 2.1 Atoms and Elements
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: HBIO.STMC.16.2.1 - Describe the relationship between atoms and elements.

4. Isotopes of an element are different from the most common standard form due to differences in the .
a. atomic number
b. position of the element in the periodic table
c. number of neutrons in the nucleus
d. number of protons in the nucleus
e. size of the electron cloud
Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 1

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

Chapter 02 - Chemistry of Life
ANSWER: c
DIFFICULTY: Bloom’s: Remember
REFERENCES: 2.1 Atoms and Elements
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: HBIO.STMC.16.2.1 - Describe the relationship between atoms and elements.

Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 2

Chapter 02 - Chemistry of Life

5. Radioisotopes _.
a. are unstable and emit energy and particles to stabilize themselves.
b. are different elements from the "standard" elements.
c. are very stable and do not change over time.
d. are so unstable that they rarely exist in nature
e. exist only for carbon and oxygen
ANSWER: a
DIFFICULTY: Bloom’s: Understand
REFERENCES: 2.1 Atoms and Elements
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: HBIO.STMC.16.2.1 - Describe the relationship between atoms and elements.

6. A tracer is a substance with what attached to it?

a. a radioisotope
b. water
c. glucose
d. ion
e. antibodies
ANSWER: a
DIFFICULTY: Bloom’s: Understand
REFERENCES: 2.2 PET Scanning-Using Radioisotopes in Medicine
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: HBIO.STMC.16.2.2 - Explain the use of radioisotopes in medicine.

7. Positron emission tomography (PET) utilizes to yield results of a scan.

a. x-rays
b. tracers
c. glucose
d. ion
e. photons
ANSWER: b
DIFFICULTY: Bloom’s: Remember
REFERENCES: 2.2 PET Scanning-Using Radioisotopes in Medicine
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: HBIO.STMC.16.2.2 - Explain the use of radioisotopes in medicine.

8. Which statement is true of electron shells?

a. The innermost shell can hold up to two electrons.
b. The innermost shell is at the highest energy level.
c. A shell can hold up 20 electrons.
d. Larger atoms have less electron shells.
e. A second shell with six electrons is completely filled.
ANSWER: a
DIFFICULTY: Bloom’s: Understand
REFERENCES: 2.3 Chemical Bonds: How Atoms Interact
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: HBIO.STMC.16.2.3 - Explain how chemical bonds are formed.

Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 3

 Another random document
un-related content on Scribd:
representative of the National Socialist legal ideology, who through all
available channels succeeded in bringing this thought before the public. As
means, he had at his disposal, first the legal publications under his
influence, the National Socialist Legal Workers’ League whose president he
was, and the Academy of German Law which he had created. That academy
which possibly, in view of its composition, could be considered a sort of
scientific institute to aid the administration of justice, evolved by Frank as a
competition in order to direct the Ministry of Justice, to overrule and to
discredit it with the Party. As soon as he found out, from his own
information sources, that the Ministry of Justice intended to carry out
reforms, he mobilized his academy immediately which on its part was to
prepare plans and to publish them, and not much emphasis was placed upon
their quality. But the main purpose was to demonstrate that Frank was the
leader of the living young justice in opposition to the old senile machinery
of justice of the State. Apart from that goal to carry out his famous thesis,
“Right is that which serves the German people,” he also for personal
ambitions and, last but not least, for that ambition, had intentions to take
over the post of Ministry of Justice.
Q. Could you name other personalities who in that manner fought
against the administration of justice?
A. From the inside, unfortunately, yes. I have not completed my
statement. I am thinking of Thierack. Thierack had very close connections
to Bormann. He concentrated his efforts at first on the President of the
People’s Court, a position he held at the time. Behind the back of the
Ministry of Justice in 1936, he arranged that Hitler make a speech before
the People’s Court. As these proceedings have shown, in 1937 he had
attempted to arrange another speech of that kind.
Q. The witness refers here to Document NG-209, Prosecution Exhibit
105.[173]
A. The judges of the People’s Court in this manner should be brought to
understand that the People’s Court was an institution of a special nature, in
closest connection to Hitler himself; and that it was only by a mistaken step
that the People’s Court had been incorporated into the administrative
structure of the Ministry of Justice; and concerning that administrative
connection in 1938, again in all secrecy, he tried through the Chief of the
Reich Chancellery, to have the presidency of the People’s Court, following
the Italian example, subordinated immediately to Hitler. To my knowledge,
Thierack, after he became Minister,[174] did not continue with these
attempts. As I was informed from various sources, in his attempts to
become Minister, he is alleged to have promised to the Party that the office
of the prosecution should be turned over to the police. I shall later refer to
the occurrences during the trial of the Czech Minister-President Elias; but in
the end I still have to emphasize what extraordinary difficulties were made
for me by the personality of Freisler.
Q. Who was Freisler?
A. Well, the witness Behl once characterized Freisler as the
representative of the Party interests in the Ministry of Justice. That was
correct. His career was the following: Freisler was a prisoner of war in
Russia during the First World War. After the end of the war he remained in
Russia for a considerable period of time. About his activities during that
period of time in Russia, a veil has never been completely lifted. After he
returned, he became an attorney at Kassel, mainly acting as defense counsel
for National Socialists. When the Prussian Ministry of Justice was put in the
hands of Minister Kerrl, the latter called the old Party member, Freisler, to
the post of Under Secretary. He remained there until in 1934, on the
occasion of the merger of both offices in 1934, he was transferred to the
Reich Ministry of Justice. Freisler no doubt possessed a high degree of
intelligence, but quite apparently he was of abnormal spiritual inclinations
that ranged from extreme brutality all the way to a rather feminine
weakness. After he had insulted his assistants in the worst possible manner
without any reason, it would occur that soon after he came to them to ask
for their forgiveness in a very servile manner. The Tribunal has actually
made the acquaintance of Freisler optically and acoustically.[175] He was
quite well informed about problems of criminal law, but he lacked any
continuity and seriousness in his work. He was restless and imbued with a
lust for power, always looking for new tasks and new problems. He was an
old Party member, and he had the Golden Party Badge, but he represented
that type of National Socialist who again and again fearfully vied for the
favor of Hitler. Hitler definitely recognized him as a one hundred percent
National Socialist, but personally did not think as much of him as Freisler
would have liked. Therefrom, and from his task to supervise the Ministry
from the National Socialist point of view, and from his indisputable
intelligence and his expert knowledge in the field of criminal law, the
dangerous qualities in his personality could be seen. He knew where he had
to start in order to achieve his goals. To work with him was extremely
difficult, and I may well say here that Freisler was the one, after all, who
undermined the work and the strength of Guertner and contributed to his
early death. And so, as far as I was concerned, my continuous attempts to
restrict Freisler made it extremely difficult for me in my position. He did
not stick to decisions which we had made in long debates. He made secret
promises to the [Nazi] Party which, after they became apparent, restricted
the Minister in his possibilities of action.
Again and again I discovered that, partly intentionally, partly out of
neglect, he had failed to report to me on important occurrences. He had
prohibited his ministerial directors from reporting to me directly. He wanted
to do everything alone. In addition, although he did not drink much, he
could not restrain himself once he started to drink, and in a condition of that
kind he frequently made statements which gave an entirely wrong picture of
the intentions of the Minister. Then when the disappointment came, when
the agencies concerned found out that the practice of the Ministry was not
according to these statements, then, of course, there were serious
accusations on the part of the Party and a renewed struggle.
His unstable nature brought it about that when I made objections to him
he, frequently in tears, promised to better himself; but his moral strength
was not sufficient to make him keep these promises for any length of time.
Of course, my position with regard to Freisler was weaker than that of
Guertner. I was, indeed, in charge of the work of the Ministry, but only due
to the fact that I was the senior Under Secretary; otherwise we were on the
same level. The possibility of influencing him or influencing others against
him, was very limited for me, all the more because my mission was not set
for a certain time, but could be repealed any day. Therefore, I could only
find the optimal accomplishment of my tasks in maintaining the status quo
in the Ministry of Justice as it was at the time of Guertner’s death;
especially if one takes into consideration as a matter of course that on the
one hand the attacks from the Party became stronger, being faced with a
weaker man in charge of the Ministry, and that on the other hand this
weaker man was always confronted with the necessity of an increased
resistance on his part.
In these proceedings here the witness, Father Wein,[176] confirmed that
during the time when I was in charge of conducting the affairs, the
administration of justice had not deteriorated and that only the appointment
of Thierack brought about an absolute change-over. I ask you to try to
understand that in that I found a justification for the work of my life under
these conditions as I have described them.
Q. What did the taking over of the post of Minister by Thierack mean to
you?
A. I believe I should continue at the point where the speech made by the
prosecution left off. The prosecution said, “Schlegelberger had seen the
storm brewing.” That is quite correct. I anticipated a storm, and I tried to
prevent it. The attitude of Thierack up to that time and his close relations
with Bormann did not leave any doubt as to his program, and just as I
interpreted that, it came about. As soon as Thierack assumed office, a
complete change-over occurred. It was not a gradual deterioration, but it
was that famous construction of a strong National Socialist administration
of justice as it had been ordered by Hitler. I merely point to the changes in
the administration of justice and in legislation which are contained in
material submitted by the prosecution. If one sees what had been demanded
for a long time and which by all means was tried to achieve, if one sees how
that all of a sudden now came into effect, I believe then only one can find
the right measure for that which I, in a continuous struggle, had prevented
or had delayed. I do not want to omit but to describe briefly the complete
change in personnel policy. With the exception of the man in charge of the
budget department, all ministerial directors were released by Thierack and
many Referenten transferred. The entire top level of the Ministry had
changed overnight. Furthermore, twenty-two presidents of district courts of
appeal, eleven of them the best ones on the basis of their qualifications, and
four general prosecutors were retired.
If in the dire situation of war such a unique measure is taken, one
demonstrates most clearly that my dismissal and the appointment of
Thierack, in the feeling of Hitler and Thierack, represent the point at which
an entire new development starts. The purge measures by Thierack were
extended also to the many non-Aryan judges or judges with Jewish relatives
who at that time were still in service and to many officials who did not just
belong to the Party.
I believe that my decision to fight until the very limit, and to stay that
long in the Ministry, has found its justification. Clearly anticipating that
with that new man [Thierack] chaos would start for the administration of
justice, there was only one thing left to me; although the burden physically
and psychologically was at times almost impossible to bear, to try and bear
it, and to fight as resiliently as possible. Of course, it was clear to me, and I
had to experience the fact too, that I would be beaten at times, and had to
decide to make detours wherever I could take that upon my conscience.
Q. In your opinion, what was that extreme limit which could still be
justified—of those which you have just mentioned?
A. If the Tribunal was good enough to follow me in the description of
my life, then it will easily recognize what my work at that time meant to a
man whose life was devoted to the law. At times, today, it is hard even for
me to transfer myself back again into those days and to bring those days
back. In a system which was worked out to the very last detail of
expediency and power, there was a lonely island amidst the continuous
storm in those days—that was the administration of justice. I had to
experience how the storm hit again and again, and how certain sacrifices
had to be made to this storm of power in order to prevent it from triumphing
completely. For me, in that situation, there was only one consideration—can
a measure be made compatible with the uncompromising principles of law
such as I had considered them so far as a matter of course? Was not
everything now only a question of power? How could I avoid that lust for
power and prevent the accomplishment of these designs? What will go
through regardless of my cooperation and what can I prevent without
cooperation? And that deliberation led me to find that extreme limit which I
have mentioned before. It was for me the final abolition of the
independence of the courts. I had to try to maintain this independence at all
costs. In spite of and in the face of the devilish propaganda on the part of
Goebbels, I was of the firm conviction that the German courts and German
judges were still in good shape. Although, now, from the large number of
the many sentences, particularly of the more recent period, the prosecution
may select a few in order to prove that legal principles were abandoned in
the sentences. To deal with individual cases is not my task in these
proceedings. A full examination of the entire field of the administration of
justice would show that this conviction of mine was very well founded, and
that the maintenance of the integrity of the German courts was a goal which
was well worth my work and my trouble; because I was, and still am, of the
opinion that the work of the courts is the most secure guaranty for the law.
Therefore, I tried again and again to draw various fields within the scope of
work of the courts. For instance, in the economic field, the problem of
getting agriculture [farms] out of debt [Landwirtschaftliche Entschuldung],
the question of hereditary and marriage health, but the basic prerequisite
was that the courts had to remain independent. When, in 1937, in the
German Civil Service Law, Hitler was given the right to retire any civil
servant if this civil servant could not be expected at any time to fight for the
National Socialist State, in my capacity as chief of the Department for
Public Law at the Ministry, I had a security clause inserted for the judges;
this clause provided that measures regarding the judicial civil servant could
not be based on the objective contents of a judge’s decision. Once the
independence of the courts was lost, the protection of the courts was lost,
too. The activity of the courts could even become a danger. Therefore, I
drew for myself this extreme limit for my stay in office. With the resolution
of the Reichstag of 26 April 1942,[177] my struggle reached its final stage. It
was not quite clear, as it appeared frequently with Hitler’s speeches whether
or not his speech had attacked the administration of justice merely for
tactical reasons, and whether the true objects were general ones.[178] Dr.
Lammers, the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, to whom I spoke
immediately after the speech about all these matters, confirmed that
background to me as being the true objective of Hitler’s polemics. I had to
create clarity. I wrote to Hitler a report [Fuehrerinformation] to the effect
that the judges were extremely disturbed by that speech. I had explained to
the judges that with all the weight of my office, I would protect every judge
who acted according to his conscience and to the law. That clarified the
situation as far as I was concerned. If Hitler’s speech really meant the
beginning of the end of the independence of the courts, then he had to
consider my statement as an open declaration of war. That was what I
wanted, and I wanted to bring about a breach, in that case, on purpose.
Q. How did your dismissal come about?
 A. Hitler at first did not answer that letter which I just mentioned. There
was a lot of talk behind the scenes about a new appointment for the post of
Minister. A few weeks later, Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery,
called me to him and told me that Hitler had made up his mind to appoint a
new Minister of Justice, and he asked me what my attitude would be if the
choice fell on Thierack. I replied that to work with Thierack was quite out
of the question. Literally, I added, “I would not sit at the same table with
Thierack.” Lammers replied, that was what he had thought, and for that
eventuality he was instructed by Hitler to offer me another office
comparable to the position I was holding. He had thought it over and was
now prepared to offer me the position of President of the Reich Supreme
Administrative Court. I rejected that offer and asked Lammers to inform
Hitler that I would accept a new office under no circumstances, but wanted
to be retired. Soon after, Lammers wrote me that I should come to his
quarters at Zhitomir and receive the document concerning my retirement
from office and thereafter, to report to Hitler at his headquarters at Vinnitsa
in order to take my leave. That order I carried out. On that occasion,
Lammers, on order from Hitler, gave me a check for 100,000 marks, which
should make it easier for me to bridge the transition into retirement.
I was not happy about that donation; on the contrary, I was greatly
disturbed. I got in touch with the Chief of the Presidential Chancellery, Dr.
Meissner, and asked how I could avoid accepting that amount. Meissner
replied that refusal was impossible, because it would mean an unfriendly
act toward Hitler, and all the bad consequences would have to be accepted.
Thereupon, I did not return the check and when the Russians came, that
amount was still untouched in the bank. At Vinnitsa, Hitler received me.
The conversation lasted about 20 minutes. Hitler told me approximately the
following: He required his officials to carry out his instructions without
criticism of any kind. He added, “Since you have already criticized my
measures, I believe it is better if we separate.” He was referring to the
report which I have already mentioned. I took advantage of that opportunity
to tell Hitler with all the frankness at my disposal that an intact and
independent administration of justice was a vital question for Germany; that
his method to form his judgment on the basis of information received from
Gauleiters, and his intention to retire judges who had done their duty, was
an impossibility. The very concept of a judge required independence.
People would never respect the judgment of a dependent judge as an
expression of law. I added that if I had remained in office, I would have
continued to protect anybody who was prosecuted unjustly.
Hitler took these statements on the whole quite calmly. Time and time
again he even nodded approval; but when I touched upon the question of
the independence of judges in connection with his Reichstag speech he
suddenly harangued against the generals and got into a hot fury which
slowly ebbed like a dying flame.
Q. The prosecution alleges that there was a conspiratorial cooperation
between you and your codefendants. Will you briefly describe your
relations with the codefendants?
A. As for these relations I have, in part, to answer absolutely in the
negative. A number of my codefendants I have only met here. Not with a
single one of the defendants here did I have any personal contact beyond
official connections. These official contacts in most cases consisted of just
occasional conferences required by the work.
As the defendants’ dock shows, the prosecution has selected a mere few
from the large number of officials of the administration of justice. All of
them, together with other colleagues, worked only in that field to which
they were assigned. If one would follow the principle of conspiracy as
expounded by the prosecution, the entire administration of justice since
1933 would have to be considered one organization in the meaning of the
count of the indictment. And I believe that an opinion of that nature would
best be rebutted by the fact that when I left the Ministry of Justice, that
great change took place. That is sufficient rebuttal for the assertion of
personal homogeneity of the officials and the judges.
Q. We want to depart now from personal matters and discuss the
complaints made against you. The objective charges made against you
begin with the centralization [Verreichlichung] of the administration of
justice. Will you give us your general point of view concerning that
question?
A. When the empire was founded in 1871, certain agencies of the Reich
were founded as an over-all authority beyond the limits of the individual
federal state. The same occurred in the field of justice. At that time, it was
called the Reich Justice Office [Reichjustizamt] and, in fact, was a Reich
Ministry. Later, it got that name. The Reich Justice Office had almost
exclusively legislative functions. It had to deal with regulations for the
administration of justice.
Once such a regulation had been passed, all states had to issue executive
laws for the execution of the respective regulation. That meant that after
each major Reich law had been passed, more than 20 laws had to be passed
in the various states to carry out the principles of the Reich law.
What that machinery meant can be seen if one looks at the collection of
these executive laws of various states. With great surprise you find that this
fills two fat volumes. As for administrative tasks, the Reich Justice Office,
as already mentioned, only had to take care of the Reich Supreme Court,
and in the course of time, the Reich Patent Office. Here, also, the various
states [Laender] had to cooperate. The selection of judges for the Reich
Supreme Court required most difficult negotiations. One has to have seen
that, in order to realize fully with what jealousy each individual state saw to
it that these various posts were filled according to a definite key.
It could happen that a small state could not even offer an appropriate
candidate for such a position at the Reich Supreme Court, but then one had
to preserve the claim and register it very carefully so that the next time, they
could be given it. It was just as difficult to select officials for the Ministry
of Justice. That, too, required negotiations and thus it came about that, long
before 1933, everywhere, the desire for a uniform administration of justice
for the entire Reich was expressed. I may remind you that the witness
Behl[179] has stated that even the Social Democratic Party of Germany was
expressly of that same opinion.
Q. Witness, you referred to the assumption of the administration of
justice by the Reich.
A. Before the recess I pointed out that the desire for a uniform,
centralized administration of justice had already existed in the period prior
to 1933. The Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, worked for that idea of the
centralization of the administration of justice with great energy. The fact
that he as a Bavarian did so, although it is generally known how very much
Bavaria was interested in a life of its own, explains best the fact that
Guertner had very good reasons for doing so. As often occurs in life, by
accident a circumstance arose which speeded up the execution of that idea.
This is what happened:
Once when I had a conversation with Kerrl, the Minister of Justice of
Prussia at that time, and visited with him the training camp for Prussian law
students—a camp which has been repeatedly referred to in this trial—I said
to him that it must have cost a great deal of money to set up that camp;
Kerrl laughed and replied, quite frankly:
“Oh, it didn’t cost me anything. The amounts were donated by large firms, in whose cases we
were very considerate about prosecuting them under penal law. Naturally, the money was not
transferred to me directly, but it came to me via the Winter Relief [Winterhilfe] account. However,
the Winter Relief Organization made it available to me, and with that money we built up a very
decent camp, as you can see for yourself.”

I was more than disgusted when I heard about those practices he thus
unveiled. I made a report to Guertner.
The right of supervision over the Ministries of Justice of the Laender,
was not in the hands of the Reich Minister of Justice. Guertner and I agreed
that those practices must be stopped at the earliest possible moment, all the
more so since one did not know whether or not in other Laender, similar
things might be happening as were happening in Prussia. One could not tell
what was happening because the ministries of the Laender throughout had
new men working with them concerning whose persons, in some cases, one
had certain misgivings, and justified misgivings. Frank was the Minister of
Justice for Bavaria, and Thierack was the Minister of Justice for Saxony.
That experience increased Guertner’s energy in carrying out his work of
centralization. The basis for that work was laid down in the first and second
centralization laws dated 16 February and 5 December 1934.[180]
The result of the centralization, the transfer of the tasks of the Ministries
of Justice of the Laender to the Reich, was this, from the political angle:
The entire administration of justice from now on lay in the hands of a
minister who was not a member of the Party and who, as Minister of Justice
for Bavaria, had enjoyed the confidence of all parties from the extreme right
to the extreme left. I myself, who also was not a member of the Party,
remained at my post. The National Socialist Ministers of Justice of the
Laender lost their official positions in the administration of justice.
 The opinions of the Party as to the centralization of the administration of
justice is evidenced best by a statement of Goering’s, which he made to me
in 1941 when, in the course of a conversation, I said to him that the Party at
every opportunity made difficulties for our ministry, he said to me: “That
cannot surprise you. The reason lies in the centralization of the
administration of justice under the circumstances under which it was
achieved. That is the reason why the Party as a group is opposed to the
Reich Ministry of Justice and makes life as difficult as possible for that
ministry. The Party is of the opinion that the administration of justice
should again be taken over by National Socialist hands.” Goering added, “I
myself will never pardon Guertner and you for the way you acted in 1934.”
Q. I shall submit Schlegelberger Document 26, Schlegelberger Exhibit
66,[181] in reference to the aforesaid statements. Will you please give us a
brief description of the organization of the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. Under the very top, that is, under the Reich Minister of Justice, there
were two separate under secretariats: the under secretariat for civil law
matters, the head of which was myself; the direction of the secretariat for
penal law matters which was in the hands of Freisler. Further, he was in
charge of the so-called organization section [Organisationreferat], the
Hereditary Farm Law [Erbhofrecht] and the Inspection Office for Judicial
Affairs [Justizpruefungsamt].
Under the two under secretariats there worked a total of six ministerial
directors each of whom was the head of his specialized divisions. The
number of these divisions and their sphere of work changed several times in
the course of time.
Inside some departments, subsections had been created which were in
charge of a Ministerialdirigent. The number of higher officials[182] in the
Reich Ministry of Justice amounted to approximately 250. Personnel
matters were divided into regions. As regards the East, I was only in charge
of my own home province, East Prussia. Otherwise, I dealt with western
and southern Germany, Freisler was in charge of the remaining [regions].
Freisler was in charge of the People’s Court. The Reich Supreme Court and
the Reich patent office were in my charge. The two divisions, directed by
Under Secretaries were entirely separate from one another. Freisler and
myself had different times at which we went to report to the Minister. The
Minister asked me to come to see him when Freisler had finished his report
and had left the room. Only very rarely, and only when one of my officials
was to be appointed to a head office in Freisler’s sphere, or vice versa, did
the two of us meet at the Minister’s. If one of the under secretaries was
absent, his affairs were dealt with by the Minister together with the
competent ministerial director. The other under secretary did not deputize
for the one who was absent.
May I cite an example? In 1938 I had to go to the hospital as a result of
an accident, and at that time the Minister did not discuss the new German
marriage law with Freisler, but with the head of the respective department.
If the Minister were also absent, the Under Secretary, who was present in
Berlin, did only a certain amount of duty for his colleague. That is to say, he
was available for matters which could not possibly be postponed. In my
recollection, that happened only very rarely, for this was one point over
which Freisler and I were in absolute agreement. Neither had the wish to
meddle with the other’s affairs.
Furthermore, Freisler when he went on a business trip or when he went
away for the summer holidays was practically always in contact with
Berlin. Therefore, he told Dr. Guertner that a deputy for which I was the
only possible candidate was neither necessary nor desirable. It did happen
that when the Minister did not feel well and left the office earlier, he asked
me by telephone to sign and to dispatch letters which he had already signed
in draft form. Now and then that could have concerned matters which fell
into Freisler’s sphere when Freisler could not be reached.
I should like to cite as example the letter which the prosecution
submitted about the fight against political Catholicism. Concerning details
accompanying that letter, I know nothing about this. In particular, I do not
know what particular pressure was exercised or what instructions Hitler had
issued in virtue of his right to lay down the directives of policy but I should
like on this occasion to say something about what was the practice of the
Ministry in regard to church affairs. I should like to point out what the
witness for the prosecution, the Catholic Priest, Schosser, testified here on 9
May. According to his testimony, the Ministry refused on the occasion of a
church funeral for Poles to take steps against the Catholic clergymen.
 D . K : The letter which you have mentioned is Document
NG-630, Prosecution Exhibit 428.[183] The examination which you
mentioned here of Father Schosser is on page 3021 in the English transcript.
[184]

* * * * * * *
 V. EVIDENCE CONCERNING PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN THE CASE

A. Introduction
This major section of the volume contains selections from the evidence
concerning leading questions or issues of the trial. The evidence selected for
publication herein constitutes only about one-twentieth of the total
mimeographed record. Hence, all issues of the trial are not covered, and
numerous items of evidence mentioned in the printed materials are not
reproduced herein. Where extracts from testimony have been reproduced, a
footnote indicates the pages of the official mimeographed transcript where the
entire testimony can be found.
Both prosecution and defense evidence is contained in each of the sections
into which the evidence selected has been organized. The prosecution evidence
consists in the main of contemporaneous documents of the Nazi era, most of
them discovered in German archives by Allied investigators after Germany’s
unconditional surrender. The defense evidence consists principally of extracts
from the testimony of defendants. A substantial number of the contemporaneous
documents offered by the defense have also been selected for publication. With
one or two exceptions, the contemporaneous documents have been reproduced
within the various sections in chronological order, regardless of whether they
were offered by the prosecution or the defense. In selecting defense testimony
under the various topical sections, considerable emphasis has been given to the
testimony of the three defendants Schlegelberger, Rothenberger, and Klemm who
were appointed Under Secretaries in the Reich Ministry of Justice, and to the
testimony of the defendant Rothaug, presiding judge of the Nuernberg Special
Court.
The defendants were charged with participation in various types of criminal
conduct “by distortion and denial of judicial and penal process.” The selections
from the evidence below have been grouped into five main sections (sec. VB
through VF) treating of various types of conduct by which it was alleged that the
defendants engaged in criminal acts as principals or accessories.
In Hitler’s Third Reich many persons were placed entirely outside the judicial
process. Therefore the first section (B) is concerned with measures under which
persons were committed to the “protective custody” of the police (usually the
Gestapo) or to the concentration camps of Himmler’s SS.
 The next four sections (C through F) deal with various methods whereby it
was charged that perversions of law and the judicial process were employed to
persecute, imprison, and execute or exterminate large numbers of persons.
Section C, which contains evidence on numerous topics, has been divided into
three periods of time: 1933—January 1941 when Guertner was Reich Minister of
Justice; January 1941—August 1942, when the defendant Schlegelberger was
acting Reich Minister of Justice; and August 1942—1945, when Thierack was
Reich Minister of Justice. The next section (D) deals with large groups of persons
allegedly subjected to discriminatory treatment of many kinds: Germans, Poles,
Jews of several nationalities, the Night and Fog prisoners from occupied western
Europe, and others. Section E deals with the growth, development, and
application of such concepts as treason, undermining the defensive strength, and
public enemies. These concepts were applied in cases against persons who were
not nationals of Germany as well as against Germans. The final section (F) deals
with the handling of religious matters.
Because of the close relationship of the developments of these various topics
to the crowded history of the Nazi regime, there necessarily is considerable over-
lap between the several sections into which the evidence has been organized. A
case where a Pole was convicted of treason against Germany (reproduced here in
sec. E) cannot be divorced from the materials concerning the general treatment of
Poles (included in sec. D2). The Night and Fog prisoners offer another example,
since these prisoners were ordinarily kept incommunicado in concentration
camps, and the evidence concerning them (D3) is closely related to the evidence
dealing with protective custody and concentration camps (B). The over-lap is
often quite pronounced in the extracts from the testimony of defendants. Most of
the defendants were active in a number of different fields and held different
official positions during the 12 years of the Nazi era. In making out his case, each
defendant chose his own course in grouping together various items. In facing this
unavoidable problem of over-lap, the editors have employed footnotes
extensively in making cross-references between the materials contained in
various sections, particularly in extracts from testimony where mention is made
of decrees and other documents reproduced in various parts of the volume.

B. Measures Outside the Judicial Process—Protective Custody, Transfer of

Persons to Concentration Camps and the Police

TRANSLATION OF KLEMM DOCUMENT 28

KLEMM DEFENSE EXHIBIT 28
 ORDER OF PRUSSIAN MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, 15 MARCH 1934, INFORMING
AUTHORITIES OF GOERING’S DECREE OF 11 MARCH 1934, AUTHORIZING
THE GESTAPO AND CERTAIN PRUSSIAN AUTHORITIES TO ORDER
PROTECTIVE CUSTODY FOR POLITICAL REASONS[185]

No. 76 Order concerning measures of protective custody, Executive Order of

the Prussian Ministry of Justice of 15 March 1934 (I 3540), German Justice,
page 341.
On account of its importance also with regard to the official sphere of
activities of judicial authorities, I hereby inform these authorities of the following
decree, by the Prussian Ministerpraesident (Secret State Police), dated 11 March
1934.
Berlin, 11 March 1934
The Prussian Ministerpraesident [Goering]
Secret State Police
Insp. 1946/11 March 34
Subject: Order concerning protective custody
Effective immediately I order the following:
1. The regulations which so far dealt with competence with regard to the
application of protective custody for political reasons are cancelled. In future
restrictions of personal freedom in accordance with article 1 of the Decree for the
Protection of the People and State, dated 28 February 1933, may be ordered with
effect on the entire state territory [of Prussia] by the Secret State Police Office
only, and within their local fields of jurisdiction by the Oberpraesidenten,
Regierungspraesidenten, the police president in Berlin and the local state police
offices.
The district police authorities, especially the Landraete, are no longer
competent for such measures. The measures hitherto ordered by them will be
rescinded as per 31 March unless they have been extended by order of the
competent police authorities of the constituent states.
[Page 342]
Offices of the Party and the affiliated organizations may not carry out arrests
on their own initiative. In case of disobedience to this order the competent
authority will interfere, and report to me, at once.
To the Ober- and Regierungspraesidenten
Secret State Police Office in Berlin
 Police President in Berlin
State Police Offices

TRANSLATION OF JOEL DOCUMENT 8

JOEL DEFENSE EXHIBIT 11[186]

LETTER OF REICH MINISTER OF JUSTICE GUERTNER TO REICH MINISTER

OF THE INTERIOR FRICK,[187] 14 MAY 1935, PROTESTING AGAINST THE
“MISTREATMENT OF COMMUNIST PRISONERS BY POLICEMEN”

Copy

The Reich Minister of Justice 3751 PS of the IMT

Z.F.g 10—1717.34
Personal
Berlin, 14 May 1935
To the Reich and Prussian Minister of the Interior,
Berlin
Subject: Mistreatment of Communist prisoners by policemen
Enclosure: 1 loose sheet
My Dear Reich Minister!
Enclosed you will find copy of a report of the inspector of the Secret State
Police, dated 28 March 1935.[188]
This report gives me an occasion to state my fundamental attitude toward the
question of the beating of internees. The numerous instances of ill-treatment
which have come to the knowledge of the administration of justice can be
divided into three different causes for such ill-treatment of prisoners.
1. Beating as a disciplinary punishment [Hausstrafe] in concentration camps.
2. Ill-treatment, mostly of political internees, in order to make them talk.
3. Ill-treatment of internees arising out of sheer fun, or for sadistic motives.
I should like to make the following detailed comments on those three
categories:
About No. 1. In the remand prisons and penal establishments under the
Ministry of Justice, there was no need to introduce corporal punishment as a
disciplinary measure. The experience of the administration of justice has taught
that a well trained, reliable, and conscientious personnel of wardens is in a
position to set up and to maintain model order under a strict discipline, even
without corporal punishment. The more training and discipline the prison guards
have, the less need exists to introduce corporal punishment as a disciplinary
measure.
But if, contrary to this view, one is to suppose that there might be a need to
introduce corporal punishment in concentration camps, it appears indispensable
that this disciplinary measure and the manner of its application should be
determined, uniformly and unambiguously, for the whole territory of the Reich. It
has happened recently that camp orders of individual concentration camps
concerning this matter and the use of weapons, contained unusually severe
instructions which were brought to the knowledge of the internees as a stern
warning, while the warden personnel was administratively informed that these
regulations which dated mostly from 1933 were no longer applicable. Such a
situation is equally dangerous for the warden personnel and for the internees. It
would therefore appear, after the question of imposing protective custody was
generally settled by the competent minister, that in the interests of all concerned,
one should urgently and clearly define responsibility and legal aspect,
furthermore that the same responsible authority would have to settle, by means of
camp regulations generally applicable, the question of corporal punishment as a
disciplinary measure, which is still unclarified, as well as the question of the use
of arms by the warden personnel.
About No. 2. I cannot concur with the opinions expressed in the enclosed
letter. The present penal law, which I have to enforce, renders liable to
particularly severe penalties those officials guilty of inflicting ill-treatment in the
performance of their duties, especially when such ill-treatment is used to extort
admissions or statements. That these legal provisions also reflect the will of the
Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor is shown by the fact that, during the suppression of
the Roehm revolt, the Fuehrer ordered the shooting of three members of the SS
who had ill-treated prisoners in Stettin. That being the legal situation, it is out of
order to grant silently one part of the police forces permission to extort
statements by means of ill-treating prisoners. Such a measure would destroy the
respect for the existing laws and would thereby lead necessarily to the confusion
and demoralization of the officials concerned.
Furthermore, such statements extorted by force are practically without value if
they are supposed to serve as evidence in trials for high treason. The courts
which have jurisdiction in cases of high treason consider to an ever increasing
degree statements of the defendants made before the police as worthless and
without any evidenciary value for court decisions. This was the result of their
getting convinced in the course of numerous proceedings that confessions and
statements made before the police were extorted by ill-treatment.
Moreover, I cannot follow the statements contained in the attached report in as
much as the beating of Communists held in custody is regarded as an
indispensable police measure for a more effective suppression of Communist
activities. These explanations of the Gestapo office show precisely that the
methods used up to now have not been successful in combatting the illegal
Communist machine or to hinder its development.
Experience shows that such police measures may perhaps partially be
successful but that they never can attain a total suppression and destruction of an
illegal revolutionary organization which alone is of importance in the long run.
Behind such revolutionary organizations there are professional revolutionaries of
great experience and frequently exceptional intelligence. These succeed very
soon by means of cleverly camouflaging all more important functionaries in
excluding for all practical purposes the possibility of betrayal as a result of
mistreatment.
About No. 3. The experience of the first revolutionary years has shown that the
persons who are charged to administer the beatings generally lose pretty soon the
feeling for the purpose and meaning of their actions and permit themselves to be
governed by personal feelings of revenge or by sadistic tendencies. As an
example, members of the guard detail of the former concentration camp at
Bredow near Stettin completely stripped a prostitute who had an argument with
one of them and beat her with whips and cowhides in such a fashion that 2
months later the woman still showed two open and infected wounds on the right
side of her buttocks, one 17.7 by 21.5 centimeters and the other 12.5 by 16.5
centimeters, as well as a similar wound on the left side of the buttocks 7.5 by 17
centimeters. In the concentration camp at Kemna near Wuppertal, prisoners were
locked up in a narrow clothing locker and were then tortured by blowing in
cigarette smoke, upsetting the locker, etc. In some cases the prisoners were given
salt herring to eat, so as to produce an especially strong and torturing thirst. In the
Hohenstein concentration camp in Saxony, prisoners had to stand under a
dripping apparatus especially constructed for this purpose until the drops of water
which fell down in even intervals caused seriously infected wounds in their
scalps. In a concentration camp in Hamburg four prisoners were lashed for days
—once without interruption for 3 days and nights, once 5 days and nights—to a
grating in the form of a cross, being fed so meagerly with dried bread that they
almost died of hunger.
These few examples show such a degree of cruelty which is an insult to every
German sensibility, that it is impossible to consider any extenuating
circumstances.
In conclusion, I should like to present my opinion about these three points to
you, my dear Reich Minister, in your capacity as cabinet member in charge of the
establishment of protective custody and the camps for protective custody.
1. It seems now absolutely necessary that the competent minister should
decree unified camp regulations for all camps for protective custody, which shall
regulate completely and unmistakably the question of corporal punishment as
disciplinary measure, and the question of use of weapons by the guards.
2. It appears necessary that the competent cabinet minister order valid for all
police authorities an absolute prohibition against mistreatment of prisoners for
the purpose of forcing statements.
3. All mistreatments which are entirely or partly due to personal reasons must
be prosecuted vigorously and punished under close cooperation of all
governmental offices concerned.
Heil Hitler!
[Signed] D . G

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-326

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 456

DIRECTIVE OF 12 JUNE 1937 FROM HEYDRICH, CHIEF OF THE SECURITY

POLICE, TO POLICE OFFICES, CONCERNING PROTECTIVE CUSTODY FOR
JEWISH RACE DEFILERS

Copy

The Chief of the Security Police Berlin, 12 June 1937

S-P (II B) No. 4021/37
[Handwritten] Annulled 28 August 1937
[Handwritten] Ku
Subject: Protective custody for Jewish race defilers.