Q. Did Dr. Rothenberger raise any objections against his appointment as under secretary to you?
A. When Dr. Rothenberger first visited me at the time, and I told him that he was being considered for an appointment as under secretary, he immediately interrupted me and said--"but under Frank I shall on no account become under secretary." Thereupon I calmed him down and told him that Frank's becoming minister of justice is in my opinion absolutely out of the question. Whether I named him the person of Thierack at the time already, I don't know any. more but I consider it possible; I can only remember exactly that Rothenberger expressly stated that under Frank he would on no account become under secretary. However, I can also remember the second circumstance, namely, that he said whether all this entire reform which he intended could not be postponed until the end of the war. Thereupon I was, according to my instructions, obligated to toll aim that due to the situation this was out of the question, but that the new minister of justice would be appointed immediately.
Q. Dr. Lammers, do you know anything about the fact that the memorandum by Dr. Rothenberger did dot get to Hitler via the usual way, via Martin Bormann, that is the party chancery, or if it reached Hitler in an unofficial manner?
A. The memorandum according to the usual practice would have had to go via the minister of justice because at that time Rothenberger was Oberlandesgerishtspresident; and then from the minister of justice through me. But I know because I only found out about this memorandum later that it went through the adjutant's office of the Fuehrer whose name was Abrecht.
Q. Was Thierack very pleased about the program for reform which Rothenberger laid down in his memorandum? Did he follow them or not?
A. I cannot say that. Basically he was in favor of a certain idea of reform; to what extent he approved of Rothenberger's line of thought I cannot say, but I can testify as to one fact; That between Thierack and Rothenberger in my presence there were Conversations about the judicial reform, and these conversations became very excited. Rothenberger defended his opinions very throughly, and Thierack objected to this and interrupted Rothenberger and stated--"you are not the minister, but I am the minister."
Q. When was that? May I interrupt you, Dr. Lammers, so that we shall determine the time more exactly. Please tell me when these events occurred which you discussed.
A. That happened immediately after the appointment of Thierack and Rothenberger had been completed. They were with me in my quarters for dinner or supper, and I considered the place not suitable in front of my officials and other people who were present to go more into this conversation, and I made efforts to have this difference of opinion, which became apparent already between Rothenberger and Thierack, to smooth it out and make it appear trifling and to eliminate it from the conversation. I succeeded in this, but already at this time I gained the conviction that the two could never work together in harmony.
Q. Dr. Lammers, when Thierack interrupted Dr. Rothenberger brusquely with--"not you are the minister, but I am the minister," what in particular were they discussing at this time. What was the subject of this fight? Can you still remember that?
A. I cannot say that with certainty any more. In any case, they were discussing plans for a judicial reform.
Q. I did not want to ask you this in a suggestive question, and, since you. do not know any more, I want to refresh your recollection and ask you whether it was a question of the discus sion of the authority of power of attorney authorization?
A. The authorization was discussed on this occasion, and the phrasing of the authorization was also the subject of a difference of opinion between Thierack and Rothenberger. I believe that these differences referred to a so-called preamble.
Q. Do you still remember what preamble Dr. Rothenberger desired at the time?
A. Well, it was more strongly worded than the preamble which actually appeared in the decree of 20th of August,--in the preamble that was used; that is the actual preamble, it says "for the creation of a strong National Socialist administration of Justice," or something of that kind. And, if I am not mistaken, Rothenberger wanted to offer a more general formula which was not directed toward National. Socialism; it was something to the effect that the administration of Justice was one of the pillars of the state, and, therefore, in accordance with that was to be reformed. Rothenberger always especially was interested in raising the judiciary; that was his main interest.
Q. Yes. In this authorization it says that the Minister of Justice should be authorized to deviate from the laws that were in effect -- the valid laws. Would you please make some remarks about that clause; was that something unusual?
A. Well, this clause was absolutely obvious, but how can one make a judicial reform if one does not want to deviate from existing laws? But, on the other hand, nobody was thinking of having the Minister of Justice now undertake a judicial reform alone for himself; and, the decree provided that he could not do that because there were two reservations in the decree -- first, the reservation that this reform has to be carried out according to the closer instructions and directives which the Minister of Justice would receive from the Fuehrer.
And, secondly, there was stated that for all measures of the Minister of Justice the agreement of the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancery, that is myself, and the agreement of the Chief of the Party Chancery was necessary. With this provision it was assured that the Minister of Justice not alone by by-passing other offices could undertake some kind of judicial reform because he was obligated to obtain these two approvals, and I certainly would not have given him the approval if he had, for example, wanted to create a new code of criminal procedure, by way of decree, because I could not have given my approval for that -- I would have had to submit this draft to all of the ministers. In practice, for actual programs of reform for the Minister of Justice it was out of the question that he could act alone.
Q. Thank you; that is enough. Dr. Lammers, you were speaking of personal and technical differences of opinion between Thierack and Dr. Rothenberger which became apparent at the very beginning. Did you realize from the very beginning that the appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as under secretary was unpleasant to Thierack?
A. I didn't understand the last part of your question.
Q. Did you realize from the very beginning that Dr. Rothenberger's appointment asunder secretary was not pleasing to Thierack?
A. It was not obvious, but one could feel it. Rothenberger as under secretary was, I could say, the only case in which the Fuehrer forced a certain under secretary upon a minister, and Thierack accepted that at the time because it was requested; but I had the feeling that perhaps he would have preferred to select some one who was more to his liking from the very beginning. I don't know absolutely; and I don't believe that Rothenberger and Thierack knew each other before or had contact with each other.
Q. We are now coning to the events surrounding the dismissal of Dr. Rothenberger. Did you tell Dr. Rothenberger at the tine he was dismissed because Hamburg professors submitted a report concerning him?
A. Well, the minister of justice had told me that Rothenberger-no, I have to perhaps go into more detail. Rothenberger had written a book, and this book allegedly contained -- he was allegedly guilty of plagiarism. He took over word by work laws from the book of a Swiss professor by the name of Fehr. He only made certain modifications but used the sane words as Fehr, and this was regarded as plagiarism. Thierack told me that this is something which makes Rothenberger's position untenable; that complaints are already in existence on the part of the professors in Hamburg -- from the University of Hamburg where Rothenberger had formerly been president of the district court of appeal; and I have to require that he be removed from his position. These facts were reporter to the Fuehrer, and the Fuehrer, on request of Thierack, approved Rothenberger's dismissed.
Q. Thank you; all right. Later did it become apparent that actually a report or complaints were made by Hamburg professors on account of this plagiarism?
A. I discussed the matter of plagiarism with Dr. Rothenberger and Rothenberger doubted it. I again asked Thierack to come and see me, and on this occasion Thierack somewhat retracted his former statement as to the extent which he had formerly stated that complaint by the Hamburg professors had been submitted. He later said it had not yet been submitted, but one could expect it with certainty.
Q. In other words, he had anticipated more than he could assume responsibility for?
A. Yes, in my opinion he did. Especially later on it became apparent that this Professor Fehr considered this a natter entirely harmless, and this charge of plagiarism would have cone to nothing if Thierack had not started it.
Q. Thank you. Did Thierack in the spring of 1943 request you to establish a second position of under secretary in the Ministry of Justice?
A. Yes, Thierack urged a second under secretary.
Q. Can you make a statement why he did this? For what reason?
A. He told me that Rothenberger did not support him sufficiently in his work; and what, therefore, he was not sufficiently helped in his business as Minister, and that there was a necessity for a second under secretary to be appointed.
Q. Is it known to you that the form of the dismissal was made by Thierack in a very insulting manner?
A. Well, I would not go that far. It was like this, that after the dismissal documents had been completed I then handed them or forwarded them to the Reich Minister of Justice and it was his business now to put this dismissal document into an appropriate form; and as far as I know he refrained from dismiss -ing Dr. Rothenberger in a dignified manner, especially. However, he also refrained from -- and this could have been done -- offering Dr. Rothenberger another office in the administration of Justice. I had no occasion in this affair, which was an affair of the Administration of Justice, to interfere.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much. I have completed my examination of the witness.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I had an affidavit by the witness, Dr. Lammers, in my document book and in consideration of the decision of the Tribunal that witnesses who are present have to be examined, I shall now examine the witness.
BY DR. SCHILF FOR DEFENDANT KLEMM:
Q. Dr. Lammers, you had already made some statements about the events in August, 1942 and as far as they concerned the appointment of Dr. Rothenberger as under secretary. May I ask you to make some supplementary statements as to how the appointment of the Minister of Justice himself -- that was Dr. Thierack at the time -- came about? Dr. Thierack was appointed as Minister at the same time when Dr. Rothenberger became undersecretary.
A. Well, the development was as follows: After the death of the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, Under-secretary Schlegelberger was put in charge of the carrying out of the business of the Reich Minister of Justice and it was always my effort to maintain that condition, if possible, until the end of the war.
For the party, however, Herr Schlegelberger was not particularly pleasing. Between him and the party there was a certain tension and this tension, of course, increased at the moment when Schlegelberger became acting Minister of Justice and especially in April, 1942, when the famous Reichstag speech was delivered by the Fuehrer with strong attacks against the Administration of Justice contained therein, and thereupon the urging of the party to have a Minister of Justice appointed became stronger without at the time that is in the Spring of 1942, the person of a candidate like Thierack being mentioned. That happened for me at least quite suddenly, late in the Summer of 1942, that is, the end of July or beginning of August, and from the facts I gained the conviction that the driving force for Thierack's appointment was Reichsleiter and Reichminister Bormann who at the same time was the so-called led Secretary of the Fuehrer. He apparently suggested Thierack as Minister of Justice to Hitler and that very urgently.
Q. Dr. Lammers, do you know anything as to whether the defendant Klemm had any influence in regard to Thierack's appointment? First I want to ask you, did you know Herr Klemm before?
A. I knew Klemm slightly without having gotten into closer contact with him, and it is my conviction that he did not have any influence upon this appointment, and perhaps could not have any. That was in the Summer of 1942 when the Fuehrer's headquarters was in the Ukraine and Bormann was every day in Hitler's surroundings and had the possibility to gain access to him, see him daily, and Klemm was sitting in Munich in the party chancellory. At least I have not the slightest reason to think that Klemm had any influence on Bormann and Bormann never told me that either.
Q. Dr. Lammers, when Herr Wandschneider examined you, you were speaking about this decree of the 20 August 1942, that is this famous authorization?
A. Yes.
Q. I now want to ask you, do you know whether, when this decree was drafted, or when other preparations were being made, the party chancellory could have participated?
A. As far as I know, not, because the draft for this decree of the 20 August 1942 originated, as far as I know, when Rothenberger was already there and was brought along by him when his appointment became effective at the time. I do not believe that it had anything to do with the party chancellory.
Q. Dr. Lammers, now I still have to request you to make a statement in regard to another point. In this trial it was determined that at the end of January, 1945, in the Sonnenburg Plenitentiary a Commando of the SS gathered hundreds of prisoners in the courtyard and shot them. Furthermore, it was shown during the trial here that one of the witnesses had a telephone conversation with General Public Prosecutor Hansen. From this the assumption was concluded that one of the gentlemen of the Ministry of the Justice had something to do with this shooting of hundreds of prisoners.
Is it known to you that before that time, that is, before the end of January, 1945, the territory in which the Sonnenburg Penitentiary was originated was under military power and if so, under what military authority?
A. The territory of the River Oder where Sonnenburg was at that time was under the power of Himmler who was supreme commander of the so-called Wistula Army.
Q. Can you approximately state the time when Himmler was given this authority?
A. It must have been toward the end of January. After the break-through of Baranow on the 12 of January the Russian front came up to the Oder and at that time Himmler was appointed. I can't tell you the exact date.
Q. The break-through of Baranow was on what date?
A. I know that was on the 12 of January because that was the critical day when, in Baranow, the front began to sway and made the Russian break-through possible, which immediately came up the Oder.
Q. Do you still recall instructions issued by Himmler now as Commander of the Wistula Army about evacuations in this army territory under him?
A. At that time Himmler forbade very strictly any evacuations on tho right or left bank of the Oder River. Whether he issued that order as supreme commander of the Vistula Army or in his capacity of one of his many offices as Reich Minister of the Interior as Minister Plenipotentiary of Economics, as Chief of the Police, that I don't know. In any case there was such a prohibition against evacuations at the time and the Reich Defense Commissars obeyed this strictly. And this provision referred not only to the evacuation of offices and files but also referred to the entire civilian population and it was very strictly enforced, at the time. I know that from remembering individual cases in which I was asked for help.
Q. Dr. Lammars, may I ask you to mention one of those cases to the Tribunal when you were asked for help?
A. At that tine there was a scientific institute which I supervised in my official capacity. It was an institute for cancer research.
It had. been moved from Berlin to Eberswalde on the Oder. How, after the 12 of January, when the front began to recede there, and the situation became precarious, this scientific material was supposed to be removed. This, however, was refused by the Reich Defense Commissar or his subordinates. And I was asked for help and only with the utmost effort did I succeed in having valuable scientific material which had been collected over 50 years, at that time transported away from Eberswalde and one single railroad car was necessary for this; but this already created very bad morale among the population. In any case, at that time, it was impossible to undertake any large-scale evacuations from this territory.
Q. You mentioned the Reich Defense Commissar of this territory. Would you please tell the Tribunal, as far as you know, the name of this Reich Defense Commissar?
A. Well, yes. As far as I know that was Gauleiter Stuertz.
Q. Thank you. The exceptions in regard to evacuations, could Gauleiter Stuertz and Reich Defense Commissar give this permission or was another office competent for this, perhaps Himmler himself.
A. Well, to what estent Himmler reserved that right to himself I don't know. In any case, I know that the Reich Defense Commissars always gave a negative reply to requests for evacuation at that time and one could succeed at the most with Himmler. For instance, in the example which I mentioned, I succeeded because I explained that such valuable material, which could be reconstructed only in decades, could not be left and be destroyed.
Q And at the time you were going about the intention of evacuating the prisoners of the Sonnenburg penitentiary?
A I did not know anything about that intention. I heard about the Sonnenburg case and the killing of prisoners only after I had become a prisoner but as I look back upon the conditions of that time I consider it absolutely impossible that the Reich Defense Commissar should at that time have given permission to evacuate hundreds of prisoners while the civilian population which was at liberty had to remain.
Q You have already stated that the Reich Defense Commissar had a large degree of power at the time?
A Yes, his power was so extensive that the highest Reich Authorities depended upon the approval of the Reich Defense Commissar because there wore evacuated officers of these high agencies in the districts of the different Reich Commissars and even in Berlin the evacuation ministry and other offices depended upon the agreement of Minister Goebbels. I remember a case very well at the time when I protested and said: "What has Minister Goebbels to do with it, that is none of his business" and I was given the reply: "Well Goebbels is Reich Defense Commissar of Berlin and if evacuations are undertaken the Reich Defense Commisar has to give his approval."
Q My final question. You mentioned Goebbels as Reich Defense Commissar. You must be referring to the City of Berlin?
A Yes, for the city of Berlin, and Stuertz for the Landkreis (countryside).
Q I have no further questions.
BY DR. KUBOSCHOK: For the defendant Schlegelberger:
Q About this situation when Schlegelberger was released, at the time was Schlegelberger offered another job?
A I personally only on behalf of my own person told him that if ho wanted to obtain a position in another office I would make an effort so that he could become President of the Reich Administrative Court, and thereupon Schlegelberger replied that under no circumstances did he want to accept a now job. He had harbored for a long time the desire to retire and now wanted to avail himself of this opportunity.
Q In the spring of 1942 the question arose as to whether half Jews should be put on an equal basis as Jews, in other words the transport to the East was concerned. What was Schlegelberger's answer to this question. Did he write a letter to you in regard to this question if I may be a little more explicit?
A I know what you are referring to. Schlegelberger wrote a letter to me. The letter dates from March, probably the Middle of March, 1942, and in this letter he expressed his worry about the fact that on the 6 of March 1942 a discussion had taken place in the RSHA about the Jewish problem, and that matters were in preparation which he considered to be impossible, and in this letter Schlegelberger then expressed the desire that he wanted to discuss this affair with me. I answered his letter. I don't know whether I did so in writing or only over the telephone but I informed him that of course I would be at his disposal for a discussion but I did not consider his worry justified at all at the time, because first I had reported this problem to the Fuehrer and the Fuehrer had told me the final solution of this Jewish problem should be stopped. If in spite of that further discussions took place on the 6th of March this was done against this order and that I I would report this affair again and therefore he could be at rest and could be assured that nothing would happen before this matter was clarified by a report again.
Whether I again spoke with Schlegelberger later on or not I don't know. If I did speak with him I emphasized to him that in spite of this meeting which took place on the 6th of March 1942 there was no cause for the anxiety which he had gathered from the documents available for him.
Q. But it was carried further. The Tribunal hare has the documents. In the further discussion there was further pressure by SS officers and then Schlegelberger wrote a letter in which ho asked for a limitation of the circle of persons who would be considered: the elimination of quarter Jews, the elimination of those Jews who could no longer have children, and in which it is suggested further on that a half Jew who can propagate further could by sterilization prevent being transported to the East.
Q In regard to the last suggestion, do you believe that this idea which Schlegelberger expressed in this letter was original with him or whether that idea had been expressed before?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, for the reason that the question calls for a conclusion of the witness as to the state of mind of Dr. Schlegelberger, a fact about which the witness is obviously uninformed.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask for information. I thought the question was whether the idea
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The question was whether the idea originated with Schlegelberger.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand the question was whether this suggested alternative of sterilization instead of deportation was original with Dr. Schlegelberger.
If the witness knows that that idea had been promulgated before Dr. Schlegelberger wrote his letter the witness would be permitted to answer the question.
BY DR. KUBOSCHOK:
Q Yes, and this is what the question was.
Witness, do you believe that before Schlegelberger made this suggestion in this latter this question had been opened up already be others?
A I should assume that this happened: That this question did not originate with Schlegelberger because such subjects were discussed frequently at that time.
Q From your recollection do you believe that this question came to you on the basis of some direct requests that were made to Hitler to be put on an equal basis with aryans?
A I can remember this question was also opened by circles of half Jews, persons who were concerned.
Q Thank you. Witness, before this Tribunal transfers of prisoners to the police were discussed, transfers which were made on the basis of an order by Hitler. These transfers probably began at the time of Guertner! Can you say anything as to Guertner's attitude in regard to these transfers or whether he tried to do anything against it?
A These transfers which he was ordered to undertake usually via the adjutant's office of the Fuehrer or by Reichleiter Bormann were very inconvenient for Reich Minister Guertner. He repeatedly in individual cases complained about this to me. far as I could help him I checked the cases and again reported them on the basis of the files and in individual cases I was successful that this measure was withdrawn. The Reich Minister of Justice then made efforts to find a procedure by which the possibility would be created to have such sentences which were considered untenable by the Reich Government modified by the creation of the so-called legal complaint.
Q Tins Guertner's practice continued under Schlegelberger?
A I believe that such cases occurred although Schlegelberger never agreed to it.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question please of Dr. Kuboschok: You only said "transfers" would you make it clear what you meant by transfers, I assume you meant transfers to the police?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Transfers to the police of a person who had been sentenced by a Court, who had served a sentence and had been transferred to the police.
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted the record to be clear as to what you meant by transfers.
BY DR. KUBOSCHOK:
Q Yes Your Honor.
Do you remember any individual cases from Schlegelberger's time?
A I cannot remember any individual cases but cases did occur.
Q Thank you. Would it have been possible in accordance with your knowledge of the conditions at the time via the written or the oral way of making a report and beyond trying to justify the sentence of the Court to oppose and resist the order, speaking from the practical point of view, would it have been possible for the Ministry of Justice to instruct the prison authorities to refuse to give up the prisoners on the wishes of the police?
A I believe that the Ministry of Justice could not let it get to such a point where the police would interfere by force in the orisons. The Ministry of Justice would have been responsible, and one agency of the State has to avoid getting into that type of conflict with another.
Q According to your experiences, do you consider it at all possible that a police office would not execute any direct order by Hitler?
A I believe that Hitler's would have been carried cut by the police without further ado, and the persons concerned would have been taken out of the prisons by means of force and weapons.
DR. KUBUSCOK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defense desire to make this witness their own?
(No response)
You may cross-examine.
MR. KING: The Prosecution desires to divide its cross-examination of Dr. Lammers between myself and Mr. LaFollette.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Lammers, just one or two formal questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I am very sorry, the time for a recess has arrived. Fifteen minutes recess.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, before beginning the cross examination I simply want to announce that I have delivered to the Secretary General German copies of the order which I delivered in English this morning earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: I hear you, but not through the phones. Will you try it again?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Do Your Honors hear me now through the headphones?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Lammers, just one or two formal questions concerning your background. You were appointed State Secretary in the Reich Chancellery, were you not, on the 30th of January or thereabouts, 1933? Is that true?
A. I am only hearing the English. I did not get the German translation.
Q. Can you hear me now?
A. Yes, I can hear you now.
Q. Dr. Lammers, you were appointed State Secretary in the Reich Chancellery on or about the 30th of January 1933, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say you did not meet Dr. Rothenberger until the first part of August 1942, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All of that time in the intervening nine years you continued to hold your position in the Chancellery, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At various times you received certain Party honors, did you not? You were awarded the Golden Party Badge in 1937 and you were appointed SS Obergruppenfuehrer in 1940, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. In your position as secretary in the Party Chancellery you had opportunity, did you not, to confer with and see Martin Bormann very often?
A. There is an error in that question. I was not secretary at the Party Chancellery. I was undersecretary of the Reich Chancellery. I assume that that was just a translating error. I frequently had to have official contact on account of my office with Reichsleiter Bormann.
Q. After Dr. Rothenberger came to Berlin in 1942, how many times would you say from your recollection did you see Dr. Rothenberger with Martin Bormann?
A. First of all I have to add that I first met Bormann in official contact only in 1941 and not during the nine years. For only in 1941 did Reichsleiter Bormann become head of the Party Chancellery. Until then Hess held that office. As I said before, I did not know Rothenberger before. That does not mean to say that possibly he was not introduced to me some place or other. Perhaps he was introduced to me at Hamburg, and I may have shaken hands with him and I may have spoken a few words with him, because at Hamburg he was one of the eminent leaders of the official authority. I only made his acquaintance at about the time I mentioned before, that is to say, at the time when his appointment to become undersecretary was under consideration.
Q. That is very interesting, Dr. Lammers, but it is not responsive to my question. My question was, Dr. Lammers, do you recall how many times if at all you remember seeing Dr. Rothenberger in conversation with or attending a conference with Martin Bormann, and I of course refer to the time after Dr. Rothenberger came to Berlin in 1942.
A. Well, I have said so before; I never met Rothenberger before. And when he obtained that position, I occasionally did meet him. That was after 1942.
Q. Dr. Lammers, let's take it again and slowly. My question was, do you recall when after 1942 Rothenberger came to Berlin after that, do you recall any instances in which you remember seeing Dr. Rothenberger in the presence of Martin Bormann? I am referring to the period of--
A. I cannot remember any such occasion.
Q. That is the answer to the question.
You told Dr. Wandschneider this morning, I believe, that you talked with the Fuehrer the first part of May 1942 concerning the memorandum which a prominent lawyer had submitted to the Fuehrer, is that right?
A. Yes. In May 1941 the memorandum which plays a part here came to my notice for the first time. But I did not know from whom it had originated, for it was only afterwards that I asked the adjutant's office of the Fuehrer to send it to me, and shortly afterwards that office did send it to me and it was sent to me in a form which did not make it possible for me to recognize that Rothenberger was the author. That he was the author I only heard at a later date.
Q. Dr. Lammers, you said in May 1941. Did you mean 1941 or 1942?
A. 1942. I meant 1942.
Q. Dr. Lammers, I want to show you a letter which is in evidence before this court, Exhibit No. 27, NG-075. It is the first letter in that document. I want to show you the letter and then ask you a question concerning it.
A. Well, that is what I said here. It says that that memorandum was handed to me. Then I heard that Rothenberger wrote it and then I asked the Fuehrer's adjutant's office to send it to me.
Q. So that your testimony this morning is based on the letter which you have just seen.
A. Whether I remember this letter -- well naturally I remember it. I wrote it.
Q. Will you answer my question, please. Was your testimony concerning the statement by Hitler based on the letter which you have just seen?
A. What statement by Hitler?
Q. The statement that he had received a memorandum from a prominent jurist.
A. Well, it was that which caused me, as is proved here, that caused me to speak to Schlegelberger, and it was then that I asked for that memorandum to be sent to me, and I asked the personal adjutant's office to send it to me.