"A few days later, several fellow-workers of the defendant were again discussing the enemy's nightly air raids. The conversation turned to the German night fighters. This turning point of the conversation caused the defendant to make the remark: 'They have no more gasoline.
"These facts were established on the basis of the defendant's statement and on the testimonies of witnesses.
"The defendant pleads in his defense: Concerning his remark about the attempt on the Fuehrer's life he did not mean to implicate that it had been committed by men from the ranks of the NSDAP. After the Reichstag fire, a great many people, particularly Communists, had been arrested. After hearing about the attempt he was afraid that, consequently, a new wave of arrests would follow. In his excitement over it and his fear that he might be sent to Dachau, he had made the remark in question. His excitement had been so heavy that he had been quite absent minded.
"Concerning the Rohr case, he said he had only discussed it with his fellow-worker Kaas. The witnesses Fischer and Eisenmann had not taken part in the discussion; they had definitely been 'eavesdropping.' He is alleged to have said to Kaas that Rohr probably found himself to be in an embarrassing situation. Probably he had been placed before the alternative either to remain in France and accept the consequences, or to return to Germany. Thus Rohr might have had no other choice than to join the French Army.
"At his working place, the defendant soon proved to be a political. querolant. The defendant himself illustrated his political conception by saying: 'I don't fight or oppose the present State neight do I support it. I will wait and see what the future will bring forth.'
"Late in the fall of 1939 and in the course of the years 1940 and 1941, the defendant made various remarks hostile to the State during discussions with follow-workers.
"When the Munich attempt on the life of the Fuehrer of 9 November 1939 became known and about six of the defendant's fellow workers were discussing the subject in the workshop of the plant, reading together a newspaper report on the incident, the defendant suddenly bent over those who were reading from behind, interfering in the conversation with these words:
'This seems me to be like the Reichstag fire."
"Approximately at the beginning of the campaign against France, the defendant's fellow-worker Fischer was discussing the case of the National football player Ossi Rohr with him and coiler Kaas: Ossi Rohr -
You do not have that in the German text? It is 112 in the German text, defense counsel points out. We better go back to the beginning of that paragraph.
"Approximately at the beginning of the campaign against France, the defendant's fellow-worker Fischer was discussing the case of the National football player Ossi Rohr with him and coiler Kaas, Ossi Rohr was said to have been hired by the French as a football player. When conscription was introduced in Germany, Rohr refused to return to fulfill his military servi He became a French citizen, and is also said to have joined the French Army During the discussion it was also mentioned that Rohr was supposed to be fighting against Germany on the French side. Fischer who started the discussion condemned the undignified behavior of the football player, Rohr. The defendant Grasser replied, that had he been there himself, he would have acted in the same way and joined the French Army. Sometime before the outbreak of the war against Russia, when starting work one morning, the defendant said to the coiler Kaas, and this so loudly that Fischer could overhear him: 'Now I know who is going to win the war; Russia and America will be the only victors in this war.' At these words Grasser rubbed his hands. Haas agreed with Frasser's remark.
He added, that in his place many other persons possibly would have acted in the same way.
"He had not made the remark about Russia's victory and America's prospect of victory on his own, but rather a fellow worker had asked him, who would probably win the war. Whereupon he had answered, that whoever showed greates endurance would win the war. In this connection he expressed his opinion that it would be Russia and America because they had the most powerful economy.
"During a conversation with his fellow workers about the air raid on Schwabach, a colleague had stated, that the English had not bombed military objectives. Whereupon he replied, that nowadays every human being was vital for the war effort as his annihilation would mean a labor deficiency, With this remark he referred to the importance of each particular human life during a war, thus wanting to defend the Schwabach victims, after the others had interpreted matters as if a human life had no value at all.
"Shortly before this his comrade had told him that the war would not last for a long time as the English had no more gasoline. After the air raid on Schwabach he had declared, that in his opinion others no longer had any gasoling. This remark referred to the English aircraft and not to the German Night fighters."
We now turn in the opinion to Page 21 in the English text under Roman III "In legally assessing the facts of this case the Court has been guided by the following considerations:
The defendant's remarks in connection with the attempt on the Fuehrer's life construes antagonism between the Fuehrer on the one hand and the movement created and led by men from the ranks of the NSDAP.
"In his remark about the ROHR-football player the defendant glorified a treasonable attitude. He revealed by this remark his negative attitude, he criticised all orders issued by the State Leadership which aim at maintaining the fight for national existence.
"Confidence in victory in this present war of liberation against the enemy's destructive will, is being explained, and even hammered into the German people, again and again by the German News Agency with all means of propaganda. By his remark, that Russia and America would be victorious, the defendant has openly opposed the News Agency's endeavors to spread confidence in victory, and attempted to destroy the people's confidence in the German News Agency.
"The News Agency is an instrument in the hand of the German Government forming the political opinion of the German people. The defendant incitingly criticised the authenticity and reliability of the German News Agency's victory propaganda.
"The defendant also directed his attack against the German News Agency through the remark about the raid by English planes on Schwabach in justify this enemy air attack. The German propaganda daily points out to the German people, that only the bombing of military objectives is permissible according to the international rules of warfare, whilst the bombing of residential quarters and thereby the attack on the civilian population is not only a breach of international law, but also to be condemned under the concepts of justice and humanity.
"The same applies to the remark against the use of German night fighters. The defendant has undertaken to undermine the hope in the efficiency and military strength of the night fighters, thus expressing doubt in the authen city of the successes reported by the D.N.B., which is the German News Agency "With his remarks, the defendant mainly discredited the prestige of the NSDAP consciously and deliberately.
The general disparaging criticism of the defendant refers to current events in the political life of the German people in a way such as to make it evident that it was the defendant's intention to discredit the measures and institutions of the National Socialist Government in the eyes of his audience with distorting and false recrimination The defendant's remarks about events of the war were generally likely to undermine the political belief of German nationals in the necessity of the war, in the national interest and the confidence and trust in the German Government. The aim the accused was pursuing with his false statements could be nothing else but to create among his audience a negative attitude towards the National Socialist State.
"All these statements were made by the accused in the workshops of the Sienesns-Schukert-Werks, a large armament concern. His remarks could be overheard, by an indefinite number of persons not known to one another personally, if they directed their attention to them.
It cannot be contended, therefore, that these remarks were made solely within a private circle. They were therefore made in public. The defendant is therefore guilty of an offense under Section 2, Par. I, of the Law of December 20th, 1934. According to this provision his prosecution has been ordered.
"In a multitude of cases the defendant made seditious, inflammatory remarks, which constitute an offense against the Law against malicious acts and insults, and so he continued in the same way, always committing an offer against the same law. His various remarks originate from one single intent, the realization of a premeditated total success, namely political agitation. For this reason the Court assumed only one continued criminal act.
"The National Socialist political mode of life of the German people is based on community life. The successful defense of National Socialist Germany against the enemy's determination to destroy her requires sacrifices, even great mortal sacrifices, which constitute an imperative consequence of this community life. The arguments and remarks about no victorious end of the war, etc., were, as their contents conclusively show, used by the defendant to depreciate the sacrifices demanded of the German people. In this connection the remarks about Russia's and America's prospects of victory, the disparag criticism of Germany's fight for national existence as well as the attempt to destroy the hopes in the military strength of the night-fighter, thus comprise an attack on the conception of the state upon which the national community life is based, and the fundamental principles of the National Socialist community. They were intended to undermine the people's will to fight for national existence. The attacks the defendant directed against the people's fighting power and will of resistance were made with some special interest in mind. The defendant could not count on his remarks being confined to the circle of persons to whom they were addressed. The individual remarks appear also in this connection as subordinate consecutive stages of a single criminal act, i.e., a crime of undermining the military morale under Section 5, Par. I, No. 1 Special Penal Decree for War Time dated 11/8/1939, which came into force on 26/8/1939. The fundamental attitude of the defendant, of no value from a national point of view as shown, justifies the interpretation that the attacks directed against the German people's fighting power an will of resistance only constitute a part of a systematic agitation carried out by the defendant."
We turn now to Page 24 of the text as distributed, beginning under Roman 1 "The court gained the impression that the defendant is principally opposed to the national-socialist regime.
The established facts reveal that he has become politically aggressive to the highest degree. His actions constitute a central sabotage in the service of enemy propoganda.
"In his youth already the defendant showed' a hostile attitude towards the national community life. Even today he still holds himself aloof from it. The aim of tho Communist Party (KPD) has become his political creed. He aimed at becoming a convinced Communist and adopting the full Communist of life.
"When the National socialism came to power in Germany reconciliation was offered to the defendant too. Neither this favor shown to the defendant nor the previous punishment and temporary stay in a concentration camp caused the defendant to renounce his political past. He has remained the old Communist sworn enemy of National Socialism.
"Though the offences of the defendant did not show any considerable effect to be noticed at present, the instigation and the methods chosen by the defendant are no less dangerous and may under certain circumstances, have ver sorded consequences. On the whole the action of the defendant represents a definite political act of sabotage; thus it is a serious danger to the unific tion of the German people, accomplished by the Fuehrer. The decision itself stamps the defendant as an unscrupulous enemy. Therefore it is necessary to increase to the utmost the penal risk for undermining activities of political saboteurs of the type of the defendant.
"Considering the personality of the defendant, his political attitude, the methods established and the intentions of his actions, the court is of the opinion that he deserves the severest possible sentence, provided by Section of Decree against Public Enemies, i.e., the death sentence. On the strength of the same considerations the Court could not assume a less severe case of a Crime of undermining the defensive morale in application of Section 5, Par. 2 of the Special War Time Penal Decree. The established case of Par. 1 No. 1 of this Section provides the absolute death punishment.
Therefore no other punishment could be inflicted but death."
That is all of this opinion that we care to read at this time, and we therefore offer the document as Exhibit 139, Document N.G. 385.
JUDGE BRAND: What exhibit number did you give that?
MR. KING: 139.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received in evidence.
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for defendant Rothaug): May it please the Tribunal, at this opportunity, with the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to reserve the right to make the reservation that I should be permitted to ask for all original documents from which parts have been used by the prosecution for presentation and submission of evidence, and I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the fact that I shall put motions of this kind in writing before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: In as much as this objection is made by counsel for the defendant Rothaug, I would like to ask Dr. Koessl whether Rothaug had any connection with this document.
DR. KOESSL: It says on the document, it is marked on the document on the next page of the verdict, sentence, that Dr. Ferber acted in the absence and signed in the absence of Rothaug who was at that time presiding Judge of that court. Furthermore, it can be seen from the document that the whole case was presented in the presence of the defendant Rothaug as presiding judge.
THE PRESIDENT: On the contrary, I find that on the last page of the document, page number 25, that Dr. Rothaug is prevented from attendance by being out of town on official business.
DR. KOESSL: In our opinion that refers to the fact only that the written form of the sentence could not be signed by him because he was absent at the time.
MR. KING: If Your Honors please, from the prosecution's point of view defense counsel is correct since we will contend that this is one of the special court cases in which the defendant Rothaug had full knowledge and a participating party in it as shown by the other documents in this exhibit. I think it is quite clear that Rothaug was an active and, in fact, a chief participant. The conclusions to be drawn from that, we would reserve until a future time. The purpose of reading the docu ment was merely to get the facts of the case into the record.
It is true that the statement at the end of the opinion says Dr. Rothaug was out of Nuernberg, away from the city at the time when the opinion came down. We contend that that did not remove him from the scope of the responsibility in the decision in this case. As to the request made by defense counsel, it seems to us that while we have a certain sympathy for his point of view it would require a great deal more documentation than merely those documents in which Dr. Rothaug is referred to, because they all, in one way or the other, tie in with each other, and it would not only be a matter of furnishing the documents in which Rothaug is specifically mentioned, but in a great many other documents, such as this statute which I have just read, all of which seems to us to require more reproduction work that it seems either necessary or advisable to do. On the other hand, Dr. Rothaug can get the mimeographed copies which are accurate translations and the Defense Information Center is furnished with two photostatic copies of the original from which both Rothaug's counsel and Engert's counsel can draw and we think under the circumstances that supply should be sufficient to meet the needs of these two defendants who are temporarily absent.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand that defense counsel will put his objection in writing and present it at a later date?
DR. KOESSL: Yes. Mr. President, primarily it is a question that the defense would like to get information about the to *** of these files. Only in individual cases it will be seen whether other files need or have to be mimeographed and introduced in evidence. Therefore, my motion will have as its aim primarily to be permitted to see the original files myself in order to make use of these files for the defense.
MR. KING: The prosecution has at this time nothing more in substance to say except that when the motion is filed we will at that time file an opposing motion to it and state essentially what I have already told the court.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that is the orderly process.
MR. KING: The next document which the prosecution desires to introduce is Document NG-377, which appears on page 88 of the English, 113 of the German text, and it will become Exhibit 140 when formally offered in evidence. Page 88 of Book 3-C:
"The defendant Zinser, who is a subject of the Reich, after attending the then Russian elementary school in Lodz, in 1915 moved with his parents to Silesia and then to Dresden, where he worked as a helper in several factories. In January 1919 he returned to Lodz. After a short period of unemployment and after performing his military service in the then Polish army he was employed in July 1926 by the Polish Sick Fund in Lodz. He was dismissed from that position in February 1930, ostensibly for political activity in German organizations.
After temporary employment with the city administration, which dismissed him in October 1933, because of his insufficient knowledge of the Polish language, the defendant opened a notions store and later a grocery store, which he ran until March 1940. On 1 April 1940 he was employed by the Social Insurance Society in Lodz. There he was last employed as a Sub-section Chief."
MR. KING: We now skip down to the fourth paragraph from the one I have just finished reading. It is on the same page in the English text.
"In fact, however, the defendant did not abandon his Marxist attitude, which is a complete rejection of National Socialism. For he misused his position as Sub-section Chief with the Social Insurance Society in Lodz to influence his female German subordinates, by malicious and defeatist statements, against the state and to destroy their faith in ultimate German victory. This was especially the case with the employees Maria Muenzger, Edith Reigel, Irma Gietzel, Ursula Wolf and Else Jede. From the beginning of 1943 on he carried on such violent propaganda in his office against the National Socialist state, the German soldiers and our conduct of the war, that finally the office employee Maria MUENZGER, Obviously under his influence, followed in his footsteps.
"One of the phrases often used by the defendant, when he was indulging in some criticism of our circumstances, was:
"'That could happen only in the Third Reich!"' "When small fish were distributed to the population at the beginning of 1943:
"'This is the paradise food in the Third Reich!'" "Concerning the occupation of southern France by German troops after Darlan's treachery, the defendant said:
"'What does it matter, now ROMMEL will get what's coming to him.'
"When Wehrmacht communiques transmitted the news that a large number of Bolshevik tanks had been put out of action, he would say to his associates:
"'Even if this should be true - so what? Mostly the German soldiers run as soon as they see the Russians coming."' "Once he asked the employee Ursula WOLF whether she believed everything that was shown her in the German newsreel.
When she answered that she did, he told her that all the pictures shewn were taken on maneuvers, as one never saw a dead German soldier.
"The defendant also repeatedly expressed his annoyance at the fact that the employee REIGEL was engaged to a German officer. About the end of July or the beginning of August 1943, he made the following remarks concerning REIGEL's fiance who was at that time in Lodz, wounded:
"'He will get it, no matter how the war ends. The officers will be brought back in chains just as they were in 1918.'
"At about the same time the defendant, in the presence of his employees, compared World War I with this war, declaring:
"'The soldiers of this war will not fare better than cur soldiers in the first World War.'
"At the end of July 1943 shortly after the capture of the Duce, the employee MUENZGER told the defendant at their place of work:
"'You are working very hard; are you afraid of being responsible for our defeat?'
"The defendant answered:
"'I wouldn't mind being responsible for that.'
"When the employee MUENZGER asked him whether he thought it would be pleasant if the Russians or the English were to invade the country, the defendant answered that that would not be at all bad.
"When the employee WOLF once pointed out in the section that the National Socialist state had done a lot for the workers, the defendant countered that the Communists had also cared for the workers, but that German propaganda did not allow these facts to become known.
"At the end of August 1943, plans for a birthday party for the fellow worker REIGEL were discussed. Edith REIGEL suggested that this was not the right time for any celebrations and that one ought to wait for the victorious ending of the war first.
"The defendant then said:
"'You won't feel like going in for any celebrations at that time. You can be glad if you have time to pack your bundle and clear out - that is, if you are still alive.'
"When, on 2 September 1943, the announcement that men born in 1884 and after would be called up was being discussed, the defendant said:
"'Yes, Germany already has to draw upon her ole men, while Russia has still rot plenty of young ones. I can not see why many people are still blinc enough to believe in victory. I wish other people were as clearsighted as I am.'
"The defendant admits only that he has occasionally made this remark:
"'A thing like this could happen only in the Third Reich'; but he firmly denies having made the other statements. He claims to have been misunderstood. Nevertheless he is unable to repeat his actual words or state how he was misunderstood by the witnesses. This alone shows that his assertion is untrue. The clear and credible testimony of the witnesses Edith REIGEL, Irma GIETZEL, Ursula WOLF, and Else JEDE prove beyond doubt that the defendant made these statements. These witnesses made an excellent impression when examined. Their testimony at the trial was identical with their earlier statements made to the State Police. No reason whatever could be found - or suggested even by the defendant - why the witnesses should have wrongly incriminated him. They made their statements clearly and firmly, so that there is no possibility of a misunderstanding. The witnesses also reported that the defendant made use of every opportunity which presented itself to emphasize his anti-German attitude."
"In addition to undermining the military potential, the defendant is also guilty of giving aid to the enemy. For anyone who tried to destroy cur home front and paralyze cur will to hold out firmly until final victory, in so doing helps our enemies and weakens our own fighting strength. Considering the intelligence and the previous political activity cf the defendant, as well as his consequent insight, he was aware of all these facts. By the insidious agitation described above, the defendant proved himself to be a dangerous, defeatist, subversive agitator. The fact that he most infamously misused his position as Sub-section Chief for his criminal activity is of special weight.
He directed his dirty attacks against young Germans, and they did not remain without influence on one of his subordinates (MUENZGER). To him nothing was sacred, neither the glory of a Field Marshal ROMMEL nor the honor of the German soldier.
He who - like the defendant - undermines the home front in 1943, i.e. at a time when the German nation is fighting a severe battle for its existence deserves death. This sentence, with which undermining the military potential is threatened by law, is therefore pronounced by the People's Court against the defendant.
MR. KING: be call attention to the fact that the opinion, portions of which we have just read was signed and initialed by the following of our present defendants: Lautz, Barnickel and Rothaug. This appears on pare 93 of the English document book. We also call your attention to the matter on page 94 of the English text, signed by Dr. Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat those names again.
MR. KING: Yes, on page 93. "To the Reich Chief Prosecutor, Lautz."
THE PRESIDENT: Lautz's name does not appear thereon.
MR. KING: No, it is not spelled cut. However Lautz was the Reich Chief Prosecutor at that time. Further on down is Barnickel and Rothaug. And the letter on page 94 which I have already referred to, is a letter signed by Dr. Mettgenberg, regarding the execution of the accused.
We, at this time, offer as Exhibit 140, Document NG-377.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
Unless the next document will be a short one we will not continue further this afternoon.
MR. KING: I had been considering that, Your Honor; the next document is a short one consisting of one page. I think we can get it under the dead-line.
As Exhibit 141, the Prosecution desires to introduce, at this time, Document NG-564 which appears on page 96 in the English text and 125 in the German text, document book 3-C. I also with to point out in this connection, with this document, that the initial of Dr. Rothenberger, defendant Rothenberger, appears on that document, although it does not show on the English mimeographed copy, and I am not sure it shows on the German, but it is revealed upon examination of the original photostat.
Reich Minister of Justice Leader information bulletin 1943 No.On 18 October 1943 Guenter Paschen, retired navy captain from Flensburg, was sentenced to death by the People's Court for assisting the enemy and for undermining the morale of the Army.
Paschen, whose family on his mother's side comes from Denmark and who is married to an English girl, has taken part during the World War in the Skagerrak and later on in the Finland Battles. Last, he was liaison officer with General von der Goltz. Having retired after the collapse, he was a naval training officer from 1926 - 1936.
Paschen, who since receiving his pension is a resident of Flensburg, and who moves in the circles of the Danish minority had a political discussion at the end of August 1943 with two Danes unknown to him, who wanted to rent a furnished room in his house. He then expressed the view that he did not believe in a German victory and that he thought that the secret weapons were a propaganda bluff. Furthermore, he stated that Denmark had been treated unjustly in 1864 and that the Reich must give Schleswig back to Denmark.
One of the Danes adopted these views as his own and tried to shake the confidence in victory cf a woman naval auxiliary, with whom he was connected.
The sentence will be executed.
MR. KING: Signed "Dr. Franke" and dated November 1943. As Exhibit 141 the prosecution desires to offer formally the document NG 546.
DR. DOETZER: Dr. Doetzer for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger. I am sorry that at this time I have to protest against the submission of this document. I should like to point to the fact that this document does not bear any signature nor any date. The heading is only the Reich Minister of Justice, Fuehrer information, information for the Fuehrer, and it cannot be seen therefore to whom of the present defendants this refers.
According to the statements of the prosecutor allegedly this document carries an initial of Dr. Rothenberger. There is on the left-hand side cf the document an initial which, however, is not at all Dr. Rothenberger as can be seen by comparing it with the list of initials which have been submitted by the prosecution and may I summarize, therefore, that I challenge the relevancy of this document according to the regulations and that I feel compelled to furthermore point out that this document does not have any signature and that the date is missing and one cannot see whether it ever loft the ministry.
MR. KING: In view of the hour, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to continue the discussion cf this document at the opening of the session tomorrow morning. Then we will knock off introducing it in evidence tonight and reserve it to offer tomorrow morning.
MR. PRESIDENT: We will, therefore, recess at this time until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 25 March 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al., Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 25 March 1947, 0930-1630, Judge Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of defendants Rothaug and Engert, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: proper notation will be made. The Prosecution may proceed.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, yesterday upon the introduction of NG-385, which was Exhibit No. 139, the Court, it seemed to the Prosecution, expressed some surprise that the opinion, the verdict in that case, was not signed by the defendant Rothaug although, as the Prosecution stated, Rothaug was highly responsible for the decision reached in that case. The Court noted that at the end of the opinion, on page 25 of tho copy as circulated, there was a note which indicated that director Rothaug of the District Court is prevented by being out of town on official business.
We want at this time to present a snort paragraph from the Penal Code, which has just such a contingency in mind and is so worded that the absence of the judge who presided at the trial is not necessary at the time -- or rather, the signature of the judge who presided at tho trial who may be absent at the time the verdict is announced is not necessary. I would like to read from Article 275 of the Penal Code. It is just a short section. It reads as follows:
"1. The verdict and the reasons are to be included in the case file within one week after sentence is pronounced unless they are already completely taken down in the transcript.
"2. -- and this is the one which is directly apropos to the situation which arose in Document NG-385 -- "it, the opinion, is to be signed by the judges who have participated on the decision. If a judge is prevented to affix his signature, the presiding justice; and if he is prevented, the associate justice with the highest seniority will remark this under the verdict while mentioning the reasons for the absence."
That is what happened in the Grasser case, which is Exhibit 139. Rothaug was absent temporarily from the city and it was signed by another mentioning Rothaug's absence and the reason therefor. That was pursuant to the statute which we have just read.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that Rothaug later signed this decree, this sentence?
MR. KING: No. As we understand it, he did not later sign the verdict or the opinion, since under the statute he is excused from signing it if ho for a legitimate reason away from the court. However, we wish to point out that we will draw the conclusion as stated yesterday from that case, that Rothaug as the presiding judge in the case is as fully responsible for the results reached as though he had been present and signed the verdict himself We think that is a permissible conclusion in view of Article 275.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, it is just such matters as have now been developed that were in my mind, calling attention to the fact that he was expressly stated to be absent at that time. No further comment will be mad by the Court.
MR. KING: I wonder if at this time we may not turn to Document Book 1-P I believe the representative of the Secretary General has copies in English and German of the Document NG 558.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Only English.
MR. KING: Only English?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Only English; yes, sir.
MR. KING: I observe that the translators do not have copies of the German, and while we are procuring those, I will go on to something else.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Prosecutor, may I ask what happened to Exhibit 141 which I think you did not finally offer?
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor, I am going to come to that as the next matter of business. While we are getting the German of 558 let us turn to Document 3-C, Document Book 3-C, and take up the question of the document NG-546 which was introduced but not formally offered as Exhibit 141. That if to be found in Document Book 3-C at Page 96. The Court will recall the facts The document was introduced and it was stated by the Prosecution that while it did not appear on the mimeographed English copy, that the initial of Rothenberger appeared on the photostatic copy. We might have also pointed out, had we felt it was significant at the time, that Vollmer's signature or initial also appears on that document. The counsel for the defendant Rothenberger then objected to the introduction of the document on two grounds, fir** it was his position that the initial which we maintain is Rothenberger's was in fact, not Rothenberger's, as could be determined, he thought, by consulting Exhibit 57, which is NG 886, a document containing the initials of certain members of the Reichsministry of Justice. His second objection was based on the fact that the document was a draft, with no indication of the persons for whom it was intended. And for those reasons he felt that the Court should not admit the document in evidence.
We would like to address ourselves to both of those points at this time. In the first place, as counsel for defendant Rothenberger can determine upon examination of Exhibit 57, which is the document containing the initials, Rothenberger's initial and signature does not appear there. That docs not contain all of the signatures and initials of the Reichsministry of Justice officials. It contained all at the time it was compiled, but apparently at the time it was compiled Rothenberger was not an official of the Ministry of Justice. So when we try to compare the signature on the document attempted to be introduced yesterday, Exhibit 141, we find that at least by comparing it with Exhibit 57, we get nowhere.