In another article I express the following -- and this is also a situation report, which I happen to have in my possession, of 12 March 1942.
"In the article by Dr. Hueber, the Administration of Justicem in 'The Justice in the Fuehrer State', is frequently discussed by the judges. They especially express their joy that the great significance of the security of the law is pointed out to the population. However, one would prefer it if these statements are made not only in a journal which is read merely by members of circles who are active in this field, but would appear also in a public journal."
In the same situation report I stated that these cases accumulate in which political leaders interfere in pending trials and address themselves directly to the Court. The Reichsstatthalter, at my suggestion, ordered this stopped.
In a further situation report, I said the following: "A catastrophic effect on the morale of the judges had been achieved by an article in the SS Journal, "Der Schwarze Korps', which was entitled 'Mental Blackout'. The last paragraph of this article compares the acts of the judges with those of a public enemy who commits his crimes by exploiting the blackout. If the judges see that the position of the judges is not justified to the outside world, an increase in bad morale on the part of the German judges can hardly be avoided."
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: If I may interrupt, we are concerned here with documents which, unfortunately, I cannot Court No. III.
Case III.
submit to the Court as yet, but will have to leave to the reading by the defendant, for the reasons which were stated before, that in spite of the fact that I submitted my document books on time they cannot yet be submitted. I ask the Tribunal to forgive this circumstance and to excuse the fact that these statements of the witness take longer.
Q: Will you now please state your opinion as to the other documents, the situation reports which have already been submitted as an exhibit?
A: I wish to point out some special circumstance which occurred at the Chief Presidents' meeting in Berlin in the spring of 1941. At intervals of several months, there were meetings in Berlin, under the chairmanship of the Minister, where all Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal and General Public Prosecutors were present. It was the constant worry of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal to describe the emergencies to the higher authorities in which the judges of the country found themselves. On such an occasion I too, in the spring of 1941, tried to talk about the worries of the judges as to their needs concerning the administration of Justice. Thereupon Undersecretary Freisler, who was present, interrupted me with the following words: "If you don't like to work with the Administration of Justice then put on your top hats and leave." With that, the other presidents too were deprived of the possibility to make the interests of the judges known in that important time.
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, can you now state your opinion to the situation reports which the Prosecution submitted as NG 387 and 388? They are exhibits 400 in Volume 8-A, Page 98, and Exhibit 111, Volume 1-B, Page 67. You have those two situation reports of 4 July 1941 and 6 September 1941, before you?
A. The situation report of 4 July 1941, NG 371, is concerned with two problems, first again with the Schwarze Korps. I already referred to that before. And secondly with the problem of the so-called law concerning asocials. In Hamburg I had been informed confidentially that Himmler intended to submit a Gemeinschaftsfremdengesetz, that is a law against the asocial elements, a law against those foreign to the community. In this law it had been provided the the police should be given the authority to arrest an asocial person for an indefinite period of time, and to determine who was asocial would be up to the police. And this decision of the police would also be binding for the judge who might possibly have to decide about sterilization Therefore in this situation report I requested that these decisions, if the law should be promulgated at all, should be in the hands of a court, as well as the question who was asocial as the question who should be sterilized. Competent for this question was not the Reich Ministry of Justice, but the Reich Ministry of the Interior. It was my intention in this situation report to point out this to the Ministry of Justice. The second situation report, NG 388, is concerned, among other matters, with the question of concentration camps in 1941. Various judges had expressed wishes to me to the effect that they wanted to inspect a concentration camp once, that they had heard rumors to the effect that everything was not quite all right in the concentration camps.
I took this suggestion up because I, too, wanted to see matters clearly, and then in Neuengamme there was an inspection of the concentration camps by the judges, and even though in this situation report it is not mentioned that I was there, too, I was there. We inquired about the food conditions, the accommodations, about the method of work, and were informed about them. We had an opportunity to speak to some inmates, and we did not see any abuses. I said quite frankly at the time, even recommended to the Ministry to try this method in other districts, too, so that the Administration of Justice would not shut its eyes, but would look to see what is going on.
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, may I in connection with the first mentioned document, NG 387, come back again to the concept of the "asocial person". Did you regard that concept in a general criminogical way in this report, or did you imagine certain categories of persons were asocial?
A. I personally only regarded it from a generally criminological point of view. I don't know how it was considered in this draft, but I think it was also in a generally criminalistic way only. But I don't remember exactly.
Q. Did you gain a positive impression from your visit in Neuengamme? Did you yourself convince yourself about the food conditions?
A. Yes, absolutely.
Q. Did you inspect the accommodations carefully?
A. Yes, yes. I want to state that this was in 1941.
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, you have already made repeated statements about Freisler. Would you please explain a letter which you received from Freisler regarding the political jurisdiction of the Hamburger senate on cases of high treason?
A. Freisler, who was competent for criminal legal policy in the Ministry repeatedly in very sharp letters, pointed out to me the political jurisdiction in Hamburg was to lenient. In one letter he emphasized that apart from the jurisdiction in one Gau of Austria it was the most lenient jurisdiction in Germany. He cited more than twenty individual cases which, in his opinion, were too lenient. I answered him that on the basis of a recheck I considered the sentences of the senate for high treason and of the special courts absolutely correct, and thereupon Freisler did not take any further steps.
Q. You have just told the Tribunal that and the manner in which you protested against the abuses in the Reich and made objections, in particular to the Reich Ministry of Justice. Can you now tell us what was the reaction of the leading men in the Administration of Justice to your statements?
A. During the years when I was in Hamburg in regard to the development of the Administration of Justice, especially its relation to the Party, every time when I was in Berlin, that was every two or three months, I spoke to Minister Guertner about it personally. During the first years I was under the impression that Guertner had a strong position with Hitler. He told me himself once that Hitler had described him as the conscience of the cabinet. However, gradually I noticed that Guertner let himself be pushed into the background more and more. I respected him very highly, but we differed in one respect, namely, as to our age and our temperament.
Guertner believed, as he always put it, that everything would again turn out all right in the end. He said that it had been similar after 1918 and that he did not want to impose himself. Undoubtedly in many individual cases he tried to stem the development, but he was not enough of a fighter to be up to fighting the forces which were opposing him. The worst thing was that in his Ministry Freisler exercised an overwhelming influence especially in the field of penal law. A great deal has been said here about Freisler's qualities, but one quality which made the judges and all of us in the province suffer especially was, as we in Germany say, his "bicyclist nature", a man who has no background toward superiors, but toward subordinates is the more scrupulous and strict.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
The entire Administration of Justice was subjected to this pressure, Every individual judge. We thought that we were without protection against the forces that were opposing us. The second man who again and again tried to undermine the Administration of Justice was Frank. About him too, I do not have to say a great deal any more, but his importance will be emphasized more clearly perhaps if I say that in his NS-Lawyers' League he combined all jurists of Germany. That is all of those people who worked in the Administration of Justice of the State as prosecutors or judges or attorneys. It was his task exclusively to fight against this Administration of Justice of the State. According to outside appearances, one often did not know who really was the Minister of Justice. Frank acted as such.
Q What conclusions did you draw from that situation as to any course which you should take, and in what did you see an improvement in the conditions?
A I was of the opinion that it was not sufficient to help in individual cases, but I believed that the causes of this development should be investigated, and I believed that it would not be sufficient to act on the defensive, and that one should not simply witness that the Administration of Justice was more and more undermined. People who were men of will and power purely cannot be influenced by the opponents withdrawing.
We saw this development, not only in the field of the Administration of Justice but also in the general cultural field in Germany. That in fact that one ceded more and more territory, one gave those persons a chance to build up their position more and more. I saw the only chance and the only possibility to stem this development in the corps of the German judges. I was of the opinion that this was the only organ which due to its independence and due to the idea of the personality was in a position to influence this development. For that reason, I principally attacked the problem of "how can one give a backbone to the German Judiciary in order to stem this development?" for Court No. III, Case No. 3.the German Judiciary had good basic material.
Only I shall go into this in detail on another occasion. Due to its historical development, it lacked one thing, and that was backbone.
Q Thus in this way it came about that you thought about activating the judiciary in order to take up the battle. This brings us to your reform program. Would you please state the stages of your reform program? That is a question in which we discussed the steps by which your steps assumed concerte form.
A The ninth question?
Q That is the ninth question.
A My thoughts about this question I expressed for the first time at the German Jurists' Meeting in May 1933 in public, and then in 1939 until 1942 in Hamburg, I explained this reform program in detail which was the basis of the memorandum to Hitler. To that extent, I am obligated because this memorandum to Hitler was made a subject of this trial and therefore I am obligated to go into it in detail.
As I said, during those three years in Hamburg, I worked out this reform program in detail. I then requested the Reich Ministry of Justice to examine this reform program with closer scrutiny, and then in August 1941 a reform committee in the Reich Ministry of Justice met at my suggestion, and there I held a lecture in which the subject was, "Taking the Judges out of the Civil Servants Profession."
Q Here we have to mention an exhibit. I have to tell you the exhibit number later. The document is NG-392. I shall be able to tell you the exhibit number tomorrow.
A In this meeting, too, Freisler opposed me, and the hope of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal who were present and of the General Public Prosecutors was again buried. After the Reichsstatthalter Kauffmann had also made an unsuccessful attempt to approach Hitler, I, myself, made such an attempt and with success.
Court No.III, Case No. 3.
At the beginning of 1942, through a private connection, I met the navy adjutant of Hitler's in Hamburg; his name was Albrecht. Albrecht was not in Hitler's office, but had his own office in the Reich Chancellory in Berlin, and it was his task to examine entries that had reached Hitler regarding the Administration of Justice and complaints about it; and as such he too had made the same experiences as we of the Administration of Justice -- first, that the party and the SS tried repeatedly to attack sentences pronounced by courts; and, on the other hand, that there was nobody who tried to convince Hitler of the impossibility of this development. When I told him that for some years I had dealt with these ideas, he requested me to put down my thoughts in a brief memorandum. On the 31st of March, 1942, I then handed him this memorandum and he succeeded in putting this memorandum into Hitler's hands. And this is the way he did it: Hitler's personal adjutant, who was at his headquarters, was Albert Bormann, that is the brother of the infamous chief of the Party Chancellory, Martin Bormann; and these two men were such enemies that they did not even greet each other; and, via this Albert Bormann, Albrecht once gave my memorandum to Hitler. And at the beginning of May, Hitler apparently, as can be seen from the document, that is after his infamous speech, he read the memorandum.
Q This is Hitler's speech of 26 April, 1942. Can you state, Dr. Rothenberger, what was your reaction to Hitler's speech?
A I here have to state my opinion to the situation report, NG-389, which the Prosecution is charging me with. I believe that is Exhibit 76.
Q I shall hand them the document number tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT:NG-389?
ANG-389.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Exhibit 76.
A It was evident that Hitler's speech showed without doubt that between the leadership of the Reich and the Administration of Justice there was no confidence on either side. This condition with the German people as a whole was dangerous, and which should be alleviated with all Court No. III, Case No. 3.means available.
The causes for this were in my opinion of two kinds. First, they lay with Hitler. For years inciters in his environment who had no conscience, had incited him against the Administration of Justice. There was nobody who had an opportunity to convince him of the impossibility of this method and to divert him from this method. On the other hand, there was also the cause with the Administration of Justice, because, seen from my point of view in Hamburg, one had to try-because I had succeeded in doing so in Hamburg,-to influence Hitler, and to convince him that this way would lead to the decline of the Reich. Therefore, I wrote the memorandum which I mentioned.
Q You wanted to catch the effect of this speech; that is what you said. Would you first state the effect of the speech on the participating judiciary, and the rest of the people, and to what extent you wanted to catch it?
A In the situation report I expressed what effect such a speech had on the judiciary and on the German nation. A judge who is in danger of being retired any time is not a judge. Every day his existence is threatened; his living; now especially after the Hitler speech, he had to fear that every small political leader by referring to Hitler's speech would try to exert a pressure on him; the press, the SS, every defendant, possibly, could refer to Hitler's speech and say "you know very well how Hitler is thinking about you"; and in order to avoid these dangers, for the entire Administration of Justice, and thus for the entire Reich, in order to catch as I said these dangers, I took a number of measures, steps, in Hamburg. Once I called a meeting of the judges a few days later; and there, together with the Reichsstatthalter I stood before the judiciary of Hamburg and I personally assumed the responsibility to free the judge from every pressure that might be exerted upon him. In such a situation one could not leave the individual judge up to his fate, and in order to prevent that attacks were made at all against the judiciary, I informed all the offices from whom such attacks could be expected that I would put them under an obligation;
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
if they had any objections to the judiciary, they should address themselves only to me.
Q Was this obligation fulfilled in Hamburg?
A Yes, to its fullest extent. Neither the police nor the party, nor the press with whom I had made an agreement of that kind did not in even one case try to criticize a judge or a sentence.
Q In order to reinforce these facts, I shall submit a number of affidavits which shall also testify to this fact.
A Then, and this too can be seen from NG-389 -- eight days later at a meeting of all presidents of the district courts of appeal in Berlin who were discussing the situation which had arisen, I requested that similar steps be taken throughout the Reich. But, as can be seen from the situation report, the course of the meeting did not restore the inner strength to the participants.
Q Herr Dr. Rothenberger, in organic connection with these steps that you took, we now come to the guidance orders which the Prosecution has submitted as charges against you in this trial. The question is now what you intended to do with these guidance orders. Would you please in detail describe your opinion -- your attitude of this?
A If to the outside world I assumed the responsibility for the Administration of Justice in Hamburg in order to protect the individual judge, -- in order to be able to assume this responsibility -- I had to have knowledge of the proceedings in which such an attack could be expected or feared. Therefore, for one thing I issued the regulation, I believe that is contained in NG-389, that in case a judge was attacked or feared such an attack, and wanted to get my advice, that I would be at his disposal personally; that is in Enclosure No. 1. Secondly, and that is in Enclosure 2, it says there "in consideration of the present situation", I considered it necessary that I be currently informed about those proceedings in which such an attack could be feared. The list of these proceedings is cited in each case in detail in the enclosure. Thereby I simultaneously wanted to remove an unsatisfactory Court No. III, Case No. 3.condition which had been created by an order by Minister Guertner already from 1939; and this has already been mentioned in this trial in NG-445. Herr Minister Guertner had ordered that each individual prosecutor should get in touch with the individual judge and from this document it is evident that considerable unsatisfactory conditions had arisen due to that -- that immediately before the trial or even during the trial; and, sometimes after the trial, and before the consultation of judges, a discussion between the prosecution and the judge took place.
I considered that to be wrong.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
I considered it to be more correct in view of the situation that such a discussion should take place a long time before the trial, not between the individual judges and the prosecutor, but on a higher level, namely, between the chiefs of the offices, so that there would be no possibility to exert an influence on the individual judge in any way.
Q Dr. Rothenberger, in your opinion was it a guidance even in the more lenient form which you desired?
A Of course, guidance is guidance. An absolute and complete independence of the judge is possible only in normal conditions of peace, and we did not have those conditions after the Hitler speech. Now, one could only strive for the aim of saving as much of the independence as was possible under the situation that prevailed at that time. The method which I chose was, on the one hand, supposed to protect the individual judge, and, on the other hand, it was supposed to maintain his own feeling of responsibility.
Q Please describe to the Tribunal the course of such a discussion as you handled it.
A I only handled it for three months myself, because in August I was transferred to Berlin. During that time the meetings were about as follows. I myself was a judge, and therefore I had an understanding of the qualities that were required for a judge. The General Public Prosecutor was present, the Chief Public Prosecutors, the Senior Public Prosecutors, the Oberstaatsanwaelte. At the meeting, cases were discussed which were pending or which were to be tried during the next two weeks, as well as cases which had been decided during the past week or two. Then, on the basis of these cases, general questions of law and justice and questions of the extent of penalties were discussed in order to achieve uniformity in the Administration of Justice as far as possible. We never discussed the facts, because the facts could only be clarified and decided upon during the trial. My successor continued in the manner in which I had handled that.
Q Did you restrain yourself in order to avoid any impression of trying to exert influence?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A In general I restrained myself and only stated my opinion carefully if very basic legal questions were concerned.
Q Dr. Rothenberger, you know that the guidance of the administration of the law was brought up by the prosecution in this connection by saying that it onesidedly led to a more severe jurisdiction. Could you please state whether this guidance of the administration of the laws led to such a result in Hamburg?
A That was not the case in Hamburg. I shall prove this by means of different documents and affidavits.
Q Now, later on, in Berlin, you took similar measures, in the fall of 1942, in October. Would you please make some statements about this? You know that the expert witness, Berl, made some statements about that here.
A The expert witness Behl, here in the witness box, unfortunately, read only a very small excerpt from an order which I drew up on 13 October 1942; and in answer to a question by my defense counsel as to whether he knew of the intentions which the author of this order might have had, he answered "no". If he would have read this entire order out here, these intentions would not have remained hidden from him. From this order of 13 October 1942, it is apparent that this guidance order was issued according to the same points of view as I have just described them. I don't know whether it is necessary for me to read this order. My defense counsel will submit this guidance order as an exhibit.
Q Is it correct that in this guidance order you expressly excluded that the facts should be determined and that the determination of the facts should be left up to the trial?
A Since it was a war emergency measure, I emphasized that the guidance should be within limits and tactful, it should not remove the independence of the judges, that every judge should remain conscious of his own responsibility, that the determination of the facts should be excluded from every guidance, and that the guidance should be limited to questions of basic importance.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Do you speak in any way about a more severe or stricter jurisdiction against Jews or foreigners, that this was necessary?
A There is no word at all about a severe jurisdiction, nor about a special jurisdiction against Jews or foreigners.
Q Did you participate in the guidance of jurisdiction on the part of the Ministry?
A No.
Q You did not do so?
A No, I did not, because I did not have anything to do with the guidance of penal jurisdiction in the Ministry. This did not become a practical problem in the field of civil administration of the law.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: To what extent such guidance takes place today in the same manner, even though done under different points of view-I shall submit documents to that effect in order to bring forth evidence that the same conditions bring about the same measures in German today, too.
We now come to a second question that refers to the memorandum itself, Mr. President, the memorandum as such which the prosecution has already described as a "peculiar" document; and, if I may add, it certainly is a peculiar document. It has to be discussed in detail in this connection, because of the contradictions which doubtlessly appear at first, and I respectfully request the Tribunal to tell me whether I should start the discussion of this document today or not.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(At 1630 hours, 16 July 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 17 July 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 Nuernberg, Germany, on 17 July 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Brand presiding.
THE MARSHAL: 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, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
MR. MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness, and the defendant Lautz, who has been excused by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Lautz has been excused at his own request for this day only in order to assist him in the preparation of his defense. The defendant Engert has been excused temporarily. Proper notation will be made.
You may proceed.
CURT ROTHENBERGER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: (Attorney for Defendant Rothenberger) May it please the Tribunal, yesterday the document NG-392, Exhibit 373 was discussed and I want to read two small portions of it into the record.
It says in this record of Dr. Rothenberger, first, "the fact that the Reich Ministry of Justice formed a small commission in order to prepare a basic reform of the Administration of Justice was welcomed with great relief and joy; the greater was the disappointment about the fact that the work could not be continued as rapidly as had been expected." Next, under No. 4 of this situation report it says in a brief sentence: "That the RSHA also has worked out its own plans for training all groups of the police will be known there;
therefore, I believe that the reform of training and education of lawyers is urgent."
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, would you please state your opinion in regard to a document which we overlooked yesterday; that concerns Exhibit 472, Volume III-A of the supplementary document book, page 30. This concerns a letter by an SS leader to you. Would you please state your opinion in regard to this letter and briefly report on its contents?
A. I no longer remember the complete case, especially since my letter to which this letter here is an answer was not introduced by the Prosecution. From my general attitude, which can be seen from the different situation reports which were discussed yesterday, I, however, believe that I can imagine in this case too, the reaction which I brought about here, as in many previous cases, I probably found out from the newspapers that the Reich Fuehrer SS, the Reich Leader SS, had ordered that some prisoner who had been condemned had been shot because of resistance while on flight. In all such cases which I heard about, I immediately opposed such action; and in this case too, I probably turned to the SS judge and protested against this action. This can be seen from Paragraph 2 of this exhibit, since the SS judge thereupon saw it necessary to explain the facts to me, and referred to the fact that this shooting and the publication of this shooting too, was due to an order by the Fuehrer. Further more, it can be seen from this exhibit that I objected against the publication of such measures, for in paragraph 1 of the exhibit it says -- that I required that such announcements, will not take place in order not to reduce the authority of the courts. In any case, it is apparent from this exhibit that I succeeded by taking this step in having the Reich Fuehrer SS issue the instruction -- that it should not be published.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much. Yesterday the expert witness Behl's testimony in connection with the guidance orders was discussed For the purpose of completeness, I just want to state the page numbers of the transcript on which the testimony of the witness Behl is.
It is the transcript on which the testimony of the witness Behl is. It is the transcript of the court session here of 18 March 1947, page 562, in the English transcript. May I now ask to go into another question, that is the question of the memorandum written by Dr. Rothenberger. Since this memorandum is doubtlessly a document which requires a comment urgently, because there are apparently obvious contradictions contained in it, I therefore request that the Defendant be permitted to go into it in some detail. Therefore, I request this particularly because this memorandum was the basis for Hitler's appointment of the defendant Dr. Rothenberger as undersecretary.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest to you that you permit the witness first to make a general explanation, which, of course, he is entitled to do, and then you -
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Excuse me, I didn't hear the translation of the English.
THE PRESIDENT: I will repeat; are you ready?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes. That you very much, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest to you that you permit him first to make such a general statement of explanation as is necessary and proper, and that you then inquire specifically of the particular statements which you desire explained, so that we may have definite questions and specific answers.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much, Your Honor. That is absolutely in accordance with my intentions.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, would you please first make some general statement about your memorandum.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit number, please.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: We are concerned with NG-075, Exhibit 27, in Document Book I-B, page 1. I have submitted a list to the Court on which the documents which I shall mention are listed.
Please begin with your statement.
A. The memorandum to Hitler is a brief summary of what I had worked out during the previous years in Hamburg. The reason for my writing such a memorandum at all I believe I already indicated yesterday. I had pointed out that the development in the Reich up until 1942, when this memorandum was written, gave cause for growing dangers and misgivings for every jurist. Furthermore, I had pointed out how the Administration of Justice was pushed more and more into a defensive position by the party and by the SS and how the jurists, as well as all Germans, either acquiesced in this condition and this development or even went along with it, and how the Administration of Justice was more and more in retreat battles. I did not want to and could not go along with this line of action.
And I did not want that the Administration of Justice was again and again confronted with fair accomplish. The party and the SS concerned themselves with ideas for reforms of the administration of Justice and it was my opinion that the only office which was competent for this and an expert in the field was the Administration of Justice itself. And the starting point for the attempt to change the course of this development were my experiences which I had gathered in Hamburg and in England.
My conviction grew stronger and stronger to the effect that question of the position of the judge in a state was significant not only for the Administration of Justice itself but that it was a basic problem of political life in every state. Germany had always gone from one extreme to the other in politics and now we were experiencing, during the years 1933 and the subsequent years, the extreme of a power state. And one of the causes for this was, in ay conviction, that in Germany we were lacking a point of rest, an authority which, due to tradition and out of its independence, was in a position to influence the development critically. This impression in particular was very vivid to me from my experiences in England. Therefore, my belief that the idea of the so-called Judge-King in Germany too, if there was any chance at all, would exert an influence on the development. This memorandum represents a final warning to Hitler in order to hold him back from this development which had begun. If today I put the question to myself, whether I believed that I could convince Hitler at all from my knowledge that I have today, I, of course, have to answer no to that question. According to my knowledge at that time I hoped for it and I believe that the fact alone that I undertook such an attempt at all is the best proof for this; and my belief of the time will be understood on the basis of the experiences which I had gathered in Hamburg where it had been possible, by trying to swim against the current and to exert influence upon leading political personalities, that one could succeed there.