Q You came from Copenhagen to the meeting in Berlin?
A Yes.
Q Yes. You have known Dr. Rothenberger now for about twenty seven years, haven't you?
A No.
Q Didn't you say you met him in 1920 first?
A Yes, it was in the 20's.
Q But not in 1920?
A It was in the 1920's that I made his acquaintance on one occasion. We had a talk of perhaps five minutes. Rothenberger didn't even remember that in 1933; when he called me to him he said, we had never met before. I said, oh, yes we have had one talk; that was all.
Q Dr. Drescher, in the past few hours have you talked with Dr. Wandschneider about the general subject of concentration camps in Hamburg?
A We had a general conversation.
Q What did you decide to say as a result of that general conversation?
A I have been here in Nuernberg new for seven days and naturally we have talked about all sorts of things, and we have also discussed the question of concentration camps, Neueugamme, there was also a concentration camp at Fuhlsbuettel. What is it you want to know?
Q I thought I made that clear in my question. I asked you what, as a result of your conversations with Dr. Wandschneider, you decided to say in connection with concentration camps.
A Weol, I told him what concentration camps we had in the surroundings; that is what he asked me about.
Q I am sorry; go ahead.
A I never went to one of the Hamburg concentration camps.
Q How many concentration camps were there around Hamburg?
AAs far as I know there was only Neuengamme. That was the only concentration camp proper, but I don't know when that was established. I believe that was during the war while I was away, and besides, the police had a police prison in Hamburg in a street called Bei Den Huetten. That was always called briefly the Huetten Prison. Prisoners were delivered there against whom proceedings were instituted and there they stayed until they were brought before the judge. That prison was found to small in 1933. Therefore, the police approached the Administration of Justice. In those days I had nothing to do with the prisons. That was only after the centralization.
Q What days are these of which you speak? You say: "In those days I had nothing to do with them."
A Until the centralization, from 1933 until the centralization of the Administration of Justice I had nothing to do with prisons. During that time, between 1933 and 1934, I believe it was, the police rented at the big prison of Fuhlsbuettel one block from the Administration of Justice. It was the women's prison. That was to be the extension of the Huetten Prison. The Administration of Justice had nothing to do with the prisoners who were held in that block, with the only exception of the food which was brought over against payment from the big kitchen. It was the police who paid, the administration of Justice for that food. Later I heard that concentration camp inmates were moved into that police prison at Fuhlsbuettel. For example, persons after the 30 July 1934, as I have been told, were soon after discharged.-
Q Excuse me one moment. What was the name of that official?
A What official are you referring to?
Q The individual discharged.
A He was not an official. People had been brought to this prison who were under suspicion of having taken part in the Rochm Putsch and those people were discharged afterwards. That was the state of affairs which I found when the administration of Justice was centralized and when the Administration of prisons came under my direction. I tried with due emphasis to get the police out of that block because I needed it for my own purposes.
Q I don't want to cut short any necessary explanation in answer to my question. I think, however, that what you have said already answers part of it and what you are saying now goes far beyond the explanation that I wanted. Can you tell me about the Neuengamme Concentration Game? How far from Hamburg was it located and did you knew about that?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: One moment, please. May it please the Court, I object to this question from the Prosecutor. Until now I thought it right to allow the witness to answer, but I think that his questioning now exceeds the subject of direct examination to such an extent that even with the greatest tolerance I cannot concede it as being justified.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled.
BY MR. KING:
Q Would you tell me about the Neueugamme Concentration Camp?
A I never was there. I do not know when it was established. As I mentioned before, I assume that it was established during the war. I had no connection with it either in my official capacity nor as a private citizen.
Q That is sufficient for mo unless you feel it necessary to add more. Did Dr. Wandschneider yesterday or today indicate to you the general nature of the discussion we had yesterday -- Dr. Rothenberger and I -- about a certain affair which involved concentration camps in and around Hamburg?
A Yes
Q You already know the facts but I will repeat them and I want to ask you several specific questions concerning them and I want to be sure that you understand them. You know, of course, the individuals Streckenbach and Kauffmann. You know Streckenbach, do you?
A Yes, I know Strenckenbach.
Q And you said you knew Kauffmann, and of course you know Dr. Rothenberger?
A Just a moment. Who is Koch?
Q Kauffmann.
A Kauffmann, yes, yes.
Q Now, do you knew anything about and do you recall any facts about brutalities which resulted in murder of concentration camp inmates in Neueugamme or perhaps in other concentration camps in the Hamburg area which came to your attention while you were attorneygeneral in Hamburg?
A No, nothing.
Q You never heard of any abuses whatsoever while you were attorneygeneral or before or afterwards which occured in concentration camps in the Hamburg area?
A No.
Q Nothing ever came to your attention?
THE PRESIDENT: He has answered the question. You will have to accept his answer.
A I never heard anything about it in my official capacity. Privately I hear very little about it because people were afraid to discuss things with a person in an official position, which perhaps might result in unpleasant consequences to them. I heard about the interior of concentration camps for the first time when I sat in Prinz Albrecht Strasse in Berlin and the police officials, Gestapo people, one of whom was in my room day and night, told me something about it.
THE PRESIDENT: He has answered your question. Proceed more rapidly, Mr. King.
We are wasting time this afternoon.
MR. KING: I am satisfied with the answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead and ask another question.
BY MR. KING:
Q Do you remember a report submitted to you on concentration camps abuses which was written by one Dr. Stegemann?
A Dr. Stegemann?
Q I will spell it : S-T-E-G-E-M-A-N-N-.
A No, I don't remember. May I see it?
Q I am asking you if you remember the report.
A No.
Q You don't recall in Dr. Rothenberger's presence tearing that report up and throwing it in the wastebasket?
A No.
MR. KING: The Prosecution has no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Drescher, I should like to ask you a question or two.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What office were you holding when you caused the release of the prisoners which later caused you some difficulties?
AAt that time I was the public prosecutor general in Hamburg.
Q And, very briefly, what procedure did you fellow in causing their release? I mean did you issue an order that they should be released?
A Yes.
Q You made the order?
A Yes.
Q Did you have to consult with any other officials before making the order?
A No, I could not do that.
Q Thank you. Another point: You said that Rothenberger and you discussed cases of misconduct of the police with the gauleiter.
You and he went together, you said, and discussed cases with the Gauleiter.
A No, I did not say that. We did discuss some cases, penal cases; misconduct, no.
Q What kind of cases did you discuss with the Gauleiter in connection with Dr. Rothenberger?
A Those were cases, for example, where a party functionary was being blamed with having committed a punishable offense.
Naturally, the Gauleiter was interested in that because they were old friends of his and he wanted to know what was the matter. We told him.
Q It was misconduct by party members that was the subject of your discussions?
A To clear up things may I say misconduct in this case is the same thing as punishable offense, --or am I wrong, Your Honor?
Q Did you discuss with the Gauleiter cases in which party members had been charged with doing something which was against the law?
A Yes.
Q Did those cases come up in court afterwards?
A Oh, yes.
Q I have only one other question. In referring to the defendant, Dr. Klemm, you said that he investigated difficult cases in the provinces. Would you tell me over what area -- I don't mean Klemm--Joel investigated difficult cases in the provinces, over what area did he make those investigations in person?
A It extended over the whole of Germany, Joel was together with another gentleman that is until 1939.
Q Was it Altreich only?
A Yes. I don't know anything beyond that. I wasn't there after that.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all I wanted to know.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q May I address two questions to the witness on re-direct examination?
Dr. Drescher, you said under cross examination that you did not serve your term. Is it not correct to say that if the two months were counted you did serve it in part?
A Yes, what I should have said was the remaining sentence.
Q You further stated that you discharged those prisoners by mistake; that only referred to the Communists, didn't it?
A Yes, only Communists.
Q The others you released for humane reasons?
A Yes, about 400.
Q When your friend Letz told you he was of the opinion that you would not have to serve the remainder of the term, did you think what wanted to express by not serving the remainder was for those humane reasons?
A I believe that if Himmler had not interfered the administration of justice on it's own initiative would never have introduced proceedings against me.
Disciplinary proceedings as first was done could have been instituted against me for I had to assume the responsibility for such accidents which had occurred in my area but I do not believe that the administration of justice on it's own initiative would have instituted penal proceedings against me. There was no reason to do that.
Q Thank you. May it please the Court, I have no further question;
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I am now calling the witness, Eiffe and I would ask you to permit me to examine him.
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God the Almighty and Omniscient that I will speak the pure truth and "will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, will you tell the Court please when you were born and your personal data?
A My name is Peter Ernst Eiffe. I was born on the 28 August 1898 in Hamburg.
Q Would you say what positions you held from 1933 until the collapse and what your occupations are today.
A On the 18th of March 1933 at the decision of the Senate of Hamburg I was appointed to Berlin as Hamburg Minister. In 1932 I decided to join the party. My membership dates from June 1933. In Berlin it was my task as the Hamburg minister delegate with the Reich Government to represent the interests of Hamburg. When the Reichrat was dissolved in February 1934 I was given the official designation "Senate Advisor", "Senate Syndikus", and I became a Hamburg civil servant.
From that day onwards I dealt with purely economic tasks. In particular it was my job to represent the interests of the overseas trade in Berlin.
Q Since when have you known Dr. Rothenberger?
AA few days after my appointment I made Dr. Rothenberger's acquaintance in Berlin. I had not seen him before but I knew that he was a jurist of repute. I liked him at once on account of the fact that he was so learned and on account of the fact that his general knowledge and education was very good, and I am making special mention of this because I felt comforted when I saw that Reichsstatthalter Kauffmann was placing men in important posts of whom one could tell immediately they were of certain stature and who possessed the necessary professional qualifications.
Q Witness, during the war you were a soldier, were you not?
A I was a soldier from the first to the last day of the first and last world wars.
Q Therefore, you did not have much opportunity to form an opinion on Dr. Rothenberger in Berlin?
A You mean in his capacity as under-secretary?
Q Yes, as under-secretary in Berlin?
A No, I did not have that opportunity in Berlin.
Q Therefore, I would ask you to tell us only about the few things about which you know concerning the period of office as undersecretary. Can you tell us something about the reasons which brought about Dr. Rothenberger's appointment to Berlin?
A When Dr. Rothenberger was appointed to the office of undersecretary, I heard of it through the newspapers. I was a naval officer at that time and I was stationed in Norway. Shortly afterwards I was on leave in Berlin. Accidentally I met Gauleiter Kauffmann and spoke to him. What I said to him was more or less literally this: Do you believe that the Thierack-Rothenberger team is a fortunate one?
I asked that question because I knew that Thierack was a fanatic party man while Rothenberger had emphasized repeatedly to me that only professional qualifications could make a judge a judge and that the independence of the judge constituted the foundation of each constitutional state. The Gauleiter said in reply, more or less literally this: Yes, I think it is a good team for just as I sent you to Berlin to counter-act the stupid ideas of autocracy and to act as a balancing agent, so I also believe Dr. Rothenberger will succeed in doing the same. That, is all I know about it.
Q May I in this connection ask you, witness, did Herr Kaufmann, did he welcome Rothenberger's appointment to Berlin or did he welcome Rothenberger's cooperation with Thierack?
A What he welcomed was the fact that Rothenberger would become under-secretary and would collaborate with Thierack.
Q Do you mean to say that under Thierack he would have the opportunity to carry out his plans?
A Yes.
Q What was your view on Thierack's personality of that time?
A I did not know Thierack well enough to form an opinion about his personality. I never talked to him personally. I saw him once or twice, for example on the podium at the May celebrations. He struck me and my wife too as an unpleasant person.
Q You cannot say any more?
A No, I cannot say any more.
Q Thank you, witness. In the evidence submitted here a part was played by Dr. Rothenberger's attitude in the case of charges against the old party members. Can you tell us about a concrete case with which Dr. Rothenberger dealt?
A I happen to be able to tell you about such a case for I was involved in it.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid we will have to postpone it until morning. It is now time for our recess. We will adjourn until ninethirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours 23 July 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 23 July 1947, 0930, Justice James T. Brand presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused. The notation will be made.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Court, may I continue with my examination of the witness Eiffe?
PETER EIFFE - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Witness, yesterday we came to a halt at the point as to what extent you were able to judge Rothenberger's work during the war. You had given an account to the Tribunal of a statement which was made to you by Kauffmann when Dr. Rothenberger assumed office as under-secretary. You have already said that you were a soldier during the war. When during the war did you see Dr. Rothenberger or speak to him?
A. According to my recollection, I saw Rothenberger only once during the war and that was a few days after he had left the Reich Ministry of Justice. It must have been at the beginning of January 1944. I was in Hamburg at the time because I had been bombed out in Berlin, and I wanted to discuss questions of compensation. I met the defendant Rothenberger at a Hamburg hotel. I believe it was at the Atlantic Hotel, or it may be the Four Seasons Hotel -- I may be wrong, however, I said to him in a friendly term, "Rothenberger, what is the matter?" What I was referring to was the somewhat surprising notice in the newspaper, which I had read, about his resignation.
Rothenberger became very serious. He gave me a long look. He was pale and tired out. He replied in about the following words: "I am of the opinion, as you know, that nobody should be dispatched from this life to death without judgment. At the Ministry of Justice nowadays" -- I am not sure whether he said "nowadays"-- "one has changed one's view on that question under Himmler's impression." I said goodbye to him then because other people had come in. We only shook hands. I did not see him again.
I then thought about it as to what might be the reason. In those days I as a soldier had no idea about all those things which I heard after the war.
Q. Thank you. May I now ask you another question, Herr Eiffe? That refers to Dr. Rothenberger's period of office in Hamburg. Can you remember the Mangold case? It played a part here yesterday when Dr. Drescher was examined. I would ask you to tell the Court about the part you played in the matter and also please tell them what you know about it.
A. It must have been in 1934 - I cannot remember the exact date but it was at the time when the Jewish legislation was still very lenient; that is to say, immediately after the seizure of power. A man I knew came to call on me. His name was Mangold. He was the owner of a food import firm. He was a competitor of my own firm, which I had left when I became Hamburg delegate. Mr. Mangold began the conversation by saying that he was a Jew. I told him that I knew that and asked him what facts he had come to talk about. He then accused a man whom I did not know - his name was Dr. Pfauth - also the owner of a food import firm, of having committed an insurance fraud by arson. Mangold added that Pfauth was an old Party member. I later discovered that Mangold was correct in telling me that.
Another man whose name was Werner was accused by Mangold of being an accomplice. I told Mangold that he was in the presence of an official, and that he was not at the Hamburg Exchange where it was possible to tell tales, and he would now have to stand by his words.
I then started proceedings; that is to say, it was the usual form of German proceedings. He had to sign a statement and so forth, and this statement which Mangold signed in my presence I sent via the official channels to the Reichstatthalter. As far as my office was concerned, the matter was formally settled.
A few days later I was called up by Senator Rothenberger. Rothenberger, as far as I remember, began asking me why Herr Mangold had taken his report to the Hamburg legation. He then asked me a few more questions concerning the facts of the case. In reply I said that Mangold had told me in reply to my question of the same nature that he knew about me, that is, that I was in the confidence of the Reichstatthalter, and that therefore he believed that his report would get to the right quarters without disadvantages resulting to himself. Rothenberger said, "We will take the necessary steps in Hamburg."
The next day, or the day after that, General Public Prosecutor Dr. Drescher rang me up. He said he had received the statement and he too asked the question why it had come from me. I gave him the same reply, and he then said, "Proceedings will be instituted." Proceedings were instituted and the outcome was that both were sentenced to a prison term. Werner was sentenced to two years imprisonment; Pfauth was sentenced to a somewhat longer term - I do not know how long it was - because it was found that he was also guilty of various other offenses. I was not present when the sentence was pronounced.
Q. Herr Eiffe, did Werner and Pfauth in the course of their proceedings try to defame the Jew Mangold by invoking their Party membership?
A. Both of them did not only try to do so before the court at the proceedings, but during the subsequent proceedings before the Disciplinary Court of the National Socialist Party they also tried to do so.
Q. They did not succeed?
A. No. Werner said, in an excited tone of voice, and his legal advisor did the same, that it was unheard of that a National Socialist should listen to a Jew at all.
And thus started off the brawl.
Q. When the excesses against the Jews took place in Germany in November 1938, you were in Hamburg?
A. In Berlin.
Q: From your knowledge of these matters can you tell us what happened as far as you heard about it from Hamburg?
A: On the 8th of November, that is to say one day before these excesses were committed, I believe it was in 1938, late in the evening, I was called up by the Reichstatthalter. We had a direct line connection our offices. Kauffmann told me that rumors were going about in Hamburg which had come to his attention too. According to these rumors, on the following night attacks of some kind were to be made on Jewish business firms by way of demonstrations, in reply to the murder of Herr von Rath. He requested me to make an official inquiry as to what was the truth of the matter. I had heard of similar occurrences in Berlin without attaching any importance to it. It was late in the evening, if I remember rightly about nine -- nine-thirty -- anyhow it was long after office closing time. All the same, I went over to Rudolf Hess' private home; he sent a message that he could not receive me because he was busy with other matters. His brother, Alfred Hess, would receive me; he did so. Alfred Hess said that Gauleiter Kauffmann is not to worry about things before he received his instructions from the Reich Government. To my clear question as to whether the rumors were true or not -- I received an evasive answer.
Q: Did you report to Kauffmann about the result of your visit?
A: I first called at the Ministry of Propaganda. At the Propaganda Ministry I met Alfred Berndt, Ministerial Counsellor on duty. He made a very careless remark, and said -- well, somebody has let the cat out of the bag again.
I knew enough and did not put any further questions to him. I rang Kauffmann up and gave him a report on these two conversations. I told him what I suspected, that is to say, that these rumors were probably true. Kauffmann replied: I shall prevent it together with Rothenberger; I shall prevent it in Hamburg. As I heard later on, they did not succeed in completely preventing it in Hamburg, but the Gauleiter and Reichstatthalter alerted the police in time so that a majority of the excesses were prevented. Later on I saw a report which Kauffmann showed to me, and which was sent by the Gauleiter Buerkel to the Fuehrer. From that report I saw that in other German cities, in particular, as far as I can remember in Vienna and in Frankfurt on the Main, the most horrible excesses had occurred. That is all I can tell you about it.
Q: Thank you. Witness, Dr. Rothenberger was Kauffmann's advisor in Hamburg for about nine years; he was the leader of the National Socialist Jurists League, and head of the Gau Legal Office. Can you tell us something about how Himmler's relation -- that is the SS to Kauffmann was, and can you also tell us something about Bormann's relations with Kauffman in Hamburg.
A: With Kauffmann?
Q: Kauffmann's relationship with Himmler, Bormann and especially with Heydrich from the very beginning was very tense. I never attended conversations between those two men and Kauffmann. However, Kauffmann usually afterwards told me what they had discussed, and frequently he dictated file notes. Therefore, I know that Bormann was indignant that Kauffmann in Hamburg had pushed back old party members and was looking for people who would fill their position properly. Relations became more and more tense, and as I heard later, but I don't know that from my own knowledge, during the war that relationship is said to have developed into open hostility.
As far as Himmler is concerned, he was offended by Kauffmann for not wishing to join the SS. Heydrich was a definite opponent of Kauffmann and of the entire Hamburg system. I once called with Kauffmann on my friend Admiral Canaris. Admiral Canaris and I had been naval cadets together and we called each other "DU". I said to Kauffmann if you want to know any details about Heydrich, ask Admiral Canaris, for, as far as I know, he sat on the disciplinary court which removed Heydrich from the navy. We went to Canaris and he gave us detailed information. In those days Canaris had too mild an opinion of Heydrich; he did not see him in the proper light; he said he was just a bloated peacock for whom something had to be done to incite his ambitions and then he would be satisfied. That conversation occurred before the Roehm Putsch. After the Roehm putsch, Admiral Canaris revised his opinion.
Q: Thank you. That is sufficient. However, for information I would ask you whether that is the Admiral Canaris who after the 20th of July was executed.
A: Yes. May I add that Kauffmann repeatedly told me, that he had to protect us all the time, Rothenberger and me for I repeatedly wrote essays which sharply criticized the economic policies of the national socialists and, he himself considered it altogether possible that Heydrich would liquidate him one day.
Q: Just now you spoke about economic policies, witness. Would you please tell the Court what your position was before you became minister delegate, and what the position is that you hold today in Hamburg.
A: I was an active naval officer and U-Boat commander during the last world war. I am the son of the Hamburg business man Adolf Eiffe, whose firm was founded in 1888, and which had business relations with the Azores. Today I am again in charge of that firm, since. On 22 June, 1946 a commission of appeal gave me permission to work as a business man.
Q: Is it correct that you in Berlin were always under suspicion as a Hamburg man to have too liberal Western views?
A: Yes, that is correct. In essays, in articles which I had written I often had to add an introductory notice to the effect that we are publishing these statements with the approval of the Reichstatthalter; that is to say the Reichstatthalter protected me. All the same, Ley repeatedly complained.
Q: Did Hamburg generally speaking, in the eyes of Berlin, that is to say the party chancellery and Berlin government circles, have the reputation of being too liberal because of its international relations and its attitude on trade and commerce?
A: Yes, I believe so. I believe that Himmler only took seriously two circles of resistance, that is the general staff under the political leadership of Admiral Canaris, and the entire group of Hanseatic business men, to which Rothenberger in a wide sense belonged. The leader of that circle was Kauffmann.
Q: Witness, during the time when you were minister in Berlin, and later on legal advisor to the senate, did you have frequent opportunities to meet Dr. Rothenberger -and why did you have such opportunity?
A: The Hamburg legation was a large building dating back to the year 1848. There was ample room there for putting up visitors. Therefore, we were able to put up the senators and other gentlemen from Hamburg. Very frequently Rothenberger made use of that and we had very long conversations.
Q: Therefore, you frequently met Dr. Rothenberger when he was in Berlin.
A: Yes.
Q: Will you please tell us what impression Dr. Rothenberger gave you on his work, his complaints and worries and fears.
A: I heard from him again and again that he felt anxious about the party interference with the Administration of Justice, and that actual wishes were expressed as to what sentences should be pronounced. He told me that the independence of the judge was the foundation of the state, and that he was busy working out a reform plan for the Administration of Justice.
Q: Thank you. Witness, can you tell us that those were not only just individual cases, but that was the permanent subject of his worries when he was in Berlin?
A: Yes, I can confirm that. On the contrary, I frequently tried to change the subject. He was so much occupied with that subject, however, that he kept reverting to it.
Q: Can you tell us something about Dr. Rothenberger's attitude toward Frank. Did he tell you anything about that man?
A: Yes.
Q: In what sense?
A: He described Frank as an ignoramus; and a vain, conceited talker.