A The fact that Dr. Barnickel was appointed Senior Prosecutor at a point such as District Court Munich indicates that he not only had very high marks on his examinations, but that he also enjoyed a very good standing and reputation for his work. Therefore, considering the age of Dr. Barnickel, there was nothing extraordinary that he was suggested or recommended for appointment and finally transferred to the People's Court. If I remember correctly, he was first transferred there in the same position and not immediately promoted to the Chief Prosecutor. I don't know that for sure but at any rate I did not see anything extraordinary in the fact that a man like Dr. Barnickel, according to his position and his age, was used in the People's Court.
Q After the unification of administration of justice in Germany, was there a tendency that the members of the Prosecutions, especially in the higher offices, should be kept in their positions?
A It is certainly true that after unification of justice within Germany there was a change of conditions concerning promotion of officials of prosecutions. In Bavaria there was a constant change between service for the prosecution and service as judge. The assessors who showed particularly good results on their examinations were at first appointed Prosecutors, and, depending on the service, after a few years they became judges. If they did good work there, they were returned into a higher position in tho Prosecution, and so forth. There was a constant change in Bavaria between service as a prosecutor and as a judge. In Prussia that was different, and when the administration of justice was unified and centralized, the Prussian system gained more and more and was carried out. Therefore the position of the Bavarian Senior Prosecutors who, if the administration of justice had not been centralized, would have left their position as prosecutors by that time and would have become judges again, remained now longer in their positions.
A compromise was established by the fact that some prosecution offices at some courts were increased. That is, their income group was increased.
Q Was it possible in the year 1938 to assume of Reich Minister Dr. Guertner that he would only promote political activists or qualified specialists and call them to the chief prosecution at the People's Court?
A I know Reichminister of Justice Dr. Guertner on the basis of my work in the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, over which he presided until the year 1932 when he was called to the post of Reichminister. I knew him very well, and I can testify that Dr. Guertner at all times maintained the principle of capability and appointed officials on the basis of their technical qualifications.
Q Could one assume that Dr. Guertner would be a bulwark of justice?
A That could certainly
Q MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, I object to this question as being completely irrelevant to the case.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KIRCHHOLZ:
Q Witness, do you remember that Dr. Barnickel, toward the end of 1944, was transferred from the People's Court to the Prosecution of the Reich Supreme Court?
A I remember that because there was a telephone call by Chief Reich Prosecutor Rettler to the Reich Supreme Court, who informed me that Reich Prosecutor Barnickel was transferred from the People's Court -- was supposed to be transferred from the People's Court to the prosecution of the Reich Supreme Court.
Reich Chief Prosecutor Rettler did not quite like this, because Reich Prosecutor Barnickel lacked the particular experience which was necessary for that kind of work and during the last few years had dealt only with political penal cases, whereas in the Reich Supreme Court other legal questions played an important role. Therefore Dr. Barnickel would have the same problems as a newcomer at the prosecution of the Reich Supreme Court.
Q Was a Reich Chief Prosecutor to be considered a leading official?
A Leading officials, in the sense of German civil service organization, were the chiefs of the authoritative offices. That is to say
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object to that question. It calls for a clear personal opinion of the witness as to whether he was a loading official. There is no foundation for asking such a question.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KIRCHHOLZ:
Q Witness, was the Reich Prosecutor bound by the decisions of the Chief Reich Prosecutor?
A It is correct that a Reich Prosecutor had to abide by the directives of the Chief Reich Prosecutor. That can be seen already from the organization of the Reich Prosecution office, and is also based on tho law, according to which the Chief Reich Prosecution is a purely administrative office where every subordinate has to abide by the directives of his superior.
Q Did that directive exist before 1933, after 1933, and does it exist now as the same?
A. Yes, it was violated at all times in the same manner.
Q Still today?
A Yes.
Q Is it known to you whether at the Reich Supreme Court there was any contact between Prosecution and the bench?
A Contact between the prosecution in the Reich Supreme Court and individual penal chambers existed inasmuch as certain legal questions were at times discussed purely theoretically. A discussion of jurisdiction such as has been introduced by Minister Dr. Thierack, and in a sense it had to be carried out in lower courts, did not exist at the Reich Supreme Court. There were only conferences of the presiding judges of the penal chambers with the first presiding judge of the Reich Supreme Court which had the purpose to inform the first president about particularly important cases which had occurred and, if necessary, to discuss these matters in order to achieve uniform jurisdiction of the five and later four different senates. A representative of the Chief Reich Prosecution did not attend these discussions. How far the first President -- the first presiding judge of the Reich Supreme Court got in touch with the prosecution, I do not know.
Q A last question: Did the Reich Prosecutor or Chief Reich Prosecutor have anything to do with the superbvision of concentration camps?
A The supervision of penal execution institutions was not in the hands of the Prosecutor of the Reich Supreme Court or the People's Court. They were not an institution of the administration of justice, and therefore not subordinate to the supervision.
DR. KIRCHHOLZ: I have come to the end of my examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other defense counsel who desire to cross examine this witness?
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for Defendant Rothaug): May it please the Tribunal, I ask to be permitted to conduct the cross examination on the basis of the ruling of this Tribunal, after conference with my client Rothaug.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire at this time whether any other defense counsel want to cross examine the witness?
I think under the rulings heretofore that Dr. Koessl is entitled to interview his client before cross examining this witness. I would like to inquire how Dr. Rothaug has progressed in his illness.
DR. KOESSL: According to my information, there was no change in the illness, at least not so far that the defendant Rothaug could attend sessions. With respect to the witness who is supposed to be cross examined now, I should be in a position to conduct the cross examination tomorrow morning without having to wait for the transcript.
THE PRESIDENT: Under those circumstances you will be accorded the right to postpone your examination until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty. In the meantime, I am wondering whether the Prosecution has some way to fill in the time. Maybe you have some further direct examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor. I have a small amount, a very small amount, of redirect examination, and I am wondering at what point it will be most opportune, now or after Dr. Koessl finishes tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your wish about the matter?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I prefer to wait until Dr. Koessl is through.
THE PRESIDENT: You have nothing to offer?
MR WOOLEYHAN: You Honor, I sent the clerk down to got some documents and will be here in a very few minutes, if you will bear with us.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have had no way in which to anticipate when he would be through.
THE PRESIDENT: In the meantime I have a question or two to ask this witness.
Q Earlier in the afternoon same reference was made to the Austrian Penal Courts, Austrian Penal Senate to be more exact, to which you replied that they wore applied in the hearing of Austrian cases. That is correct, is it not?
A Yes, it was a Senate, the Penal Senate which had been formed at the Reich Supreme Court, and among other cases had to deal with cases from Austria apart from cases which came from other parts of Germany. For instance, the District of Berlin, or the District of Koenisberg, and apart from that also the cases of the District Court of Appeals in Austria.
Q Yes, you have answered my question, and now I want to ask you another one. What do you mean by Austrian cases. I'll ask you more definitely. Do you mean where civilians of Austria were brought into Germany to be tried for crimes?
A No, the Penal cases which had already been sentenced in Austria according to Austrian law, and Austrian Penal Law was also used and applied at the Reich Supreme Court in Leipzig, and for that purpose exports -- legal experts from Austria had been called to tho Reich Supreme Court who know the Austrian Penal Code and Penal Procedure. They were especially qualified jurists from Austria, people with special qualifications, and technical qualifications, and, I remember one case in which a Reich Supreme Court counsellor was used who came to the Reich Supreme Court for political reasons only, but he was soon transferred to the army by the president of the Reich Supreme Court.
Q Then the Austrian cases that you refer to pertain to crimes committed by Austrians while in the State of Austria, and only came to the Supreme Court on a review, is that correct?
A They came in review or by or through the military plea, which the Reich Supreme Court Reich Chief Prosecutor could have raised against the sentence in any Austrian District of Appleals.
Q Then the nullity plea could be invoked concerning the crimes committed in Austria, and where the original trial had taken place in Austria, is that true?
A The nullity plea against sentence just as in another territory within the confines of Greater Germany, the German Law was extended to Austrian territory in this respect. May I still add that perhaps before I have not expressed myself quite clearly. On mentioning the nullity plea, of course, there was difference whether the suggestion for the nullity plea came from the Ministry, or whether the defense counsel for the defendant discussed the nullity plea with the chief prosecutor, but that the defense counsel was in a much more disadvantageous position in that case than if Ministry requested or suggested the nullity plea. That is clear, of course, because tho Ministry could instruct the chief prosecutor to invoke a nullity plea, whereas, the chief prosecutor could say in answer to a suggestion or request of defense counsel, "I do not see any reason why there should be a nullity plea," and against that, of course, tho defense counsel had no recourse.
THE PRESIDENT: I have no further questions at this time. Are you ready for a further presentation of documents?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I sent the secretary to get the document books from the Bench. We are going to present a scattering of different documents in order to clean up the entire three series, scattering it in Book B through Book L through the books in three series, except "A" and "E", and your secretary has gone to get them now.
THE PRESIDENT: He has gone to our office to get them?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Apparently so.
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe it will not be very satisfactory, as they might not find the books so easily, so we will adjourn at this time until tomorrow morning, unless there is some special reason for not doing so.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If Your Honor please, it will be a very expeditious thing indeed if we can get these odd documents cleaned up today. We don't like them any more than the defense counsel, or the Tribunal, to go through this great pile of document books.
THE PRESIDENT: We can do that even more quickly and no doubt can save time by recessing for five minutes, and then tell us what books that are needed and we will get them. What books did you state?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I stated you should got every book in three series except "A" and "E".
THE PRESIDENT: "A" and "D".
MR. WOOLEYHAN: "A" and "E".
THE PRESIDENT: "A" and "D" of which series?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Three.
THE PRESIDENT: Only Book 3?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is right, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Everything in three except "A" and "E".
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, the prosecution at this time is not, as Mr. Wooleyhan supposed with good reason a moment ago, ready to proceed with clearing up the matters of the remaining books. We have the English version of the documents to be presented, but we do not have the German copies available and cannot get the copies in time to do us any good right now. That is going to present difficulties so far as the translation is concerned and it has seemed to us therefore that we should not proceed without the German copies to aid the translation staff.
There is one matter that we would like to clear up at this time and that is in connection with the Document 1019 or Exhibit 129, which was the motion picture film concerning the People's Court. The Court will recall that that film, when it was shown, had an English version which was made available through the sound system simultaneously with the German sound track on the film. The record of the session in which that film was shown does not include either the German or the English version of the dialogue that took place during the scenes from the trial. The prosecution believes that it would be advantageous to the Court and to the defense as well as to the prosecution, for future reference if the transcript of both the German and the English versions of that film were made available.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we fix it up without showing the film again?
MR. KING: We do have now in exhibit form the English version and the German version, and with the Court's permission, we would like to introduce that as separate exhibit. We have the stencils cut, but we have not run them off yet, pending the approval of the Court as to the procedure. However, with your permission, we will submit as Document 1019-A, the English and German versions of the language contained in that film. Would the Court have any objection to that?
THE PRESIDENT: Let's first ascertain whether defense counsel have any objection.
MR. KING: Do I understand from the nods of the defense counsel that they have no objection?
THE PRESIDENT: We hear no objection. The Tribunal believes that it is very desirable to have it, and it may therefore be admitted into evidence whenever it's ready; but it isn't ready to be offered now.
MR. KING: It isn't ready to be offered now. The Translating Division have furnished us a copy of both the German and the English text. The German text will have a certificate of authenticity attached as a part of the document, and the English text will have a certificate of translation. The text in both English and German, in addition to indicating what was said also indicates who the speaker was, so it will be possible to read the Document 1019-A and determine who said that.
THE PRESIDENT: Each statement, therefore, if I understand you correctly, will show not only what was said but who was the speaker?
MR. KING: That is correct. We will then complete the processing of that and submit it. We will wait for the actual offering in evidence until it is ready and assign the exhibit number at that time. The prosecution at this time has nothing further to offer.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn, therefore, at this time until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 10 April 1947, at 0930 hours.)
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 10 April 1947, 0930 - 1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III 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 all 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: The proper notation will be made.
DR. KOESSL: Dr. Koessl for the defendant Rothaug. I ask to be permitted to start the cross examination of the witness Doebig.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
FRIEDRICH DOEBIG - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, what official of the justice administration was the liaison man between justice administration of the Gau leadership and the Gau executive office in 1935 when you came to Nurnberg?
A When I started in office in Nurnberg in 1935, the leader of the Gau legal office, Denzler, was the liaison man with the Gau executive office.
Q How long was Denzler in that job?
AAs far as I remember, Denzler was in that position -- the position of the chief of the Gau legal office -- until the beginning of the war, I believe until the winter of 1939 -- 1940 -- I could not remember the precise date.
Q Is it therefore correct for me to say that the man who was put in charge by the Gau executive office -- who was put in charge of the field of justice during the entire period while Streicher was active here as a Gauleiter -- that was the later senior prosecutor, Denzler?
A It is correct that Denzler was put in charge; however, Denzler was in close contact with Rothaug, and as far as I know, he was a good friend of his. I have reason to assume that many questions were first discussed between Denzler and Rothaug.
Q Did Denzler act quite frankly and openly toward you?
A Denzler was not always frank; also, in dealing with him, I had to be careful.
Q Was Rothaug always outspoken and frank toward you?
A I believe that what I have explained yesterday has already refuted that point.
Q Witness, I wish to put to you what you stated in your affidavit on that point. According to those statements, the relations between Rothaug and yourself was only worsened by the matter of his intended transfer to Poland; that is to say, only in the course of the year 1942.
A I have explained yesterday that I was compelled to keep in close contact with the chief of the lawyers' league. The most important man in that lawyers' league was Rothaug; therefore, I also tried to work together closely with Rothaug and on the basis of mutual confidence. In the beginning, I gained the impression that this would succeed because Rothaug, in the years 1937 and 1938, behaved quite differently toward me than he did later. His arbitrary attitude increased from year to year, and particularly in the course of the war it became untenable. I should like to correct that the inquiry from the Ministry as to whether he was ready to go to the East did not come as late as 1942, if I remember correctly -- and that was confirmed to me by the official at the Ministry -- but already in the year 1941.
That I could not work closely and did not want to work closely with Rothaug is true by the following incident which occurred in the Fall of 1938:
On the first of January 1939, the position of the vicepresident at the district court of appeals in Nurnberg was to become vacant by the retirement of the man who formerly held this position, vice-president Hermann Schmitt. Sometime before that date, I was called by telephone by the man in charge of personnel at the Ministry, Dr. Miethsam, who informed me that it was the wish of the Party Chancellery to put in that position as vice-president the district court director Rothaug. The position of vice-president also included the personnel office for judges with the appointment of judges. I explained on the occasion of that telephone conversation, which was mentioned as being confidential by Dr. Miethsam, that as far as that request was concerned to place Rothaug in that position, I objected to that, and I knew that the majority of judges in Nurnberg were of that same opinion, and that as far as my office as district court of appeals president was concerned, I had to put that job at their disposal, if the Ministry would cede to the request of the Party Chancellery.
The result of that conversation with Dr. Miethsam was that the request coming from the Party Chancellery was deviated, and from another district -- it was from Westphalia -- a man was called for that job as vice-president. I must state at this point that that occurred late in the Fall of 1938.
Q Did you, witness, express that rejection of the person of Rothaug on your part to Rothaug himself?
A I have explained yesterday that my position in that respect was an extremely difficult one because it was naturally clear to me, as I have pointed out yesterday, that Rothaug had a further reaching arm that I had, because it was known to me that he had good connections, not only to the Gau executive office -- to the Gauleitung -
but also to higher Party offices. Therefore, in dealing with Rothaug I had to be rather reticent. I only found out after I left Nurnberg that at that time my telephone conversations with the personnel officer of the Ministry were watched. I was told later about it, but I an not sure whether it was true. If it was the case, then Rothaug knew how I thought about him.
Q. But witness, I wanted to know whether you, personally, ever openly expressed to the now defendant Rothaug whether you agreed with his behavior.
A. In dealing with Rothaug I personally expressed my impression of the manner in which he conducted trials. That is beyond, doubt. He, on his part, in at least two conversations with me stated that he wanted to restrain his temperment. However, as lasting success could not be deemed, and since other means to obtain a change at the Special Court seemed hopeless from the beginning, in view of the strong position Rothaug held with the party office, what could I hope to achieve? I had achieved the transfer of Rothaug from the Ministry.
Q. Did you, witness, see to it that the president of the Special Court, at that time Rothaug, was declared not fit for service with the army, so he could be retained?
A. I remember Rothaug was called at the beginning of the war. I also remember that his recall occurred. He had been a key man. He received threatening measures. If I am not mistaken, Rothaug told me, himself, that he would be recalled.
Q. What did you tell the defendant Rothaug when his transfer to Roland was cancelled?
A. As far as details of my conversation with Rothaug are concerned, I could not remember these because I had many conversations with him. He frequently came into my office. Frequently I had to listen to him for a considerable amount of time.
Q. Do you remember, witness, whether you made a statement to the extent that you would not like to lose him, or that you would rather get rid of him?
A. The latter I certainly did not say to him but that I welcomed him, that I do not know, but I do not believe that is right. Also in conversations with Rothaug I became more and more reticent because in the course of the years I gained the impression that Rothaug was playing a double game with me. In the meantime I also found out that Rothaug made ironic remarks about me.
He made the same kind of ironic remarks the various offices of the Administration of Justice made, and the gentlemen from the ministry. He and he only knew what the leadership of the state wanted and it was exceedingly difficult to deal with Rothaug.
Q. Witness, can you remember whether the transfer was one of the questions which was put to you at the Gau executive office?
A. I have explained that already yesterday. That was one of the many charges which were brought up against me in the Gau executive office, that I allegedly brought up a transfer. I argued against the Gau leadership. I already said yesterday that I never expressed a definite request or wish to the ministry concerning the further disposition of Rothaug. Where the ministry would send Rothaug did not matter to me. In particular I did not consider it a happy solution to send Rothaug just to the East.
Q. Is it correct that you even told Rothaug that the transfer to the East would be quite agreeable and advantageous?
A. It is true, according to the order of the ministry, I explained to him that he would be sent to the East. I asked him whether he agreed to it. That was the order I had received from the ministry. On that occasion I tried to make it sound pleasant, more pleasant. I tried to persuade him that he should not resist the decision of the ministry as it was my intention, of course, to get Rothaug away from Nuernberg by doing so. The people closest to me were fully informed about my thoughts on that subject.
Q. What did you say in the Gau executive office when it was charged that you were not open and frank with Rothaug?
A. It concerned that discussion with Holz where I played the role of prosecutor. I cannot remember today but faced with the fast game which was played against me and the intrigue on the other side I saw myself compelled to use similar weapons. That is obvious.
Q. Witness, you speak of intrigue. I should like you to clarify this.
Which of the two parties was false to the other? Did you not admit, yourself, that from 1938 on you tried to have Rothaug transferred? However, you did not tell Rothaug anything about that, is that correct?
A. That I tried to have Rothaug transferred is beyond a doubt true. Why I did not tell Rothaug about my intentions I have repeatedly stated here. Apart from that it is clear now that Rothaug found out about my intentions by listening to my telephone conversations, by tapping the telephone wires, because otherwise the fact that I attempted to have Rothaug transferred could not have been known at that time.
Q. From what source do you know that your telephone conversations were listened in on?
A. That the telephone wires were tapped in my telephone conversations could be seen from a letter from the Gau Executive Office to the Ministry in which the charges against me were summarized, and in which all charges against me were collected. This letter of the Gau Executive Office to the Ministry was never shown to me nor was I ever told about it by Minister Thierack, but the man in charge of personnel at the Ministry, inisterial Counsellor Dr. Miethsam read it and he informed me that in that letter it was also admitted that my conversations with him had been under surveilance.
Q. From where do you know, witness, that the defendant Rothaug had anything to do with that surveilance which you assumed to have occurred?
A. I do not only assume that this surveilance occurred, but on the basis of the admission by the Gau Executive Office, I have to consider it a fact. Who it was who arranged that these conversations in the Ministry, with the Ministry, should be listened into, that I could not say, of course; but who could have had an interest by Rothaug, who, as I have found out later, when I left Nurnberg, had a leading position in the SD.
Q. Witness, do you happen to know that during that period all important conversations were under surveilance?
A. That the informant system at that time assumed such extents was not known to me at the time.
Q. Do you know anything, witness, about the reasons for Rothaug to be sent to Nurnberg, that is to say, why he came to Nurnberg again in 1937?
A. The recall of Rothaug to Nurnberg occurred at a time when I was not yet President of the District Court of Appeals at Nurnberg.
Q. Excuse me, but you were Chief Prosecutor, weren't you?
A. May I finish. But I know from the close connections, contacts which I had with my predecessor, Counsellor of the District Court of Appeal Bertram, that as far as the suggestion was concerned to recall Rothaug to Nurnberg that suggestion was actually made by him, but upon the request of the Chief of the Gau Legal Office Denzler, who had been together with Rothaug at one time before at the local court of Nurnberg, and who was supposed to have close connections with Rothaug.
Q. Witness, do you know whether the case stegmann had anything to do with the transfer of Rothaug?
A. No, I don't know anything about that.
Q. How was Rothaug's character described, that is Rothaug's character before 1933, that is on the service records?
A. I have explained in my affidavit already that Rothaug brought with him from Schweinfurt a very favorable recommendation, particularly was it pointed out, emphasized; emphasis was placed upon his sagacity, on his legal qualifications; and his extraordinary capacity for work; that Rothaug was a very clever and clear thinking lawyer; and that he cold do a tremendous amount of work; that he proved that at the Special Court in Nurnberg.
Q. In those recommendations from his former career, could there anything be found that he had been a severe judge before, and a very severe prosecutor?
A. That I cannot remember.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, I didn't hear the last phrase that the witness spoke, but I object to the last question asked by counsel on the grounds that such an opinion could not appear from a service record; that the question indeed calls for the personal opinion of the witness as to whether or not a judge was severe.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer by the witness makes it clear that no harm was done because he said he didn't remember.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, did you ascertain whether Rothaug made any difference in the way he treated witnesses, or defendants, in cases where he dealt with political crimes, as compared to those cases which were not political ones?
A. The treatment of witnesses and defendants by Rothaug belongs to the chapter dealing with the manner in which he presided over a court, and this chapter was a rather sinister one in the entire activities of Rothaug that I have already explained; it was quite easy to ascertain that Rothaug -
Q. May I interrupt you, witness. My question was did Rothaug apply different methods in political cases than he did in non-political cases.
A. If you don't wish to hear an explanation in answer to a question and only want the question answered yes or no, then I have to say yes.
Q. You have missed the answer to this question. I want to have an explanation from you as to how you came to answer that question width "yes".
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, I object to that question in asking for an explanation because it has not been shown to the court or to the Prosecution what this wintess may happen to mean in his mind by a political case; that has varying definitions, and I am not going to accept an explanation of what he thinks is political cases unless he tells us. There is no standard definition for political eases.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be that this question will call for an answer to that very matter which I would like myself to know, the answer this witness would say as to his distinction between political and non-political matters as a part of his explanation.
A. It is extremely difficult to establish a difference between a political criminal case and a non-political penal case, and it was exceedingly difficult when Rothaug was presiding judge. Of course there were cases which were absolutely free of any political background; for instance, if somebody stole a handbag and that case came up for trial. Frequently, however, Rothaug in penal cases which according to the normal conception had no political background he introduced a political atmosphere; and in a case where that was definitely not necessary, introduced at the same time a high degree of severity, principally as far as the Special Courts were concerned, and particularly during the years after the beginning of the war there were cases that were supposed to be considered political cases.