I quote from that article, "The German ideal of justice must, as it is timeless, be incorporated within the future structure of a National Socialist Reich. A strong Administration of Justice is a pillar of the greater German Reich. As from tomorrow, according to the instructions of the Fuehrer, all measures must be prepared which arc requisite so that that aim may be achieved. That the Fuehrer as he has manifested clearly now wishes a strong -- and I underline that word -- Administration of Justice had never been in doubt to anybody who thinks on historical lines. Law at all times has been the strongest pillar of all great realms of civilization. Realms would pass away if in the place of law and order appeared arbitrariness and corruption -- the same realms rose to great heights when the central figure, the actual organizer, the one embodying the legal ideal, that is the judge, represented authority, authority in the meaning of reputation. I then go into the historical development in England and in the Roman Empire. Those are the same statements which are contained in my memorandum. About that request of mine a discussion developed. Thierack did not want to have anything much to do with it. As he said, he thought that was much too bombastic. Lammers expressed misgivings as to whether Hitler would grant such authorization During that discussion the first arguments developed, arguments between Thierack and myself concerning that problem. The next day we went to the Fuehrer's headquarters to be introduced to Hitler. Why I, too, was introduced to Hitler I do not know. It was customary only for a new minister to be introduced and for the Minister then to choose his undersecretary. I assume that Hitler only wanted to meet me because on account of the memorandum he himself had appointed me.
Q.- What was the impression you received during your visit at the Fuehrer's headquarters? Would you describe that, please.?
A.- I must say that that visit did make a great impression on me. The reception and the outer conditions already impressed me favorably. Things were simple, modest, natural, and we had lunch together. Hitler kept quiet altogether until a certain moment.
Perhaps after half an hour when he began to talk, and then he wouldn't stop. When I tried to enter into a discussion about the matters about which he was talking, that is to say matters concerning the Administration of Justice, I was held back by my neighbor, and that I did not like at all. For the first time I noticed that it was not possible and that it was not customary to have one's say with Hitler. What he said about the Administration of Justice impressed me favorably. In particular, he spoke about the dangers of the j udge who was a civil servant, about the dangers of having judges being strangers to life, and he said to me personally in departing "You plans must be carried out." The personal impression which Hitler made on me was by no means that of brutality. There are very many people who have the same impression of him, but there arc other people who have the very opposite impression of him. He must have been two-faced.
Q.- Which were the events later on which confirmed your opinion that you had become undersecretary to carry out your reform program?
A.- May I say a few things briefly about the authorization?
Q.- I was going to refer to that later on.
A.- Two factors supported my view in that respect. On the one hand, that shortly after Hitler's speech of 26 April, it was on the 7th of May, Mussolini before all Italian judges made a speech, and in contrast to Hitler, who by his speech had done away with the status of the judge by which he could not be dismissed, Mussolini spoke of the Italian judges as being a body of men in whom he had absolute confidence, and he spoke of the Administration of Justice as being the sacred mission of a state, and of justice he said that it was the foundation of all states. Another factor which, in spite of all the disappointments of the previous years strengthened my view, was this: on the first day after his return to Berlin Thierack said to me, the highest quarters want you to speak to the foreign press. For a man like Thierack, who normally liked to place himself in the foreground, that was unusual. I believe it was on the 22nd of August that I did speak before the entire foreign press in Berlin about my reform plans.
Q.- Dr. Rothenberger, I would like to revert to the authorization. A little earlier you read to the Tribunal the original text of the authorization. I would how like to ask you as to whether and if so what changes were made in that original text.
A.- On account of the talk with hammers and Thierack I believed that the authorization would not be granted and I was very disappointed, because Thierack was not in favor of it and Lammers expressed doubts as to whether it would be possible. When I returned to Berlin I learned about the text of the authorization which Hitler had signed, after all. The difference was this: The first sentence, in a somewhat weekend form, remained. It said, "To fulfill the tasks of the greater German Reich a strong Administration of Justice is necessary." Whereas I had said, "A strong Administration of Justice is the pillar of the Greater German Reich."
What was new was the fact that "the Reich Minister of Justice was authorized, according to Hitler's directives and instructions." - That was a matter of course for me. - But "In agreement with the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery and the Chief of the Party Chancellery to organize a National Socialist Administration of Justice." Bormann had thus found a place for himself in that authorization. During the subsequent period of my work, it was shown what significance lay in that.
Another sentence was new. It was the last sentence of the authorization, "Ho can deviate from the existing law in doing so." In itself, there is nothing wrong with that such as the prosecution assumes. Why that sentence was included and who did it, I do not know. Under German law -- I believe under foreign law as well -- it is in itself a natural rule: Lex posterior derogat priori: If the legislature or legislator grants the authorization to a Minister to issue a law, then that new law issued by the Minister naturally deviates from an earlier law. For the rest, that provision was not made use of -- not even by Thierack, as far as I know.
Q Would you now please tell us some details about you relations with Thierack.
A I started my work in Berlin and began by carrying out my plans. I had come from Hamburg where things were very satisfactory, and now for the first time I had to move on the smooth parquet floor of high diplomacy. That is not in my line. The optimism with which I had started my work were very early on was soon put to a very severe test. It was not only that I noticed that other authorities were not very satisfied with my appointment, the worst obstacle was the fact that at the Ministry itself the differences and the struggle between Thierack and myself set in immediately. It is wrong if it says in the Indictment that Thierack had appointed me to be Under-Secretary. I believe that NG-075 reveals clearly that it was Hitler who appointed me. Lammers told me that Thierack would have preferred somebody else to be Under-Secretary.
As far as outward appearances were concerned, to begin with he saved face. The first differences of opinion had appeared during the discussions with Lammers, and they arose also during the discussion with Himmler which took place in September, of which I will talk in greater detail later on. The difference of opinion by the end of September was demonstrated by Freisler, who in the meantime had become President of the People's Court. At the first conference which all the presidents of district courts and general prosecutors attended, it was demonstrated very clearly in front of all those present by his words, "Minister, I warn you, there is a rumor going about that the reform of German justice is being undertaken by someone other than you." Our duties and our spheres of work from the first day on -
Q May it please the Court, I would like to refer to NG-195, Exhibit 65, Document Book I-B, Page 95 in the German text. It concerns the conference of department heads in January 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 65?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Exhibit 45, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: On the 27th of August, a few days after we had assumed office, Thierack issued an ordinance by which, excluding my person, He alone was placed in charge of Departments III, IV, V, and a month later when Department XV had been established, that, Department XV was placed under his immediate direction. I was placed in charge of the other departments: I, II, VI, VII, and VIII. Naturally, the Minister shared the responsibility and in fact was my superior. Thierack then took another measure. He established a Ministerial Bureau. Under Guertner and under Schlegelberger, it had been the custom for the Minister to have one or two adjutants. Thierack set up a special bureau with several assistants which was exclusively under his direction. That Ministerial Bureau dealt with decisive matters; among them, the Judges' Letters.
The prosecution in connecting me with the Judges' Letters, in so far as it concerned the first Judge's Letter, refers to a sentence saying, "The judge, like the farmer and the workman, has a basic profession." I can't help it that the person who dealt with the Judges' Letters borrowed an idea from my memorandum.
Naturally, I knew of the Judges' Letters, and in matters concerning civil law I could give my view on these letters. Concerning cases of penal law which were dealt with in those letters, I cannot assume any responsibility.
Very soon I noticed, and this was the thing I had not known before, that Thierack had very close relations with the party chancery and with the SS. My adjutant frequently told me that the SS officials and the officials at the party chancery continuously appeared at Thierack's office. I was never asked to attend those conferences, nor was I interested in going there as I assumed that those discussions were largely concerned with penal matters. Thierack's favorite hobby was Kochem castle; for the Administration of Justice ho had bought a castle on the Mosel where the loading men of the Administration of Justice were called together for conferences. I never wont to the castle. All trips which had to be undertaken were undertaken alone, either by Thierack or alone by myself. I never had any personal contact with Thierack. At a very early stage this war on his part began against my assistants and against myself. I had brought a number of my assistants along with me from Hamburg. For years they had collaborated with me in my reform plans, and it was a matter of course that I should need them now that it came to carrying these plans out. The two main assistants wore Herr Segelken and Herr Brauer. The manner in which Thierack treated my two main assistants I shall have to describe briefly. I had intended to have Segelken appointed chief of Department II, that is the training department. Hardly had he assumed office when a SD report arrived which said that Segelken in 1927, that is to say fifteen years ago, had attended a mooting in Bremerhaven -- a pacifist mooting; therefore, he was politically unreliable. Secondly in 1930, that was twelve years ago, ho had boon to Russia; that too, gave cause for misgivings from the political point of view. The Party Chancery used that SD report as a grounds to refuse its approval of Segelken's appointment.
The matter went on for months, and Segelken was dismissed from his post as chief of Department II. My second chief assistant, Brauer, had the same fate. He was an extremely capable and gifted pedagogue. Of this gifted young judge it was said on the basis of a SD report that in the year of 1933 he had written his thesis in which in one passage ho had referred to a jewish professor; therefore, ho was politically unreliable. That, again, the party chancery used as a basis for describing Brauer as politically unreliable, and Thierack dismissed him; and ho was called up to the armed forces.
Q. Herr Dr. Rothenberger, you described Kochem castle as the focal point of Thierack's plans of training. May it please the Court, in this connection I would refer to a document which has boon submitted by the Prosecution; it is NG -784; it is a loose document; it was submitted as a separate document. The Tribunal will remember the report by the President of the District Court of Appeals, Dresden of 30 May 1944 to Minister Thierack, and I would like to read one passage which will explain to the Court -
THE PRESIDENT: Was the document given an exhibit number?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: It was submitted as a loose document and the Prosecution has not yet submitted it in evidence; it has no number as yet; it is simply NG-784; it has not yet got an exhibit number. I would like to quote two paragraphs from the report. President Bayer says the climax of the conference were yours and the speech of the Reichsfuehrer SS; all of us in our districts can only judge matters from our provincial angle, that is to say, we do not know; we have faith, but only our faith; that alone is not enough.
Therefore, we welcome it from the bottom of our heart; and, therefore, we can no longer imagine life without Kochem castle where a possibility is given us to refer in our charge to the higher views of the high authorities; sentences like "the higher the aim, the greater the necessity for silence" (also certain followers of Rothenberger evidently have recognized the danger of Rothenberger's tirade for the development of the Administration of Justice; none of them will forget. Mention is made here -- by somebody who is blindly devoted to Thierack that Rothenberger is dangerous.
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, may I ask you now to continue with your description and to tell us about the attempts which Thierack made to take steps against you to get rid of you.
A. Thierack made his first attempt in January 1943, that is to say three or four months after I had assumed office. What happened was this: Until then the under secretary had held the same rank and had obtained the same salary as the president of the Reich Supreme Court. By a new ordinance, the president of the Reich Supreme Court fared loss well than under secretary. Thierack then asked Ministerialdirector Schneller of Department VIII whether it was no longer possible to get rid of an under secretary and appoint him president of the Reich Supreme Court. In a state of great excitement, Ministerialdirector Schneller told me that. I went up to Thierack and asked him what it was all about. He said nothing yet; there is nothing the matter as yet.
Next, in April 1943, I hoard that he had asked Lammers to got a second under secretary. I shall revert to that matter in greater detail later on.
MR.LaFOLLETTE: Dr. Rothenberger, excuse me a minute. I must address the Court before we recess. If your Honor please, I ask the Tribunal, on the basis of information that I have, to request Dr. Marx, attorney for the defendant Engert, to be in court immediately after the recess, at which time I wish to present an affidavit to the Court. I will not present the affidavit in his absence, but I must have him in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: I presume the Marshal would be the proper person to notify Dr. Marx. The Marshal is directed to notify Dr. Marx to be present in Court at 1:30 this afternoon, -- until which time we will recess.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 17 July 1947.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 17 July 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please the Court, I have an affidavit which I would like to read to the Court. I send three copies of the English to the Bench, one to the German interpreter and please deliver this to Dr. Marx. I should like to read the affidavit and then make a very short statement, if the court will permit me.
"I, Dr. Wilhelm Gerstacker, Senior Doctor, Nurnberg Kirchenweg 50, declare herewith under oath:
I was born on 10 December 1907 in Kempton, Schwaben. Since April 1, 1946 I have been working at the Psychiatric clinic of the Nurnberg city Hospital. On the evening of June 27, 1947 I was informed by Dr. Kraetzer of the court decision of Military Tribunal III, by which the defendant Karl Engert was to be psychoanalyzed by me. I was informed by Dr. Kraetzer at the same time, that according to the statements of the defense counsel for Engert, Dr. Hans Marx, the court would like to receive the report by June 26, 1947, the following day. Inasmuch as I had been named to the Court a.s psychiatric expert for the Defense Counsel, without having been asked before, I expressed to Dr. Kraetzer my amazement about this. On the following day Dr. Marx appeared in my office, and told me that he had gained the impression that the Americans, with the help of medical experts, would like to drop the case Engert. I told him at that time, that the court would have other possibilities to handle the case as they saw fit, and that I could only express the medical facts objectively. I considered the remarks of the Defense Counsel as an unusual attempt to influence my medical activity. I wrote an expert opinion and on June 30, 1947, turned it over to the Assistant Doctor Stern, for transmittal to the competent offices. About a. week later a questionaire of the court consisting of three questions was submitted to me by Dr. Kraetzer to be answered by YES or NO.
The questionnaire consisted of two pages. On the first page the questions were formulated, while the second page was reserved for my signature as well as for the signature of an official of the Secretary General. I answered all questions with YES and signed the document. A few days later, a secretary of Dr. Marx come carrying the second signed page of the questionnaire, as well as a new blank first page. She informed me that she was being sent by Dr. Marx to offer me the opportunity to fill out the questionnaire once more. She said in so many words that Dr. Marx had been cited before the court and had been reproached in a sever manner, because the expert opinions of the German doctors did not correspond with that of the Americans, and that the court in substance had queried whether or not it would be possible to change my expert opinion. Furthermore, she told me that it would look rather peculiar if the German doctors were stricter than the Americans. She told me expressly that this was the opinion of Dr. Marx. In camouflaged expressions she attempted to intimidate me and to alter my opinion. 7. told her, however, that I would not change my expert opinion overnight, and furthermore, that I considered the separation of pages of a document, after it had been signed, an unheard-of behavior if not even an illegal act. She then was visibly at a loss for words, and tried to exculpate herself by blaming others for the act. I filled out the first page again the same way in the affirmative. I consider the whole behavior of Dr. Marx in this case shameless from a personal angle, and legally objectionable. I have the impression that Dr. Marx tried to obtain from me, through forced haste, an export opinion of his choice, which would not have been in agreement with my objectivity as a doctor.
"These statements are true and were given without any duress. I have read them, signed them and declared them under oath."
Nuremberg 16 July 1947 /s/ Dr. Wilhelm Gerstacker /t/ Dr. Wilhelm Gerstacker Senior Doctor at the City Hospital Nuremberg Signed and sworn to:
Nuremberg 16 July 1947 /s/ Henry Einstein Henry Einstein, OCCWC U.S. Civilian B-316209 Research Analyst If Your Honors please, the position of the prosecution is that we ask no action upon the basis of this affidavit alone.
We assume the Court will certainly wish to have the affiant present.
However, I consider the affidavit at least primary evidence of the fact that actions have been taken by Dr. Marx which I must bring to the attention of the Tribunal.
I further want to say, although I don't think it is necessary, that no member of the Prosecution staff has ever seen any doctor, American or German, in connection with this matter, either before or after they were appointed. I now leave the matter to the consideration of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not care to hear from Dr. Marx at this time. The Tribunal will examine the affidavit more carefully, will determine whether or not it forms the basis for a citation for contempt of court, and, if so, against whom. If it be considered a proper basis for further proceedings by the Tribunal Counsel Marx will be advised of that fact and will be given the opportunity, which this Tribunal extends to all persons, to present a fair defense such as he may have.
DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: I don't care to hear from you at this time, sir. You may be seated.
DR. MARX: I only wanted to correct some absolute mistakes from the very beginning.
THE PRESIDENT: I will not hear you at this time. You may be seated. You will be given opportunity to defend or to make a statement at a later time.
We have one other matter for the consideration of counsel and this may be an appropriate time to consider it. The circumstance which requires these comments is the fact that we have been advised, as I think some of the defense counsel have also been advised, of the extreme congestion in the translation department. That condition apparently is a serious one and it might quite seriously interfere with the orderly presentation of the various cases of the defendants.
In order to make that difficulty as small as possible the Tribunal wishes to call attention to counsel that in their own interests they will do well to present their documents in German to the translation department not only in strict compliance with the "2 Weeks Rule", I believe it is, but also at earlier date whenever possible. That should be possible with those counsel who represent defendants whose cases arc being presented after the first two or throe defendants have been heard. That appears to be essential.
The other consideration is perhaps a more difficult one. It may perhaps be illustrated. We are told that in one of the Tribunals an entire Russian play was submitted to the translation department for translation preparatory to its introduction in evidence. That was certainly not in this Tribunal. Frankly, we had at least slight misgivings concerning the introduction of any extended address on the subject of justices of the peace this morning. That as not, however, a ruling We admonish counsel to exercise extreme self restraint in submitting to the Translation Department entire speeches and entire legal articles and, whereever it is possible, to submit only excerpts rather than the entire address.
We think that is fair because each defendant has had, and each defendant will have, opportunity as a witness to testify concerning not only his present attitude on material issues, but also his attitude at the time when the events occurred, and he may, in oral testimony, greatly abbreviate the entire record if he will summarize rather than introducing exhibits which are causing a congestion as to render the situation serious.
Now, in the first instance, all we can do is to refer to the good faith and the self-restraint which we know counsel will attempt to exercise in simplifying this problem. If the congestion should become too great, it might be necessary to establish some means of determining in advance the extent to which lengthy documents should be submitted for complete and full translation.
I am sure counsel will cooperate with us in this matter, because it is for the interest of all.
You may proceed with the case.
***RT ROTHENBERGER (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WANDSCHNIEDER:
Q Dr. Rothenberger, would you please continue your description of the difficulties which you had with Dr. Thierack?
A Up to now I have described the manner in which Thierack attempted, for professional reasons, to give me the cold shoulder. There were two additional, personal, reasons why he tried to blackball me. One reason dates back to the spring of 1943. At that time an anonymous denunciation was received by him with the assertion that I and some other officials had furniture made without being authorized to do so.
He did not give me an opportunity to explain the matter, and ordered a Ministerialrat (Ministerial Councillor) in the Ministry to investigate the affair immediately. It was shown that two warrobes were concerned, which I had obtained in order to move to Berlin, and I could submit the appropriate ration cards, which were required in Germany at the time for that, for the obtaining of wood.
Thierack did not inform me of the result of this investigation against me, and left me in the dark concerning this question for several weeks. I found cut about it only through this Ministerial Councillor, for whom the matter, of course, was very unpleasant. He, as well as I, were under the impression that Thierack wanted to use this personal affair in order to "let me have it", as we say.
The second reason extended during the entire time of my activity. It started in September of 1942. That was an affair, the details of which I can only go into later, because it brought about my discharge. However, I shall now indicate briefly the history of its origin.
When I came to Berlin in August and began my reform, I was anxious to have the preparatory work, which I had done in Hamburg during the last three years, published so that not only my assistants, but also the German judiciary, would know about it and therefore would perhaps be caused to help with this work. Because Thierack was interested in knowing what kind of preparatory work and papers these were, he asked me to give him the manuscript, which was rather a big book. It was his desire, he said, to write a preface to the book which was to be published. He had this manuscript in his possession for several months, and I reminded him about it several times, asking him whether he could not return the manuscript to me, but until December of 1942 that was unsuccessful. After that time he returned it to me. However, he told me that before I could publish it, I would have to submit it to the official Party Reviewing Commission. That was a commission which was subordinated to the Party Chancellery, as far as I knew and they would have to examine this book as to its conformity with National Socialism.
However, he said, this was a purely formal matter.
The Chief of this Commission -- unfortunately I no longer remember his name--came to me a few days later and told me that he could not do anything, about it, that he had been instructed to submit the matter to the Party Chancellery. Meanwhile, I made inquiries of other gentlemen in other Ministries as to whether they also had to use that method if they wanted to publish something, and they all denied it.
The reviewing of this bock by the Party Chancellery, then, took six months. I think it lasted until June or July of 1943. The result was that in August an SD report about the book was forwarded to Thierack, and Thierack read it to me. According to this SD report, the historical part of the book, which concerned itself with the old Germanic and Franconian time, had an alleged plagiarism contained therein. Thierack used this charge of plagiarism, toward the end of the year 1943, in order to effect my finally being discharged. I shall speak about details in regard to this matter later on.
Q Can you now speak about your main activities' in Berlin, after you became Undersecretary? Would you please limit yourself to that now?
A In accordance with the manner, the circumstances , and the full purpose of my appointment, I naturally considered it my main task to lead the reform of the judiciary. My activity in that connection was mainly in two fields: First, outside of the Ministry, outside of Berlin; and secondly, in the Ministry itself.
During the first month I intentionally went to the German Gaue for one to two weeks every month. The purpose of these trips was to inform the German judges regarding my plans and thereby to strengthen their backbone and, after the infamous Hitler speech, to again restore their confidence.
I was successful in achieving that to a large extent, as far as I am able to judge it myself.
The second question was much more difficult. I tried, by referring to my commission by Hitler, to convince the Gauleaders and Reichsstatthalter in the Gaue of the necessity of effecting a clean and orderly administration of the laws. I only succeeded in doing this in very small part. For the first time I met and became familiar with the type of German Gau leader and their relationship to the Administration of Justice, especially their relationship to the local district courts of appeals presidents and the local general public prosecutors.
Statements have already been made, here in part, about my experiences on these trips, especially in Nuernberg, Bamberg, and Wuerzburg. I do not want to refer to this again; the statements which were made here were absolutely correct.
Generally speaking, my experience was that in those Gaus men were at the top of the Administration of Justice as President of the District Court of Appeals, or as Chief Public Prosecutor who merely wanted to maintain their position and who were of the opinion that it would be suicide if they would defend themselves against the intervention and attacks by the Party or the SS against the Administration of Justice. There the Party ruled. And in those Gaus where people held the position of President of the District Court of Appeals who were personalities, they dared to represent the interests of the Administration of Justice. In those districts the conditions were much more calm and much better, without wanting to maintain that it was an absolutely satisfactory condition. Individual cases existed everywhere. About other trips I believe I don't have to mention, either. My defense counsel shall submit several documents about that also.
Q In that connection, Dr. Rothenberger, I want to ask you once more whether Thierack had reports made about the result of your trips by third persons.
AAfter almost every trip Thierack reproached me with something or other, which was how I know very well today through some SD report he found out in the shortest possible time what remarks I had made to judges or in conversations on my trips. I recall one occasion in particular, I very clearly expressed the necessity that the Prosecution would have to remain with the Administration of Justice. Thierack made this a cause for forbidding me to go on further trips.
Q Thank you; that is enough. Would you now please talk about the question how you yourself began your work and carried it out in the Ministry?
A I want to hold the statements about that work very brief, although from the temporal point of view they used up most of my time.
From the formal point of view I instituted three reform offices in the Ministry, the Office for the Reorganization of the German Constitution of the Courts, the Office Justices of the Peace or Justice Through the People, and the office Judges and Administrators of the Law, Rechtspfleger. That was in accordance with my plans which I described briefly this morning. And in regard to all details I would like to refer to the articles which I wrote about that work and published and which will be submitted to the Tribunal.
Q Can you say one more word about what happened to your reform plan after you left the Ministry?
A I can not say that with certainty. I do know that two offices had discontinued their work already before I left the Ministry, that is the Office for Justices of the Peace and the Office for Administrators of the Law. The third office, as far as I know, was continued later on, too.
Q What other routine tasks did you have to fulfill in the Ministry?
A This morning I mentioned that I was in charge as being coresponsible for Divisions I, II, VI, and VIII. Division I was the personnel department. Chief of that personnel department had been so far the Ministerial director Nadler. I knew him for years from the time of my work in Hamburg. He was a decent civil servant and he was efficient in his own field. Since he was an old Party member Freisler had taken him along into the Ministry in 1934. Toward a man like Freisler he had absolutely no backbone whatsoever. For that reason I saw to it that a change of personnel should take place in that office. Ministerialdirektor Letz took his place. Letz had for nine years been my closest collaborator in Hamburg, and therefore I knew his attitude very well. He had also assisted in my reform work, and therefore I also charged him with one of the offices in charge of the reform work.
Q Dr. Rothenberger, in connection with your personnel policy, NG817 was put to you. Would you please state something about it? NG 817 was submitted as Exhibit 486 in Volume 3-A, page 136 in the German text.