. NMT04-T1117
Volume IV · Page 1117
| People's List, are not permissible.
This prohibition, as a matter of principle, also excludes marriages between
members of group 3 of the German People's List and persons eligible for
re-Germanization. Marriages of members of group 3 of the German People's List with political officials of the NSDAP, with leaders of its affiliated organizations, officers, members of the Reich Labor Service, officials in highest, higher and intermediate grades, as well as with employees of authorities who can act independently, may be entered into only with special permission, which must be obtained from the Staff Main Office. It is requested that applications for marriage permits by members of group 3 of the German People's List be especially scrutinized. For the Chief of the Racial Office in the SS Race and Settlement Main Office |
| [Signed] KLINGER SS Lieutenant Colonel |
| Certified [Signature: illegible] SS Captain |
| b. Extract from the Closing
Statement for Defendant Greifelt |
| * * * * * * * * * * * |
| Concerning the next count, prevention of marriages, I can be very brief. In his examination Greifelt declared that he had nothing to do with such measures. (Tr. p. 1563.) Whatever was implemented in this field was a concern of Himmler's Reich Security Main Office, or his Ministry of the Interior. The documents introduced by the prosecution in book 12 emanated from the Reich Security Main Office or the RuSHA. In Document NO-3593, Prosecution Exhibit 537 "Offices of the Reich Commissioner" are mentioned. According to Document NO-3592, Prosecution Exhibit 535 this can only mean the RuSHA. The Staff Main Office is only mentioned on the last page of this volume because the approval of the Staff Main Office was required for marriages between persons classified in group 3 of the German People's List and political leaders and organization leaders. But this was due to the control exercised with respect to marriages of such functionaries, not to measures aiming at extermination of other nationalities. But prevention of marriages can have a relevancy to International Law only if it has this aim, but not if it is merely |
* This part of the closing statement was not read into the record, but was presented to the Court in the form of a brief. Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 February 1948, pp. 4872-4903.
