Q.- Dr. Rothenberger, you are quite right. You have explained that before in your direct examination.
A.- But here also may I say that of course I have no personal recollection of this establishment of the Special Court. I only see that from the exhibit which has been submitted. A change of competency did not occur by the establishment of the Special Court in Bremen.
Q.- I assume that you will not deny, Dr. Rothenberger, on the basis of the exhibits that I have called to your attention here in the last few minutes, that you were opposed to the principle of Special Courts?
A.- At that time I was not at all opposed to the principle of the Special Courts; however, in my plans for reform of the Administration of Justice I provided that these Special Courts should be abolished, but for that period at that time I considered the establishment of a Special Court a necessary thing.
Q.- Just one more very minor question on the matter of Special Courts. I noted your comments on Exhibit 114, which is NG-515, in which you said -- that was in establishing the Special Courts in 1933 -- that some cases would be so simple that it would not be necessary for the defendant to have a defense counsel. You, I think, explained that somewhat in your direct examination. I just wanted to ask you one thing. Before a case is heard, Dr. Rothenberger -- you as a former judge can probably give me the answer -- how can you determine whether a case is so simple that no defense attorney will be required?
A.- That depends on the peculiarities of German trial procedure. By the preparation of the main trial on the part of the objective prosecution, the judge is put in a position to evaluate whether a case is simple, whether nothing is denied; for instance, the defendant admits everything: admits having committed a small theft, or whatever it may be: or whether it is a more complicated or more difficult case where it is necessary to have a defense counsel appointed. You see, according to German legal procedure it can be seen in advance whether a case is simple or complicated.
Besides, that suggestion made by me never became law.
Q.- Dr. Rothenberger, you have previously said that the SD filed reports on some of these cases, which you knew to be faked and false. Now on the basis of that, how were you in a position to tell what the course of the trial would be: that the defendant would not repudiate statements already made, or something else would occur during the trial which might alter the facts that were so simple that no defense attorney would be required? Would you give us your formula for determining, as you would have to, the simplicity of a case.
A.- May I first, in order to clarify a misunderstanding, may I first say that I, myself, was never active as a judge at the Special Court; and secondly, may I add that if in the course of the proceedings it appeared that the case was not simple after all, that then also, according to my suggestion, it was within the discretion of the presiding judge immediately to appoint a defense counsel. That can be seen from my suggestion.
Q.- But until the judge decide that the defense counsel was necessary, the defendant was floundering around on his own, is that right?
A.- The judge had the possibility to appoint a defense counsel or he had the possibility not to appoint a defense counsel, depending as to whether according to his judgment the case was a simple one or a complicated one, or did become so during the proceedings.
Q.- The point is, Dr. Rothenberger, that you believed that the defendant was not entitled as a right, in every case, to have defense counsel? That is the essence of it, is it not?
A.- No.
Q.- Well, what is the essence of it?
A.- If the defendant claimed that the case was not simple in his own opinion, then of course he could file a motion -- following that suggestion of mine -- he could make a motion to have a defense counsel appointed.
Q.- And then it was within the discretion of the judge as to whether his application would be granted?
A.- Yes, yes.
Q.- Dr. Rothenberger, on your direct examination in connection with Exhibit 165, which was NG-530, you said that in June 1942 you argued strenuously to have looters turned over by the police to the Special Courts for trial. Do you recall that testimony?
A.- In connection with NG-530, as far as I remember, I have said that the danger existed -- a matter which had been reported to me from various cities as an accomplished fact -- the danger existed that looters, after a capital air raid on a city, were simply shot by the police. In order to prevent that from happening in Hamburg also, I put the police under obligation by that agreement which I had made that the police would turn over the looters which they had arrested to the public prosecution for the purpose of having them tried by the regular courts. That, according to the context, is also to be found in NG-530.
Q.- And your authority in having the looters turned over to the Special Courts was, I suppose, that they would in their turn before the Special Court have a trial according to law, is that right?
A.- Of course; certainly.
Q.- I think that brings us to the Pretolinas case, Dr. Rothenberger. It's Exhibit 163, NG-547. Do you recall that Petrolinas, a resident of Essen, a looter, who quite in accord with your formula was turned over to the Special Court for trial? The Trial lasted one day. At the conclusion of the trial, the public prosecutor got a hold of you -- you were now in Berlin -- and asked you what to do with it: whether the fellow should be shot or not? Your answer was, of course, that he was to be shot. So he was. Then later it developed that the public prosecutor had failed to state a few facts about this case to you over the telephone, and so it developed that Petrolinas was shot without a complete review of essential facts of the crime with which he was charged. Now, Dr. Rothenberger, does it make a whole lot of difference whether a man is shot by the police without trial or by the Special Courts without adequate safeguards?
The net result is the same, isn't it?
A.- I have already commented in detail on that case. Now, however, I have to say that there is a basic misconception on the part of the prosecutor. Petrolinas was not without a trial, but quite normally just as everybody else, was executed after a trial. The reasons for the sentence arc even available in the exhibit. He was sentenced to death in an orderly procedure; that is to say, not as the prosecutor says now, "Without trial he was shot," but he was sentenced to death by the court. It is here only the question of the decision, whether that death sentence was to be executed or not. I have already explained in detail for what reasons I, in spite of all my misgivings which could exist in that case, decided to confirm the sentence.
Q.- You didn't have all the facts when you made that decision, though.
A.- They were missing only to the extent that the prosecutor who had reported to the referent and to myself about the case had not stated that that fellow Petrolinas a few days before that time had been bombed out himself, and that mistake was omitted by the prosecutor.
Q.- So you didn't have - inadvertently or not - you didn't have all the facts when you made your clemency denial.
A.- That fact of a mistake on the part of the prosecutor was not -
Q.- Excuse me -- that is a question which is subject to a yes or no answer; you have explained it repeatedly; the question is -- you did not have all the facts when you denied the clemency, did you?
A.- That one fact was not known to me.
Q.- All right -
A.- Because had it been known to me I probably would have made a different decision.
Q.- As a person in a position to grant or deny clemency, you may order a number of things done in any given situation, may you not? You can have the sentence investigated; you ca.n go out and investigate it yourself, if you deem it necessary; or, you could take other courses of action to assure yourself of the accuracy of the facts as represented to you. That is true in every case, is it not, that ever came to you for clemency review?
A.- I wont to emphasize again that there exists a basic mistake, a misconception on the part of the Prosecution. I have tried to explain that already this morning that it not only applied to the cases where I in exceptional cases had to decide on clemency matters, but it also applies to any handling of clemency decisions I believe in any country. If the leadership of the state, the supreme authority in the state, or his deputy, who in this case was the Reich Minister of Justice, decides whether a sentence is to be executed or whether it is not to be executed then it is not possible for him -- it is not neither his duty nor his right -- to again investigate facts which an extensive trial has already established; because, otherwise the head of the state would be a last resort.
It is a task of the head of the state, on the basis of established facts, of facts established by the competent courts to decide whether there is reason for clemency or whether there is no reason for clemency. No concept would lead to the fact that the independence of the decision would be abolished; a decision on facts, that is, if the head of the state would be in a position to revise the facts as they had been established in the trial, and I don't think that that is really your idea.
Q.- No, it is really not, Dr. Rothenberger, because I wasn't talking about the head of the state. I was talking about the secretary, which position you held. The head of the state is another matter; the question I asked you was whether or not you had the right to take any measures you deemed necessary for ascertaining what the facts were in a case in which you had to pass on whether or not clemency would be granted, Now you said you didn't have the duty; that is not what I asked you. I asked you if you had the right -- if you could do it. Now, the answer to that is only yes; is that right? You did have the rights nobody ever denied you the right, did they? You weren't denied that right by any statute, were you?
A.- I, in these individual case, as a deputy of the head of the state, no more did I have the right to interfere with the right or the decisions of the courts than he himself, meaning the head of the state.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question in that connection. Did party officials ever submit to you their reports or their ideas with reference to whether clemency should be granted or denied?
A.- No, no.
BY MR. KING:
Q.- Dr. Rothenberger, to get the record straight, let me ask you again.
Do you. deny -- do you not -- that you had the right to investigate the legal and factual points on which the cases rested which came before you for clemency approval or disapproval.
A.- I can only say again from the very limited experiences which I had in such matters that I do not believe having had that right. That can be seen from the entire nature of clemency matters and clemency decisions, and based upon my conception of the independence of the courts, which are the only ones competent to establish facts and nobody else.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you once more -- did you ever receive any reports from any person other than the opinion of the judge tendered to you for your consideration in connection with the clemency plea?
A.- I don't remember that in the few cases from any other individual than from the defendant or the court or the prosecution I received any applications or any information to decide in this or that sense. That I don't believe.
BY MR. KING:
Q.- Dr. Rothenberger, let's pass on to another subject. That was your feeling, Dr. Rothenberger, about the Jewish question in Germany?
A.- As for that question I have made various detailed statements in my direct examination; and, therefore, I ask if you want any supplementary statements,to put a definite question to me.
Q.- I believe you said at one time or another that Jews should no longer hold office; is that right? Public Office -
A.- That I said that? On what occasion?
Q.- If I am not mistaken, you said it at Lueneburg -- in your speech there on the 17th February 1943.
A.- May I ask you to submit the exhibit to me?
Q.- I will come back to that in a moment, Dr. Rothenberger.
A.- I don't believe that at Lueneburg I mentioned the Jewish question or discussed the Jewish question altogether, but I couldn't say for sure.
Q.- I will come back to the Lueneburg question in a few moments later; I will get the document out at that time. I still a propose the general question of your attitude toward the Jews. I believe you said in your direct examination that you did everything possible to protect the Jews; that you steered a middle-of-the-road course as long as possible -- or, words to that effect; is that in general your position?
A.- I am just looking through the Lueneburg speech, and I find out that I have not said anything there about the Jewish question. In general on the whole, in my direct examination I have stated that when I saw that the Jewish question in Germany was growing more and more difficult, I have tried to within my sphere of influence to help individually and as humanely as possible at that time in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you in that connection: I understand that the report on the meeting of the presidential board on 1 February, 1939 was not over your name, but it purports to report some things you said at the meeting. That report, I believe, quotes you as saying in substance that the fact that a debtor is a Jew should as a rule be a reason for arresting him. Did you make the statement which was attributed to you?
A.- May I ask you on what page? I don't remember; may I ask you -
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 28; I believe it was point number six -if my notes arc correct.
MR. KING: What exhibit number?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 28.
A.- NG-629, Under Roman numeral VI.
I find there under VI, according to this transcript, which was not made by me -- I find the attitude and opinion of the Ministry concerning several questions dealing with the handling of Jews, which I expressed to the Presidents of the Courts under my supervision.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, my question was whether you expressed the view which was attributed to you with reference to it.
THE WITNESS: I have no statements. I have passed on matters which had been decided in Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the information? Just read it, will you please? I haven't it before me.
THE WITNESS: First, there are various points. First in all cases where a Jew asks that a decision to be put into effect against an Aryan, the official of the court cannot refuse to carry out that execution.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that Point 7I?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is VI, It is Point I under VI.
THE PRESIDENT: What is Point 6 under the Roman Number?
THE WITNESS: Roman Six.
THE PRESIDENT: See if you can find right there the quotation to which I referred, will you?
THE WITNESS: I did not understand the quotation, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that a debtor is a Jew should, as a rule, be a reason for arresting him. Was that in your report as to the attitude of the Ministry?
THE WITNESS: Now I found that point. It was the opinion of the Ministry that the fact of being a Jew as a debtor as a rule could be reason for arrest; that, moreover, however, it depended on the individual case. May I remark in connection with that, first, that that was not my personal opinion; and secondly, that reason for arrest means an entirely different thing here than what the Tribunal understands by that at the moment. Arrest means arresting a person; whereas I have reported here about the position in civil law, the position of the Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder how you knew, incorrectly, what the Court thought was meant by arrest. Now let me ask you, under another point a little later than that, did you also report the viewpoint of the Ministry that no conviction based on the testimony of the Jew alone or that the Jews' testimony should be weighed with caution? What was that point?
MR. KING: That is at Point 8 under VI, Dr. Rothenberger.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What was that report that you made?
THE WITNESS: That was the question as to how far a Jew could or could not be heard as a witness, a question which was discussed in Berlin and it was stated that of course he can be heard as a witness. However, one should be careful in evaluating his testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: And that there should be no conviction on the testimony of a Jew alone?
THE WITNESS: Alone, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, you are entirely correct so far as I have been able to determine. I was not thinking of the Lueneburg speech. In fact, I think I was referring to this particular document which Jude Brand has been questioning you about. I wonder if you have the document before you. Would you look under Point 5 which reads as follows: "The Chief public prosecutor then reported briefly that civil servants with Jewish blood are on principle excluded from employment and that it is necessary to make a report on exceptions." You agreed with that point of view, did you not?
A. The question which the General Public Prosecutor raised here was the following: There were civil servants of Jewish decent who already since 1935 on principle could no longer be civil servants. In Hamburg, in suite of that, I still and until the surrender held several persons of mixed blood in office.
Another question, however, and that is the question which was made by the General Public Prosecutor, was whether new officials could be appointed who were Jews and that possibility in 1939 quite generally by now was excluded in Germany by law.
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, while I am passing around this next document I would like to ask you about your formal education. You received a classical education, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever study any biology?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever find in your interpretation of some of the Nazi laws that it would have been helpful to have had a few grounding courses in biology?
A, Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Prosecutor, owing to the ignorance of at least one member of the Bench, we are unable to take advantage of these documents which are in German.
MR. KING: I underrate the education of the Bench.
THE PRESIDENT: At least without the aid of a dictionary.
MR. KING: I believe there is an English copy extant and I think it was mere sleight of hand that you did not get it.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Rothenberger, the document which has been placed before you is NG-1656. It is an Information for the Fuehrer Report. I would like to , with your concurrence, read it. You say; "After the birth of her child a full-blooded Jewess sold her mother's milk to a pediatrician and concealed the fact that she was a Jewess, With this milk babies of German blood were fed in a nursing home for children. The accussed will be charged with deception. The buyers of the milk have suffered damage for mother's milk from a Jewess cannot be regarded as food for German children. The impudent behavior of the accused is an insult as well.
Relevant charges, however, have not been applied for so far the parents who were unaware of the true facts need not subsequently be worried."
Do you recall the origin of this particular document?
A. I do not remember the facts. It is quite impossible that I wrote this because the Fuehrer Information I never drafted. I do not even remember whether it ever came to my attention later. I ask to be shown the original of that Fuehrer Information.
Q. I will be very happy to do that, Dr. Rothenberger. Is that your initial?
A. That shows that I have seen it later, but not at all that I was the author. It can been seen from the original, naturally, that the Fuehrer Information had neither a date nor a signature and the Fuehrer Information also shows that there is a notation on it "to the Under-Secretary" -- for information, that means. As I can see from the initial, it apparently came to my attention without, however, identifying myself in any manner with the contents of that Fuehrer Information.
Q. Have you finished, Dr. Rothenberger ?
A. Yes.
Q. Your feeling, of the moment, is that you had nothing to do with the authorship of this document?
A. I consider it quite impossible that I would have identified myself even at that time with such an opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: I have a question of information. Would your initials have been placed on it before or after the distribution of the document?
THE WITNESS: "Whenever such Fuehrer Informations were sent out -and I cannot see that that was the case --then they were afterwards brought to my attention.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now three o'clock. Fifteen minute recess.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
HH00000042_new_0094-0124
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Rothenberger, would you look again at NG-1656?
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number is that?
MR. KING: It has not been introduced yet, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 1656?
MR. KING: Yes. It was a loose one which I distributed just before we went into recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Rothenberger, this Ministerial Councillor, Dr. Malzahn, who is mentioned in this Fuehrer information sheet -- he was in your department, wasn't he? He was in your department, wasn't he?
A I don't know Dr. Mialzahn at all.
Q Assuming for a moment that he was in your department, it would be the course of a memorandum such as this to come first to you for approval before it went on its next step?
A No. According to the contents of this Fuehrer information, this is a criminal case; the question there is as to whether fraud or insult occurred. That is the question. Therefore, Dr. Malzahn must have worked in the Penal Division, and this was not under me.
Q Assuming for a moment that it is a civil matter -- I think maybe we can argue about whether it is civil or criminal -- assuming for a moment that it was civil, that Dr. Malzahn was in your department, it would have been the course of this memorandum to go to your desk before it went to someone else, would it not have been?
A No; that is impossible from an objective point of view because, after all, this is a criminal case.
Q Wait a minute. I asked you to make a couple of assumptions. Now will you please answer the question in view of those assumptions? I said, one, assume that Mialzahn was in your department; and two, further assume that this is a civil matter. Now, will you answer the question on that basis?
And you can explain, if you wish, later.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, I object to that question. This is a hypothetical question, and every basis for comparison is lacking. It is clear that a criminal case, which was in no way under Dr. Rothenberger, went through quite different official channels; he would have received this information according to quite different principles if this were a case which was in his department.
THE PRESIDENT: The form of the question, I think, may be said to be objectionable, but counsel is surely entitled to ask this witness whether reports made by a Referent in a civil matter and in his department do or do not come to the witness before being sent elsewhere. That is a general question of practice, and you are entitled to ask it.
MR. WING: I will restate the question.
Q Was it the practice, when a subordinate of yours had written a report, that it came first to you for approval before it left your department?
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to civil matters?
BY MR. KING: In civil matters.
A Civil cases never were used for a Fuehrer information. Thus, I cannot answer the question in regard to such cases. If otherwise, however, a civil case had to be decided, then of course the civil case first came to me for my information before a decision was handed down.
Q You haven't any explanation, I suppose, as to how your initial happened to be placed on this document, on the original copy of this document?
A Yes, I do have an explanation for that now. This criminal case was reported to the Minister. The Minister, apparently, decided that a Fuehrer information sheet should be written. I cannot gather from this document whether the Fuehrer information was actually sent out, because it is not signed and does not contain a date. After the Minister had heard the report and had ordered that such a Fuehrer information be prepared, the Referent, probably under the assumption that I would be interested in this -- or for any other reasons, I don't knew--wrote on it, "To Undersecretary," that is, "for his information."
And then I note, by my initial, that I had seen this for information.
Q And then the other initial on there would indicate what to you? There are two initials, yours and one other. The other is below yours.
A I don't know whose initials those are. Those are probably Maltzahn's, that is, those of the person who reported it to the Minister. However, I don't know that; I don't know those initials. In any case, it must have been somebody from Department IV.
Q And that is all the explanation you want to make in connection with that document?
A Yes.
Q You were editor, were you not, of a paper called "Racial Biological Articles", which was published for the information of Hamburg jurists in 1934 and 1935, were you not?
A I did not write any articles about that question.
Q Were you editor of that publication? Were you editor of that publication?
A May I explain?
Q Just a moment. May I ask another question? As editor of that publication, you selected the articles for publication, did you not?
AA few judges, who had taken a course at the university -- I believe it was in 1934 -- came to me and requested me to write a preface, I believe. I haven't seen that book again in some time, and I ask if you could possibly submit it to me. I believe they asked me to write a preface for the publication of their articles. They had taken a course under a certain Professor Scheidt, at the University of Hamburg. I cannot say anything about the contents of the articles today, from memory.
In order to do so, I would have to see the book again.
Q I don't think you answered my question. I will ask it again. As editor, did you or did you not select the articles which appeared in that publication?
A No, I did not make the selection, certainly not. I only recall that I wrote a preface for the book. I cannot recall exactly who the editor was, after 13 years. If possible would you please submit the book to me?
Q And all you did was merely to write a preface to that publication, and someone else selected the articles; and when the publication appeared, just your preface, no reference to you as editor appeared? Is that right?
A I don't think so, but please submit the book to me again, because I can no longer remember the details.
Q Dr. Rothenberger, we may have opportunity to return to this subject, in which case we certainly will submit the publication to you.
Dr. Rothenberger, you told me this morning that you read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and knew the Party platform well. You recall a speech which Hitler made, a rather well publicized speech of his made before the Reichs tag on 30 January 1939. I have the "Voelkischer Beobachter " here for 1 February 1939 which carries the text of the speech. I will have some one bring it ever to you. I am sure that speech is familiar to you, is it not?
A.- No.
Q.- You never heard of it before?
A.- It is absolutely possible that I read the speech at the time. That happened on 2 February 1939. I can answer that question neither with yes or nor with no. That is absolutely impossible. I did not read every speech by Hitler.
Q.- Toward the beginning of the speech I think you will find a marked passage in the photostatic copy of the newspaper which you have. I want to read that to you. This is Hitler speaking. "If the international Jewish financiers within and without Europe succeeded in plunging the nations once more into a World War, then the result will not be the Bolschevisation of the world, and thereby victory of Jewry, but the obliteration of this Jewish race in Europe." Now whether you heard, read, or otherwise remember this speech, or particularly this passage of the speech, you knew, did you not, what Hitler's stand was on the Jewish question?
A.- As far as I am able to remember today, I did not read this speech and did not listen to it. That Hitler represented a strong attitude, especially since the beginning of the war, on the Jewish question, that was generally known in Germany.
Q.- Where were you on the 20th January, 1939? You were in Germany, weren't you?
A.- Yes, I believe that I was in Germany, but where -- well, probably in Hamburg.
Q.- And the people in Hamburg didn't listen to the Fuehrer's speeches:
A.- They did not do so in general, especially in Hamburg. People were very reserved, especially in Hamburg.
Q.- And they didn 't read their newspapers in Hamburg?
THE PRESIDENT: We think that question is a little foolish.
MR. KING-: All right, Your Honor, I will withdraw it.
BY MR. KING:
Q. - Dr. Rothenberger, I would like to come back to Exhibit 27, which is NG-075. That is, of course, your memorandum to Hitler or your memorandum, rather, which eventually reached Hitler and on which you and through which you attribute your appointment to the position of undersecretary. The purpose of my examining certain phrases from this speech is to enable me better to understand what your new program for the independence of the judiciary was. I am sure you know that memorandum much better than I do. I want to read to you several paragraphs from it. You say in one place -- for the benefit of the translators these excerpts will be very shorty You say in one place, "Law must serve the political leadership." Then you say in another place on Page 3 of the document, "He who is striving toward a new world order cannot move in the limitation of an orderly Ministry of Justice. To accomplish such a far reaching revolution in domestic and foreign policy it is only possible if on one hand all out moded institutions, concepts and habits have been done away with, if need be in a brutal manner." Then you say still further on, "The fuehrer is the supreme judge, Theoretically the authority to pass judgment is only his. " Then you say still further on, a judge who is in a direct relation of fealty to the Fuehrer must judge like the Fuehrer." All of these phrases which I have read appear in that memorandum, and based on them I want to ask you this, and perhaps several other questions. You say you have repeatedly said that the purpose of your program was to establish an independence of the judiciary. However, the essence of your program as it seems clear to me from reading your memorandum is that the Fuehrer is the supreme judge.
As you say here, theoretically the authority to pass judgment is only his. A judge in a position of direct relation of fealty to the. Fuehrer must judge like the Fuehrer. Now my question to you, Dr. Rothenberger, is simply this: When you speak of the independence of the German judiciary, how do you reconcile that with these statements that the Fuehrer is the supreme judge and that only he can actually judge and that all judges must really reflect his thinking?
A.- During my direct examination I have already tried to explain the thoughts which made me write this memorandum. It is extraordinarily difficult to do so briefly, especially to state one's attitude only in regard to two or three sentences which are taken out of their context. Therefore I am of the opinion that the memorandum as such should speak for itself and that I leave it up to the Tribunal to form its judgment about the actual thoughts contained in tho memorandum. And if in spite of that I may answer that question only very briefly in a concret manner, I have to say the following: In 1942 the authoritarian state was as such a fact in Germany. That is to say, Hitler was also the highest judicial authority, and if any chance or possibility still existed to remove all the damage which had occurred during the course of years and all the burdens with which the Administration of Justice was burdened by the Party and by the SS, we used to say at the time on the part of tho thousand little Hitlers who every day jeopardized the independence of tho individual judge, I am saying that under those conditions the only possibility to bring about any amelioration first of all was Hitler himself. That it was impossible to convince Hitler, I and later on everybody realized. But I believed that it was possible to convince him, and I had to seize that possibility as a last chance. And if it would have been possible to convince him, then in effect the independence of the courts would have been reestablished again. For in that case this direct relationship between Hitler and the judiciary which I asked for would have been established and all other influences which burdened every judge every day would have been eliminated.
