We therefore have to go to other documents in which Rothenberger's initials appear. And we are prepared to do that this morning if counsel still feels that that initial is not the defendant Rothenberger's. But we will come back to this point later.
As to the second point, just a word as to what this document purports to be. It is a well-known fact that the Reich Ministry of Justice prepared on a regular basis information in outline form, or at least telegram form, the happenings of importance which they thought would be of importance to Hitler and forwarded these reports to him, as I say, at regular intervals.
Exhibit 141, on the face of it, is such a document as will be seen from the heading. It is "Fuehrer Information Bulletin" or "Leader Information Bulletin." That is seen more clearly in the original. "Fuehrer" in the original has not, of course, be translated so it bears the original title, "Fuehrer Information Bulletin." Therefore, the purpose of the document appears. It was a copy prepared for issuance as a part of the regular Fuehrer information service. It contains the initial of Vollmer, and according to our context, it contains the initial of Rothenberger. The document itself is covered by the various paragraphs of the Coogan affidavit, The original of it is now in the Reich Patent Amt in Berlin. We feel quite apart from whether this is Rothenberger's initial or not, the document should be admitted as all the other documents arc or have been.
It is a document which came to us in the official course of document search. We feel that it is in no way incompetent. Now may we return to the first point?
Does counsel for the Defendant Rothenberger have a word at this time?
JUDGE BRAND: May I interrupt you once more?
MR. KING: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: This exhibit is presumably in Book C.
MR. KING: That is right.
JUDGE BRAND: It is not in my book. I wonder if you could lend me a copy. There is nothing in here. My book runs from 94 to 98.
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is in my book, and it may be due to my unfamiliarity with such matters, but I am unable to find the initial on my page.
MR. KING: Your Honor, I pointed out, or I certainly meant to, that on the mimeographed copy, the initials of both Rothenberger and Vollmer do not appear. That is a typographical emission. I have here the original which we will submit as an exhibit, or a copy of the criminal. It might be helpful if the court glanced at that. I will send it to you.
May it please the Court: The signature in the upper left-hand corner, we contend, is identical to other signatures in our possession which we know were made by the defendant Rothenberger.
I believe there will be no argument from defense counsel that the signature in the lower right-hand corner is that of Vollmer.
DR. DOETZER: Dr. Doetzer, for the Defendant Rothenberger. May it please the Tribunal: I should like to point out that this Fuehrer Information Bulletin does not bear any date. It can not be seen, therefore, when this Fuehrer Information Bulletin was dispatched. Furthermore, this Fuehrer Information Bulletin is not signed. Therefore, one can not see from that, whether this Fuehrer Information Bulletin was dispatched at all. On the side cf this copy, you can sec some letter. The Prosecutor explains that it comes from the Defendant Rothenberger. Up to now, he has been unable to submit any document to me which would prove how he came to such a conclusion. Therefore, I contest the accuracy of the opinion of the Prosecutor concerning this initial.
MR. KING: Regarding what counsel for Rothenberger has just said, I think we have said all we intend to about every point except one which he raised. That was the fact that there was no date. It is true that the day of the month is not included. But it is true that the month, November, and the year, 1943, does appear in this draft. This further fact is abundantly clear: Vollmer, and to our mind, Rothenberger, initialed it apparently with the intention of passing it on for final processing so it would be included in the Fuehrer Information Bulletin. It seems to us that it is entirely clear that once they initialed it, they took responsibility for its contents. It seems to us that the burden of proof that that is not the case rests on the Defense and not the Prosecution.
Do I understand that counsel for the Defendant Rothenberger still denies that, in his opinion, that initial is Rothenberger's. What he said was not quite clear. Is that still his position? May I ask him that?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not understand that he contends that that is not his initial. If I am wrong about that, we will give counsel an opportunity to correct it.
MR. KING: I might add, before he speaks, that we are prepared, this morning, to put on expert testimony, and shall do that if the denial persists.
DR. DOETZER: The Prosecutor has admitted that the document does not show any date. I further want to point out that the document has no signature. According to usage in German Ministries, that means that the document has not left that office, but possibly was a suggestion or draft within the Ministry.
As far as the letter on the side of the pare is concerned, the Prosecutor has only assumed and said that it was the name and the initial of Rothenberger. Thereupon, I took the liberty to point out that this letter on the side of the page is not covered by the document which was once submitted and which consists of all the signatures of the officials of the Ministry. Therefore, we are missing proof on the part of the prosecutor that these are actually the initials of Rothenberger.
THE PRESIDENT: We will regard this as at least prima facie evidence of an authentic document. If defense counsel wishes to make any further protest they may do so as part cf their case. The document will be admitted.
MR. KING: Do I understand the Court to say that the document will be admitted as indicating that it bears the initials of the Defendant Rothenberger?
THE PRESIDENT: It is at least prima facie that it is the initial of Rothenberger.
MR. KING: There is one further thing we would like to point cut. In the lower left-hand corcer of the document, opposite the initial or signature of Vollmer, there appears a symbol which is characteristically Vollmer's method of indicating the date, the number "12" and a straight line under which is the number "11". Since the document bears November date, it is quite clear that this date indicates the 12th cf November. Since this is a reduced photostatic copy, it appears to be very very small on the document. but they are the two figures that appear on the photostat.
At this time, in view of the Court's statement, I offer the Exhibit 141. I understand that Court has already accepted that.
JUDGE BRAND: May I suggest that if Counsel thinks that it is desirable for the Prosecution to do more than to show what has be designated as a prima facie case, they are at liberty to satisfy us more fully as to the identity of a signature which is quite difficult to read.
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor, that might be desirable at this time. We have a man here who is eminently capable of identifying that. It might be well to offer the Court more evidence at this time. I wonder, therefore, if we might have the Witness Box arranged?
I ask, at this time, that Mr. Lorenz Eitner, be sworn.
JUDGE BRAND: Take the witness box, please.
This witness is to testify in German?
MR. KING: In English.
LORENZ EITNER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Do you solemnly and sincerely swear that the evidence you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? You so swear?
THE WITNESS: I so swear.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. Will you state your name and the capacity in which you are employed?
A. Lorenz Eitner, Chief Analyst, Ministries Division.
Q. In the course of your duties as Chief Analyst, you have the duty and the opportunity to examine nearly all of the photostat copies that are processed for use in this trial"
A. I do.
Q. And do you find, among these, a great number of signatures and initials by the defendant Rothenberger?
A. I have found many such initials.
Q. You are familiar with the controversy which has arisen over the identity of the initial in Exhibit 141?
A. I am.
Q. In your opinion, is the initial which shows on the-
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit the paper to him.
(Witness is offered the Exhibit No. 141.)
BY MR. KING:
Q. I show you now the Exhibit 141 and ask you if the initial in the upper left-hand corner of that document is not, in your opinion, the initial of the defendant Rothenberger?
A. In my opinion, the initial that appears in the upper left-hand corner of Document NG-546 is the characteristic initial of Rothenberger, which is familiar to me from many original documents and photostats f documents that I have seen.
Q. Now, in reaching that conclusion, do you have in mind other documents in which the defendant Rothenberger's initials also appear?
A. Yes, I have in mind the numerous documents initialed by Rothenberger, both in his capacity as UnderState Secretary and head of the H*****tic Court of Appeals, that bear his initial.
Q. I have in my hand, a document which is NG-632. There appears on Page 9 of that document, an initial which appears to be that of the defendant Rothenberger. I show you that document and ask you further if, in your opinion, the initial which appears there is not that of the defendant Rothenberger, and I may ask in connection with that, for the education of the Court, if you will not identify and describe the document so that we may get a clearer idea as to why and how it was possible that the letter was in the defendant Rothenberger's possession at the time we assume the initial was placed there.
(Witness is offered the Document NG-632.)
A. The Document NG-632 just submitted to me is a report concerning a conference of the judges of various local courts within the area of the Hamburg Court of Appeals. The cover letter addressed this document to the President of the H*ns**tic Court of Appeals of Hamburg, who was at that time--the date is 23 February 1942--Rothenberger. On Page 9, in the margin near the last paragraph on that page appears the same initial as on NG-546. It has the same characteristic: a sharp upward stroke and the small loop, and a stroke to the right and a line trailing down.
Q. Witness, I show you another document. This document is identified by tho letters NG-542. In your opinion, was that letter initialed by the defendant Rothenberger, and if so, does the initial appearing there appear to be similar to the initial on Exhibit 141?
(Witness is offered tho Document NG-542)
A. This Document NG-542 is a letter signed "Crohne," and addressed to Under-State Secretary Rothenberger. It bears an initial which is identical, in my opinion, with that on NG-632 and NG-546. There are, of course, small variations between all these initials, but the salient characteristics are clear in each case.
Q. Witness, I show you a still further document, identified as NG-410, which is a letter addressed to the State Secretary Rothenberger, which bears on Page 1 an initial, apparently placed there by the recipient of the letter. I show you that document and ask you if, in your opinion, it has similar stylistic characteristics of the previous Rothenberger initials which you have identified.
(Witness is offered the Document NG-410)
A. The initial which appears on NG-410 immediately below the typed name of Rothenberger is again identical with the three previously exhibited initials.
Q. Now, I finally would like to show you an additional document which is identified as NG-279. It is a letter which, because it's written in German, I would rather have you identify, but it does bear, opposite the typed signature of Dr. Rothenberger, an initial apparently placed there by Dr. Rothenberger. That appears on the last page. I show you this document and ask you whether or not, in your opinion, that initial is also not similar to the *nes you have previously identified. Will you also for the education of the Court, further identify that document.
(Witness is offered the Document NG-279)
A. Document NG-270 just handed me is the draft of a letter by the Ministry of Justice to the Party Chancery, and it concerns the treatment of trials against juveniles of foreign nationality.
Its date is 5 August 1943. On Page 4, at the end of this letter, there appear the initials of the Minister Thierack, of the various Ministry of Justice department chiefs, among them Vollmer, and the initial of State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger, which in this case is further identified by the full title and name which appear in type script besides the initial itself. The initial in this case again is the same as on the documents previously submitted to me.
Q. I ask you once again, now that you have four additional specimens of the defendant Rothenberger's initials if in your opinion, they were written by the same hand that placed the initial in the upper left-hand corner of Exhibit 141.
A. In my opinion, the initial in the upper left-hand corner of NG-546 is identical with the initials that appear on Documents NG-410, NG-279, NG-632 and NG-542.
Q. When you say similar to the document NG-546, you are giving the NG numbers of Exhibit 141. That is correct.
A. I see.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel for Dr. Rothenberger desire to further cross-examine this witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. DOETZER:
Q. May it please the Tribunal; witness, if I have understood you correctly, you have only considered the similarity and not the identity?
A. Since the initials, of course, appear on separate documents, they cannot be identical.
Q. Are you of the opinion that these initials were written by the same hand?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What was your training in comparing hand writings; what is your background?
A. Among other facts concerning my previous training, I might point out my training in polygraphics, that is as a student of ancient writings and scripts which is part of my training as an art historian.
Q. Have you even been called before an American court as an expert?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever published scientific studies about comparison of handwritings?
A. I have published art historical polygraphics in which the study of script plays a certain role.
Q. That is no comparison of existing languages.
A. No.
Q. Did you just arrive at the opinion about these initials or did you have opportunity for considerably time to think so.
A. The initials of Dr. Rothenberger has been familiar to me since I began to work on the documents of the Ministry of Justice; this characteristic initials appear on countless documents that I have had the opportunity to examine during the last few months.
Q. Have you yourself ever seen Dr. Rothenberger when he wrote that initial?
A. I have not personally seen Dr. Rothenberger writing this initial. I have, however, seen initials written by him at Burnberg.
Q. In other words, you have not seen him personally write it, but you have gotten that knowledge from other sources?
A. I have never seen the writing myself, but I have seen documents unquestionably written by him before American officials here in Nurnberg.
Q. Do you know that in the study of comparison of handwritings from a criminology point of view that it is extremely difficult in case of similar initials to affirm that they came from the same hand?
A. I cannot make myself believe that different hands wrote the same characteristic initials which appear so frequently in connection with printed or typewritten name of the former Under State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger on various official documents.
Q. Have you, witness, examined whether it isn't possible that another official of the Ministry of Justice writes in a similar manner?
A. If there was such another official of the Reich Ministry of Justice, he must also have been active at the various other places, such as the Court for Appeals of Hamburg, for instance, at which Rothenberger was active.
Q. Witness, I believe that that is not an answer to my question. Your entire opinion will collapse if in the Reich Ministry of Justice there would have been an official who had similar initials because everything else is just conclusions. Have you examined the initials of the other officials of the ministry of Justice from that point of view?
A. I have made a fairly thorough examination of the initials of the various members of the Reich ministry of Justice, and I believe I can say that none resembles that initial which reoccurs in connection with the printed or typewritten name of Rothenberger.
Q. I did not mean that, witness. I only want to know whether in the course of your investigations you found the name of an official of the ministry of Justice who writes in a similar handwriting.
A. I never ran across similar initials; in other words, similar to that which appears in connection with Rothenberger's name on documents.
Q. Have you made special investigations for that?
A. I haven't made any special investigation of that, no; but I feel that I am sufficiently familiar with the characteristic initials on Ministry of Justice documents to say that there is only one initial which resembles that on NG-546, and that is the initial of Rothenberger.
DR. DOETZER: Thank you.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask counsel to supply me with this exhibit which is not in my book.
MR. KING: Exhibit 141, yes. I am sorry for the omission; it will be supplied. May the witness be excused?
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem proper, inasmuch as there is a controversy about this being the initials of Dr. Rothenberger, and the exhibits have been shown to the witness, that the some exhibits should be shown to the Court that we nay also have the benefit of that comparison; I think they should be introduced in evidence.
MR. KING: We are not only prepared to show then to the Court, but we will offer them in evidence. Following your examination of the exhibits, or, if you prefer, at this moment I would offer those documents which were shown to the witness Eitner as Exhibit 142, subject to a certification to be supplied by Miss Radcliff of the Document Room that they are authentic documents, as we have claimed. If I may have them returned when the Court has finished with them, I will have such a certification prepared by Miss Radcliff, and Exhibit 142, together with that certification, will be supplied to the Secretary General in the next half day or so.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it your purpose to introduce them after they have been properly certified?
MR. KING: I will introduce them now subject to the proper certification.
THE PRESIDENT:NG-279, NG-410, NG-542, and NG-632 will be received in evidence as a joint exhibit, Exhibit No. 142, subject to further certification The witness will be excused.
MR. KING: We return now to Document Book I-B, the Document NG-558, which is to be found in the index as appearing at page 78 of Document Book I-B. This document did not appear in the original volume I-B, as circulated, and it has boon distributed separately to a representative of the Secretary General's office and I believe ho has additional copies for circulation at this time. I suggest that this two-page document be numbered 78-1a and 78-2. This is a letter dated Berlin, 13 October, 1942; it is a letter addressed to Herr Reichstleiter Bormann at the Fuehrer's Headquarters; it refers to criminal jurisdiction against Poles, Russians, Jews and Gypsies.
It is initialed by Thierack, and begins: "Dear Reichsleiter: With a view to freeing the German people of Poles, Russians, Jews and Gypsies and with view to making the Eastern territories which have been incorporated into the Reich available for settlements for German nationals, I intend to turn over criminal proceedings against Poles, Russians, Jews and Gypsies to the Reichsfuehrer SS. In so doing I base myself on the principle that the administration of justice can only make a small contribution to the extermination of members of these peoples. The Justice administration undoubtedly pronounces very severe sentences on such persons, but that is not enough to constitute any material contribution towards the realization of the above mentioned aim. Nor is any useful purpose served by keeping such persons in German prisons and penitentiaries for years, even if they are utilized as labor for war purposes, as is done today on a large scale.
I am, on the other hand, of the opinion that considerably better results can be accomplished by surrendering such persons to the police, who can take the necessary measures unhampered by any legal criminal evidence. I start from the principle that such measures soon entirely justified in wartime, and that certain conditions which I consider essential are fulfilled. These conditions consist in the prosecution of poles and Russians by the police only if they r sided until 1 September 1939 in the former sectors of Poland or the Soviet Union; and, secondly that Poles who were registered as being of German descent will continue to be subjected to prosecution by the administration of justice as before.
On the other hand the police may prosecute Jews and Gypsies irrespective of these conditions.
But no changes whatsoever are to be made in regard to the prosecution of other foreign nationals by the administration of justice.
"The Reichsfuehrer SS, with whom I discussed those views, agrees with them. I also informed Herr. Dr. Lammers.
"I submit this matter to you, requesting you to let me know whether the Fuehrer approves this view. If so, I would make my official recommendations through Reich Minister Dr. Lammers.
"Hell Hitler!
"Thierack."
As Exhibit 135, the Prosecution offers Document NG 558.
Your Honor, I notice that the original exhibit of that which I need to hand up to the Secretary General apparently has not come into the Court Room. I offer this in evidence subject to its physical presence with the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received on those conditions.
MR. KING: I also appreciate a certain amount of unfairness in presenting that document to the Secretary General without an opportunity for the Defense Counsel to see the copy I actually presented. I, therefore, would like to say before I hand that up to the Secretary General, an opportunity will be given for examination of this document by the Defense Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: That may be regarded as one of the conditions.
MR. KING: Until further notice the Court and Defense Counsel may dispense, that is, so far as the Prosecution is concerned -- dispense with bringing any of document book one series into the Court Room. We will attempt to give notice in advance for future reference by the Prosecution to any of the one series.
May I ask the Court and Defense Counsel to turn now to Document Book 3-C. The next exhibit which we will introduce will be when formally offered Exhibit 144, and is NG 335, to be found on page 97 of the English document book, and on page 127 of the same book in German.
JUDGE BRAND: That also is not in my document book; that is the second one that has been omitted this morning.
MR. KING: This seems to be a bad day, sir.
I will ask the Court to turn first to page 100 in the English text, beginning on that page and continuing over to page 102 in the English text, is the Indictment in the case of Konrad Riedel, This Indictment was signed by the defendant Lautz. We do not wish to read any portion of the Indictment. We will begin reading in the verdict or opinion on page 103, in the English, the first full paragraph from the bottom of the page beginning with, "The defendant Konrad Riedel."
"The defendant Konrad Riedel, already punished in 1940 because of utterances inimical to the state, declared in the presence of the German citizen Adele Bartels on 9 October 1943 that we could not hold out in the war much longer, on account of the terror bombing, and that we should have peace in four weeks if the Fuehrer were out of the way.
"He is therefore condemned to death for undermining Germany's defensive strength. He is to be deprived of civic rights forever.
"The defendant, a bachelor, who will shortly be 52 years of age, joined the Social Democratic Party and the Independent Labor Union when he was not yet 20 years old in Freiburg, Silesia, where he was working as a skilled latheman. After having taken part in the World War from 1919 on, during which he was wounded twice, he joined the Independent Social Democratic Party at the end of the war and was temporarily in charge of its local unit in Freiburg. He also was a local official of the Independent Labor Union and a delegate of the General Trade Union. When the Independent Social Democratic Party split up, he joined the Communist Party and was temporarily also in charge of its local unit in Freiburg. That even at this time his activities inimical to the state were very intensive is evident from the fact that even then, in the year 1921, fearing arrest and severe punishment, he stealthily fled from Silesia and for nearly two decades, that is until the year 1939, lived in Berlin, Hamburg, Kiel, and Bremen under the alias "Oscar Schmidt." Riedel's political inactivity at this time is only attributable to the fact that he was leading an illegal life and could not afford to draw attention to himself. In 1939 he was nevertheless arraigned for utterances inimical to the state, at which time his true personal status was discovered.
On 8 May 1940 the Special Court in Bremen sentenced him to eight months in prison, which he subsequently served, the time of his pre-trial detention being deducted.
"This punishment did not serve as a warning to the defendant, who maintained his old attitude inimical to the state. His friend and coworker in the Lembeck-Motorenwerke in Bremen, the latheman Johann Bartels seems to have shared his political convictions. Not so Bartels' sister, Adele Bartels, a secretary, who was living together with him and who held a completely different, namely positive, attitude toward National Socialism.
"In November 1942 Riedel and Johann Bartels became separated in their place of work; but they continued to meet each other as friends. Thus the defendant went to visit Johann Bartels in the latter's house on 9 October 1943 and, not finding him there, struck up a conversation with Bartels' sister, who received him. In the course of it the talk turned to the terror attacks by the enemy air force. The defendant stated that we had no reason to complain about them; that we had brought this on ourselves by doing the same thing. Regarding the effects of these attacks he then remarked that our war industry would not be able to last much longer, because of the bomb damage. Adele Bartels took issue with him in this, stating something to the effect that we had to and world win the war; for if we lost the war, we should all be doomed. But Konrad Riedel, who, judging from his political past, does not even want to sec Germany win, did not conceed this either and replied that life would go on even if we should lose the war. Adele Bartels finally remarked that, in any case, what counted was that the Fuehrer be preserved for us. Just this, however, provoked the defendant to contradict and in doing so he expressed himself very distinctly; for he declared: 'Not only could we get along without the Fuehrer, but without him, as things stood, the war would be over in a considerably shorter time; with Hitler out of the picture we could even have peace in four weeks.' And in order to illustrate his contention that the Fuehrer stayed in power against the will of the people, he added some fabricated statements about his former political activity and life:
that he had been a Communist member of the Landtag and as such had gone to Moscow; that there he had seen Stalin crossing the street from the Kremlin, freely and without a bodyguard; Adolf Hitler, however, always had a whole squad around him for his safety. This was the end of the conversation. The defendant went away and has not met Adele Bartels since."
This was all established during the main trial on the basis of Konrad Riedel's own admission. The witness Adele Bartels did not appear. In the indictment, on the basis of her testimony in the preliminary investigation, Riedel was accused of having chosen the particularly crass working that Adolf Hitler would have to die, if Germany was to live. This was denied by the defendant during the preliminary investigation as well as during the main trial, so that it could not be actually established against him, for lack of evidence.
But this is not even the decisive point. From what he himself confesses the defendant's behavior unequivocally calls for the verdict that, without assuring himself that his statements would be held confidential and indifferent to whether or not they would be disseminated (publicly in the sense of the law), he is guilty of gravely undermining Germany's defensive strength in this war (crime according to Art. 5, Para.1, No. 1 of the Special Military Penal Code. The defendant's crime consists in his intentionally undertaking to destroy the fellow German Adele Bartels's belief in victory and her preparedness to strive with all her power for the victorious termination of the war. It was committed by his predicting our defeat and especially by his asserting that the Fuehrer was the main obstacle to the early attainment of a desirable peace. The Senate is convinced that he, as an old and incorrigible enemy of the state, did this in a desire to achieve this effect and thus to contribute to a repetition of the ignominious outcome of the First World War. Under these circumstances To is inconceivable that this crime could constitute a less serious case of undermining Germany's defensive strength (Art. 5, Parag. 2). Capital punishment, the only penalty prescribed for ordinary cases of undermining Germany's defensive strength, to be meted out to the defendant. Because he has acted dishonorably, he is ** deprived of the civic rights of a German citizen forever (Art. 32 of the Criminal Code)."
MR. KING: We call attention to the fact that the order for the defendant Riedel's death appears on page 99 of the English text and is dated Berlin, 31 May 1944 and is signed by the defendant Klemm. We offer that in evidence as Exhibit 144, the document NG-353.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence and we will take usual morning recess at this time. Fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING: I ask the Court to note that I am now sending up to the representative of the Secretary General the document NG-558, which is Exhibit 143. It will be recalled that was accepted conditionally, subject to the original being furnished to the Secretary General.
We resume at this time reading from document book III-C. As exhibit 145, the prosecution desires at this time to introduce document NG-479, which is to be found on page 6 of the English text, and 5 of the German text. This document is a sworn affidavit by one Kurt Schmidt.
"Affidavit:
"On the 26th of September, 1938, I was arrested on the street by the Gestapo. The arrest occurred on my way between the office and my home. They took me to Prinz Albrecht Strasse after they had conducted an inspection of my home. I was then interned in the cellar rooms of Prinz Albrecht Strasse which had been converted into a prison. The treatment in the prison was 'correct', the rooms themselves clean, although almost completely devoid of daylight.
"The interrogation was conducted in an extremely brutal fashion in the Gestapo offices--beatings, forced to sit with bended knees for hours or to stand in the corridor with face turned to the wall, and so forth. The first interrogations were conducted almost without interruption from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. I am unable to name the officials of the Gestapo; however, I do not believe that the names I heard were their full ones, for, as far as I remember, they all had extremely common names such as Mueller, Schroeder, etc.
"After it was discovered that this sort of interrogation did not meet with any particular success, they tried another method. After an interrogation lasting 12 hours, I was ret urned to my cell at about 9 or 10 p.m. and, after I had slept for approximately half an hour, was awakened and driven in a private car to some spot between Gruennu and Schmoeckwity.