A. I did, but I don't remember -- I don't remember the report as such.
Q. But you remembered it at the time, no doubt. If you read the facts of the case, you must have because there they are very clear.
A. The facts that were mentioned in the opinion, of course, those facts I knew.
Q. Yes, all right. Then, you know that these Poles were in the country as laborers, not citizens of Germany; that is the fact which you must have gathered, if, as you say, you knew the facts as represented in the opinion. Now, will you please tell me, Dr. Rothenberger, what loyalty a Pole brought into Germany as a slave laborer owes to the German state; and, how that Pole in trying to escape could be guilty of committing treason -- by that fact alone against the sovereign state of Germany?
A. I believe there is no country in the world where it isn't so that every one whether he is a citizen or a foreigner can commit treason.
Q. Can commit treason by trying to leave the country?
A. Not only by leaving the country, but by having the intention to take up arms against that country.
Q. Yes, all right, Dr. Rothenberger, that brings us to the next point. What do you mean by taking up arms against that country? What evidence did you have that this Pole was going to take up arms against Germany?
A. May I ask you to put to me the opinion again, because I do not remember at this time the opinion for that particular sentence.
Q. Document Book III-A. While that opinion is coming, I think we can proceed on this question. The opinion stated that these Poles were going to join the Polish Legion in Switzerland. You investigated that question and determined that there was a Polish Legion in Switzerland which they were going to join?
A. That question was not to be examined by mo; that question was already examined by the court and decided, and I am not in a position as the authority for clemency matters to examine the facts which had already been determined by the court in a new procedure of investigation.
That is not the task of the authority for clemency matters; that is the task of the court.
Q. And because the court said there was a Polish Legion in Switzerland which those men were going to join, that was sufficient for you in reviewing the case?
A. May I state my attitude to that only after I have read the opinion?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Rothenberger, do you recall whether the opinion indicated that the alleged Polish Legion in Switzerland was interned in Switzerland; do you remember about that?
A. No, no, I can't remember that. May I wait until the opinion is put to me? I do not remember the individual case at all. (Handed document book) May I read the essential passages from the opinion? The defendants were in Germany for the purpose of work. Three days after they started to work, two of them left their place of work without permission and fled in the direction of the German Swiss border at Bregenz, near Bregenz. During the night of the 5th July, they were picked up by a custom official at the railroad bridge loading into Switzerland, between the border points Luestenau and St. Margrethen, and were taken to the police jail at Bregenz. When interrogated, Iwaniszyn adopted the false name Serecka. On 7 August, 1942 he and Mendrala were brought to their former places of work at Kempton.
But soon thereafter both, together with the co-defendant, decided to make a new attempt at escape." Then I think I can skip something.
"The three defendants used their quarters that they shared to confer with Mendralla how they could manage to go to Switzerland in order to join the Polish Legion there. Obviously, for security reasons, they set out for the escape together, but then to head for the Swiss border separately.
"So, on the 13 of August 1942 the defendants and Mendralla left their places of work without permission and at first proceeded together in the direction of Bregenz, after they had removed the Polish insignias from their jackets, and then they were arrested. The defendants admit the essentials of these facts, but state that they did not know that a Polish Legion existed in Switzerland, and therefore they neither decided nor intended to go to Switzerland." And then I skip again some passages which are not important.
"These statements are not worthy of belief. All of the defendants had work in Kempten and were paid adequately as Poles. They had even less good reasons to leave their places of work without permission just in order to look for new employment, since they knew exactly that they would then be called to account for breach of contract, and that they could not keep the new jobs they pretended to seek. But how little they were interested in serious employment is sufficiently proved by the fact that they had also quit, without any good reasons, their former jobs in Leipzig," and so on. Then I may skip a few passages.
"On the basis of the experiences of the Senate in similar cases and according to the result of the numerous investigations made by the official of the police, Schleicher, who was working in the German-Swiss Border territory and was heard as a witness, the way chosen by the defendants had been used by many Poles escaping from the Labor Service in Germany to go to Switzerland and to join the Polish Legion there. There was a whisper propaganda among the Poles, especially as the Senate stated only yesterday in the sentence against Patoga in the region of Kempten since the Spring of 1942.
In consequence of this whisper propaganda, due to enemy influence, it was generally known that through the Consulate of the Polish shadow government or through the English Consulate in Switzerland the possibility existed to get from there by various means into parts of the Polish Legion a formation whose purpose, as known by the Court, is aimed at the restoration of an independent Polish State by military operations conducted on the side of the enemy and be separating the annexed eastern provinces from the greater German Reich by force."
I don't know whether it is necessary to go on reading, is it?
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, I didn't ask to read the opinion. I asked you a question based on it. If you want to read the whole opinion, I suppose I can't stop you, but I remind you that I only have a question before you for answer and it is not necessary -- it is entirely optional with you -- whether the opinion is read aloud or not.
A. May I ask you to repeat that one question, please?
Q. I believe, as defense counsel are fond of saying, it is a complex of questions. The first part of it is on what basis did you decide that these men should die for trying to leave Germany since they were not German citizens? The second question is what evidence did you have that there was a Polish Legion in Switzerland, especially in view of the fact that these men denied that they had ever heard of a Polish Legion?
I thought it might have been of interest to you, at the time you decided these men should die, to look briefly into the legal and the factual question.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Kay it please the Tribunal, I object to this question, the question as to what reason Dr. Rothenberger had to make his decision in a case where the defendants allegedly only wanted to leave Germany. Dr. Rothenberger in great detail has explained that and already pointed out that he did not make his decision on these grounds, but because, on the basis of the sentence and the opinion, the case of treason was before him.
Be explained that in great detail, referring to the opinion and the reasons stated in the opinion. I think that that question has been pondered sufficiently and decided, and it is not necessary that he should speak about that once more.
THE PRESIDENT: Your objection is overruled.
A. I can only point out again that it is the task of the Court to elucidate on the facts; also to find out whether a Polish Legion existed or whether it did not. That question was answered by the Court in the affirmative and that answer was legally binding and it is impossible for the authority in clemency matters to submit the facts which have already been established in a court proceeding to a renewed investigation. If that weren't so, then that would mean that the authority for clemency matters could decide that a new trial should take place in order to clarify these matters, and that is not the purpose and the meaning of an authority on clemency matters and in addition to that, all the technical means are lacking to carry out that task.
It goes without saying that the basis for a decision in clemency matters are facts as established by the court, and those facts, as stated, were giving aid and comfort to the enemy and treason.
Q. I don't know whether it is possible to summarize your answer, Dr. Rothenberger, but I should like to try to do it -- Relating to the legal question, you say that these men committed treason. These nonGerman citizens committed treason in attempting to leave Germany because there was evidence that they were going to take up arms against Germany. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, the legal question depends entirely on the factual question, the factual question being whether or not they were going to join the Swiss Legion. Is that correct?
A. That was determined by the court.
Q. And these defendants denied that they knew of the existence of a Swiss Legion; is that correct?
A. The court has established -
Q. Will you answer my question, please, yes or no? You may explain later.
A. I can't answer that with yes or no.
Q. You can answer that question yes or no. My question was whether or not the defendants denied that they knew of the existence of a foreign legion. That can be answered yes or no.
A. The court did not believe the defendants when they denied that.
Q. And you, in reviewing the sentence to determine whether these men should die or not, did not feel it necessary to have any further investigation of their repeated denial; is that right?
THE PRESIDENT: This question is clearly proper. There is no use in encumbering the record with objections on it. He may answer the question. You can register your objection briefly.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I want to object to that question, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled.
Again I can only emphasize that there is a principal difference of opinion between the prosecutor and the German and I believe also the foreign factors in clemency matters. It cannot be the task of the authority in clemency matters to investigate whether it should believe a defendant or should not believe the defendant. I did not even have the possibility to point out whether the defendant can be believed or not. That can only be the task of the court which makes the decision. I in this case was not the court to make the decision. It was, I believe, the People's Court in this case, yes.
Q. I think, Dr. Rothenberger, that we have had a sufficient explanation of your views as to why you couldn't take any action to save these men, in that case.
MR. KING: I would like to pass on now -
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal I don't want to raise an objection at this time, but just express a request.
Dr. Rothenberger was asked in his last question what were the basis in the final analysis for him in making his final decision on clemency matters and he has answered that he did not remember the case, so that, of course, he does not have to give any further reasons. Therefore, all he knows about this case he knows now from this trial, that is to say from the opinion as it was submitted in this document and I believe it is not more than fair that if an opinion of that kind is put to him suddenly that he ought to have the opportunity or should be given the opportunity not only to road the fragments to refresh his memory, but that he should have an opportunity to read the entire opinion, because essential matters are not even expressed by the statements such as the fact established by the opinion that the three defendants discussed it, that they wanted to enter the Polish legion, that, for instance, is a statement of fact, which, of course, within the scope of the statements made by this defendant is very important. Therefore, as a preventive measure, I should like to ask that if in the future he is requested to make explanations to extensive documents concerning facts which occurred years ago, the defendant should be afforded an opportunity before answering to read through the entire document at leisure.
MR. KING: I only
THE PRESIDENT: What is your next question. There is no question before us now - just a moment.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. Dr. Rothenberger were you aware that this Polish Legion was interned?
A. No, no, that I don't know about. I don't know anything at all.
Q. Don't you know as a lawyer that no foreign legion could be organized in Switzerland to wage war against Germany when Switzerland was a neutral country?
A. About that I knew nothing. As far as I was concerned the existence of a Polish legion was not known to me before this case.
Q. I am not inquiring about whether it was known to you. I am inquiring about the law, if such a legion in fact existed if it would not necessarily be interned in Switzerland?
A. About that I lack all basic information in order to be able to judge that.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, you testified in your direct examination you first met Albrecht, the Brigadefuehrer, and personal adjutant of Hitler in '42, in 1942, in Hamburg. Do you recall a little more particularly now what month in 1942 it was that you met him?
A. Albrecht was not my personal adjutant, as I heard it, but he was the adjutant of Hitler and Albrecht
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, we have passed the time for our recess. A fifteen minutes recess will be taken.
(a short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, the question which I had asked you just before recess was, can you tell me the month in 1942 in which you met Albrecht in Hamburg?
A. I believe that it was January or February.
Q. In any event, quite early in the year?
A. Yes, that is certain.
Q. Your memorandum, which eventually reached. Hitler's desk, has been submitted as Exhibit 27, NG-075. Can you tell me what would have been the earliest possible date, the earliest possible date, that that memorandum could have reached Hitler's desk?
A. I cannot tell you that; I can only say that Albrecht informed me, when I was in Berlin later on, that Hitler read my memorandum after his well-known speech. That was at the beginning of May.
Q. You say Albrecht told you that?
A. Yes, he did. That is also in agreement with the dates on this exhibit.
Q. There are, in Exhibit 27 --- your memorandum --- several prefatory letters. One of them is a letter to Schwab. He was in Hitler's outer office, was he not?
A. Do you mean Schaub?
Q. Schaub, yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in that letter the date of May 7 is mentioned as a reference point, and it is stated that the Fuehrer received your memorandum "some time ago"; that is, some time prior to May 7. Is that in accordance with you recollection?
A. This letter states that the Fuehrer had received the memorandum "some time ago". Since, of course, I was interested in this affair at the time and wanted to know how Hitler came to see my memorandum at all, I asked Albrecht expressly when he, Hitler, had read it.
Thereupon, as I have already stated, Albrecht answered that Hitler read it after his famous speech. As reason for this, Albrecht stated to me that Hitler Q(Interposing) Just a moment, Dr. Rothenberger, We aren't talking about Albrecht now.
I am talking about this letter from Schaub, and I asked you a specific question I ask you, when it states in that letter that your memorandum had been received some tine ago--and the reference point is May 7--if is in accordance with your recollection. I take it that it is.
Now my next question is this. Do you have any specific recollection as to whether or not the "some time ago" refers to a period as long as two weeks?
A. I cannot tell you that. I am unable to say what "some time" means, whether it means that he received it a few days ago or two weeks ago. I can only say that he read the memorandum after his well-known speech.
Q. We will come to that in a moment. You do not exclude the possibility, do you, that your memorandum reached Hitler some time prior to the time he gave his speech on April 26, 1942?
A. I only exclude the possibility that he read it before. Usually such memoranda, when the Fuehrer received them, were not immediately read by him. He probably received a large number of memoranda, and he read very few of them.
Q. But he read yours, did he not, eventually?
A. Yes, without doubt he read mine. And if I may, I will now state the reasons which Albrecht mentioned, namely, that he himselfthat is, Albrecht--because he was in the Fuehrer's entourage at the time, saw how Hitler, in regard to the reactions to his speech at homo as well as abroad, was tremendously surprised and horrified, especially after Mussolini, at the beginning of May, gave a speech before the Italian Judiciary which aroused the opposite reaction -
Q. Excuse me, Dr. Rothenberger.
A. Excuse me. -- which was supposed to bring about the opposite effect from Hitler's speech.
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, excuse me a moment. You have gone into that quite thoroughly in your direct examination and I have read that, so I am quite familiar with what you are saying. I will put the question to you quite simply, Dr. Rothenberger.
I think, based on the evidence before me, that Hitler had your memorandum before he made his speech, and that probably some of the suggestions he made in his speech of April 26 were based on your memorandum. What evidence do you think there is against that point of view?
A. Against this opinion I have not only the evidence, the proof of what I actually know about it, but furthermore, the fact that the contents of my memorandum with all clarity emphasize the necessity of an independent personality of a judge and describe the dangers for a state in which such an independent judge does not exist. And I cannot imagine that when Hitler read such a thing he would in public state the opposite, namely , that he would announce that the judge can be discharged. Those are the two elements.
Q. You recall, Dr. Rothenberger, a correspondence that took place between Albrecht and yourself. I think it has been introduced in evidence. I have a copy in German of the original here and I would like to show it to you and then ask you one question. The first is a letter from Albrecht dated 27 May 1942 addressed to you at Hamburg, of course. The next letter is a letter of 3 June, 1942, which you yourself wrote in reply to Albrecht's letter. Now I would like to read to you, Dr. Rothenbeeger, the first sentence in your reply to Albrecht, and it is as follows: "My Dear Brigadefuehrer, Your letter of May 27 of this year brought great joy to me and was invaluable for my future work. Although I believed before, despite, or moreover, because of the Fuehrer's speech, to be on the right track, the assurance which I have received through your letter is even more valuable." Can you tell me, Dr. Rothenberger, what assurances you received from Hitler's speech as you mentioned here that you were on the right track? Doesn't that sound as though you thought at that time that he had the opportunity, that is Hitler, to read and examine your thoughts on judicial reform?
A. I cannot deduce anything from this letter as to the time when Hitler read my memorandum. I expressed by this letter this same thing that I emphasized repeatedly here that I believed that a judicial reform was necessary and that I especially after the Hitler speech was convinced of this necessity, the more that Hitler had to be occasioned to fundamentally change his attitude toward the Administration of Justice.
Therefore I herewith affirmed that I believed that I was on the right track.
Q. Is that all, Doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. May I have once again the reasons why you did not immediately publish your compendium?
A. It was never my intention to publish my memorandum, and I never published it.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please, Would you clarify one matter for us all? You have been referring to his memorandum which Hitler received, and the witness also spoke about the preparation of a long report to be made at a future time.
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Which do you refer to in your question as the compendium?
MR. KING: I refer to the latter, the book. As I understand it, the memorandum was never to have been published except as a memorandum to Hitler. It is the proposed publication of the longer work to which I refer and about which you testified in your direct examination.
A. I don't know which memorandum you are referring to at the moment. I assumed that you were speaking of the memorandum that I spent to Hitler. Or do you mean another work?
Q. I am referring , Doctor, to the larger, more extensive work which you wanted to have published.
A. You mean the book "The German Judge," "Der Deutsche Richter"?
Q. I mean that book.
A. Oh, I see. Yes. We did not speak about that so far, therefore I did not know what you were referring to.
Q. You spoke about it in your direct examination.
A. Yes, when I was dismissed.
Q. Now may I have once again the reasons as to why that was not immediately published in accordance with your desire?
A. As long as I was in Hamburg it was not my intention to publish it. When, however, I was then called to Berlin and now as confronted with the task of carrying out these plans, I considered it to be necessary that the German public and in particular the German judiciary should be informed about these plans. And then I decided in regard to my preparatory work which I had done during the last years in Hamburg, and of which work the memorandum to Hitler was only a short excerpt, I decided now to publish these in the form of a book.
Q. And when did you reach that decision, Doctor Rothenberger?
A. I can no longer remember the exact point of time but it was very soon after I entered office. Very soon after I assumed my office in Berlin, so it must have been approximately in September.
Q. Yes. I would like to read another paragraph from your letter to Albrecht. You say -- you will find it in your copy. It is the last paragraph. You say, "On request of the Party Chancellery I refrain for the time being from the publication of the details of my work. I therefore regret not to be able to fulfil my promise to send you the complete work in book form." You remember that, and that is in accordance with what you said, as you remember it?
A. Yes.
Q. And the work to which you refer is the same book which you later tried to have published?
A. Yes, that is in agreement with what I just said.
Q. So that the decision as to your desire to publish it must have arisen some time prior to your going to Berlin, because this letter is dated June 3, 1942?
A. It may be that I had undertaken consideration of this question, whether I should some time in the future publish parts of this work, or not, but at that time I did not decide to publish. On the contrary, I decided not to publish my work.
Q. In other words, the objection by the Party Chancellery as you stated in your direct examination came considerably before Thierack had anything to do with your work; is that right?
A. I did not understand your question. Would you please repeat it?
Q. Yes. In your direct examination you said that the Party Chancellery had to review your work before it could be published, and that was made necessary by Thierack's machinations in connection with it. I say on the basis of this letter that it must be clear that the Party Chancellery took a hand in the publication of this long before you went to Berlin, since you state here that they have requested you not to publish it.
A. No. That has nothing to do with the later publication.
Q. Why not?
A. Because that was supposed to take place only half a year later. What is said in this letter to Albrecht has nothing to do with the later publication with the interference by the Party Chancellery which then prevented publication. From June till at least December that was the time when the Party Chancellery interfered and prevented publication. Between those times half a year intervened. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Q. Yes, but during that intervening half year you state here you couldn't publish it because the Party Chancellery told you not to; isn't that right?
A. It is correct that the publication of a book at that time was dependent also upon the agreement of the Party Chancellery.
Q. And why in June, 1942, did the Party Chancellery not want you to publish that book?
A. The reasons behind this I found out neither on this occasion nor on the latter occasion. I could not find them out clearly. But the fact that the Party Chancellery prevented the publication of the book and finally and conclusively prevented it was proof for me that they did not agree to the contents of this book.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you tell me again the date when you went to Berlin?
THE WITNESS: On the 20th of August 1942.
BY MR. KING:
Q.- You would not exclude the possibility, would you, Dr. Rothenberger, that at that time -- June 3, 1942 -- the memorandum was in use by Hitler and Hitler had requested no publication be made of it or of the longer book, of which your memorandum is an extract, until further notice? You wouldn't exclude that possibility, would You?
A.- I consider it impossible that Hitler, himself, concerned himself with that question. I consider that impossible.
Q.- You mean Hitler did not have the time or the authority to order the publication of a work held up? He considered your memorandum important enough to read, didn't he? You were appointed on the basis of it, weren't you?
A.- Certainly, on the basis of the memorandum I was appointed, but that Hitler should personally concern himself with the question as to whether a book should be published or not, I cannot imagine, The Party Chancellery prevented this publication.
Q.- And from whom did the Party Chancellery take their orders?
A.- From nobody.
Q.- That is an interesting point of view, to say the least.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to get my understanding more clear. We have not seen this letter to Albrecht on June 3, 1942?
MR. KING: June 2, Your Honor -- I am sorry, you are correct/
THE PRESIDENT: June 3rd. Then from that letter, do we correctly gather that before you went to Berlin the Party Chancellery had refused you permission to you to publish some sort of a book or report?
THE WITNESS: I gather that from this letter. It reads there "I refrain from publishing the detailed work because the Party Chancellery does not desire it."
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q.- May I ask you a few more questions on the same point? In your direct examination, you referred, in so many words, to the fact that you had warned Hitler about the danger to the independence of the judges. Do you mean the warning which was contained in your memorandum which ultimately come to him?
A.- Yes, I did.
Q.- I understood you to say this morning that you wondered how Hitler got your memorandum. Then I assume you didn't send it to him yourself?
A.- I sent it to Albrecht on his wish, and Albrecht, who was Hitler's adjutant, gave it via Albert Bormann to Hitler. Albert Bormann was the brother of Martin Bormann and they were bitter enemies.
Q.- Well, had there been some distribution of this memorandum to others beside the ones whom you have mentioned? Was it published or distributed in any way?
A.- No, it was not published.
Q.- It was sent only to the persons you have mentioned?
A.- Kauffmann also received it; that is the Reichsstatthalter of Hamburg.
Q.- I was interested in knowing the extent to which it became known by officials. You made the memorandum and you sent out how many copies, do you suppose?
A.- I do not recall that I sent them to anybody else at all; to Albrecht and Kauffmann, for sure, for Kauffmann told me at the time -that was at the beginning of the year -- "I shall try, if you do not succeed, to approach Hitler and to bring it personally to Hitler."
Q.- Then you did have an arrangement with Kauffmann that it should be brought to Hitler's attention?
A.- Yes. Kauffmann had made the same efforts that I did, which at the time was very difficult, since it was very difficult at the time to get anything to Hitler at all.
Q.- Yes. Do you know when you sent it to Kauffmann?
A.- At about the same -- it must have been when I had completed the memorandum -- that is in March 1942. The date that the memorandum bears is the 31st of March.
BY MR. KING:
Q.- Dr. Rothenberger, in your direct examination you referred to your attempt before the war: first you referred to your own visits to England and then you referred to -- not by name -- but you referred to the fact that you had sent other German jurists to England to study the legal system there, and in return you had encouraged, and in fact received as guests certain English barristers here in Germany to study the German legal system. Can you recall at this time any of the names of the German jurists who went to England as a result of this reciprocity arrangement?
A.- At the moment I recall the name, von Wedell.
Q.- How is that last name spelled, please?
A.- Von W-e-d-e-l-l, Also, Kisselbach, that is the son of the Minister of Justice for the British zone at the present time; and Siveking; and Winkelmann. At the moment, I cannot recall any other names, but there were more. There were several more.
Q.- And do you recall the names of any of the English barristers who visited you?
A.- I only recall the name, Mr. Anson, who was the intermediary in England for the barristers whom he sent to Hamburg. I believe he was from Middle Temple, but I cannot say that with certainty, He submitted to me the names of those barristers whom he later sent to Hamburg. A second name which I happen to recall just now is Mr. Langdon. He was the president of the training of young jurists in London. I believe the name of that agency is the Board of Education for Jurists. In England I lived with him for a period of some time, and he also sent some young barristers to me who were sent to Hamburg.
I recall a third name, Mr. Schiller. He was a barrister at law at the High Court of Justice. I worked in his office for some time.
Q.- Of the four German jurists whose names you have just given, who went to England, were they all judges, or lawyers expecting to become judges?
A.- They were judges and attorneys-at-law.
Q.- They were attorneys-at-law too? What commercial interests did the non-judges-- the attorneys-at-law-- have in the British Isle at the time they were sent over? Do you happen to recall?
A.- They had no special interest, but it was the general interest of the Hamburg jurists to get to know the British legal system and vice versa.
Q.- And while they were there -- the non-judges, that is -- they were free to accept appointments by British business men, were they not?
A.- They did not accept employment from British business men, but for a few weeks or months they stayed in England, and there at a court or in a barrister's office, they voluntarily worked in order to study the English legal system without any obligation.
Q. You don't recall the name of any other German jurists who went to the British Isles?
A. No, not at the moment.
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, I would like to have you have before you the Exhibit III for the next few minutes, which I believe is NG-388, in Document Book I-B. Dr. Rothenberger, the Document Book I-B containing Exhibit III has been placed before you. I wonder if I may ask you to turn to page 69 in the German text, and I will look at the equivalent paragraph on page 61 in the English. This refers -- this is from a situation report of yours, if you recall, and it refers to a visit which you made to a concentration camp in the Hamburg area. You say in order to smooth over the tension sometimes existing between the Secret State Police and the judges of the penal courts, I am agreed with the higher SS and police leaders that the concentration camps located in my district be visited by judges working for the political penal courts, and so on. My first question to you, Dr. Rothenberger, is this, if you recall the answer. What --- what tension of which you speak here existed at that time which made it advisable, so you thought then, to visit the concentration camp?
A. During my direct examination I already stated that the cause for my visit was given by some judges themselves; and that was, first, that the judges told me that general rumors about the conditions in a concentration camp were current in Germany and that they wanted to get some clarity on those rumors; and, secondly, in the individual criminal trials it happened also that between the police and the judges during the trial differences of opinion arose under the circumstances then prevailing; that happened of course.