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.
Q Thank you. A little while ago you said yes in reply to a question as to whether Rothenberger was also head of the Gauleiter Office. Did he ever tell you why that state of affairs seemed desirable to him?
A Yes. We did talk about that in connection with the attempts that were being made everywhere. For example, to merge the offices of Kreisleiter and Mayor. He said that in Hamburg that had been done a long time ago and I only had to imagine what would happen if those two functions were being held by two different people. There would be continuous arguments. But such state of affairs was not known in Hamburg.
Q Now, by that arrangement interferences with the Administration of Justice by small party leaders were warded off?
A Yes.
Q Thank you. According to your knowledge of Hamburg affairs were you of the opinion that it was at the expense of the Administration of Justice that these two positions were held by the same person? In other words do you think it was meant that the Administration of Justice gave way to the party?
A I am convinced that it went at the expense of the party and I am referring to Bormann.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you. I have no further questions. The direct examination of this witness if finished.
THE PRESIDENT: You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q I am a little in doubt as to how you should be addressed, as Commander or your Excellency, so I will just refer to you as Witness, and avoid any possible confusion.
You joined the party first in 1932, did you not, and then you were out for about a year and then you got back in. What was the reason for the year's non-activity in the party?
A I joined the party when I was under the influence of a speech by Hitler at the National Club in Hamburg. That speech was held before Hamburg business men.
Q Was Rothenberger present at that speech?
A I don't know that. I don't believe he was.
Q That was in 1932?
A Yes, that was in 1932.
Q And then why did you later think better of it?
AA few weeks later -- I believe it was three weeks later -- there was a brawl between the Steel Helmet Men and the SA men, and in my opinion the SA men were the guilty ones. I myself wasn't there. My friend Lauenstein, a former naval officer with whom I had been together during the war, the leader of the Steel Helmet, was wounded. I told the local Ortsgruppenfuehrer, who was competent for me -
Q Please, witness, I don't want to cut you short, but can you abbreviate it to the bare essentials?
A I told him that I would withdraw my membership. When a new senate was formed in Hamburg the Gauleiter asked me whether I would like to go to Berlin. At that time I did not belong to any party. Afterwards, when I was under the influence of Hitler's first speech, when he said he was in favor of peache and disarmament -a speech in which I believed -- I again joined the party.
Q Now, this Gauleiter that offered to appoint you to Berlin if you joined the party, his name was Kauffmann?
A Would you please repeat that question?
Q Yes. The man who appointed you to your position in Berlin on the condition that you join the party, his name was Kauffmann, was it not?
A That was Gauleiter Kauffmann, yes.
Q Witness, did you ever have any legal training?
A No.
Q You were not a lawyer?
A No. I was sent to Berlin as specialist on economic affairs.
Q While you were in Berlin you maintained, as you said this morning, a private telephone line between your office and Kauffmann's office in Hamburg?
A That line had already been there before my period of office.
Q The line was there during your period of office, was it not?
A Yes, it was.
Q Now, in your position as an economic representative of Hamburg in Berlin and as a party member, you got to know, among others, as you mentioned this morning, the following: Heydrich, Hess, Goebbels, Bormann, Himmler. How many others of the party men who really counted did you get to know as a result of your appointment in Berlin in this economic position?
A Naturally I had official contact with these men. I had to call on them when I assumed office.
Q They were all exporting things to the Azores, were they?
A No. Until the dissolution of the Reichrat I was the Hamburg delegate who had to represent Hamburg in all matters, but first of all, naturally, they were business matters.
Q Did you get to know any of the other big party men, the men who really counted, with the exception of those you named this morning?
Did you see Hitler very often?
A I reported to Hitler and after that I can answer that question exactly because the Denazification Board asked me that question in Hamburg. Well, I met Hitler twice in Hamburg, once when the Hamburg civil servants were introduced to him and once when we made a trip through the port to discuss new arrangements there. Three times I accompanied the Gauleiter when he showed him models of the Elbe Bridge. There were 10 or 12 other men present. I also knew Gauleiter Wagner, Schwede-Coburg -- I met him in Stralsund when he was an officer -- and Buerkel, who was a friend of Kauffmann's and who was occasionally asked to Kauffmann's house as a guest. As far as I know, I did not know any other Gauleiters. I mean, I didn't know them personally.
Q You did pretty well, though, even so.
A I didn't understand what you meant, I did pretty well.
THE PRESIDENT: That was not a question and you need not trouble about it.
BY MR. KING:
Q You said this morning that at one time during the war you talked with the Defendant Rothenberger at the time when he was visibly very much disturbed and he told you that it had always been his feeling that no one should be condemned to death without adequate trial and legal safeguards. Did he at that time discuss the fact with you that in a period of three days he had passed on the clemency matters of 150 condemned men. Was that what was bothering him, do you know?
A He did not talk of that and I know nothing of that matter. No further word was said, but what I mentioned here.
Q You didn't go into any specific reasons as to why he made that comment at that time?
A No.
Q You were in the insurance business too, were you not?
A No. I am a maritime broker and an importer. Naturally I understand something about insurance matters too. As maritime broker one also has to deal with the insurance of ships.
Q There are certain publications extant which do carry a short notice that you were engaged in insurance business. I will ask you this question anyway, and if you don't know the answer based on your experience you may say so. In 1938, when the excesses against the Jews reached a very high pitch, do you recall a policy which is very many times attributed to Goering in which he decreed that the claims on damage policies held by Jews should be paid to the State rather than to the policyholder where the policyholder was a Jew? Perhaps from your insurance connections you will recall something about that. Do you?
AAll that is quite new to me. I am willing to state that, under oath, for the first time I have heard that now from your mouth, counsel.
Q Then you couldn't be of any help to me on that. You said the man Pfauth was also indicted because of an insurance fraud, is that right, as well as other matters?
A He was denounced for insurance fraud. He had insured a stock of goods for about 20,000 Marks, these goods were valueless and then he committed arson.
MR. KING: I understand. I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you one question, please?
BY THE PRESIDENT: I am not entirely sure that I recollect exactly your testimony, but I think you said that shortly after Rothenberger was appointed you had a conversation with someone in which you discussed the question as to how Rothenberger and Thierack would get along together and you thought that Rothenberger would be a good check on Thierack. Is my recollection correct?
A. Yes, Your Honor, I had that conversation with Gauleiter Kauffmann.
Q. When was that?
A. Shortly after appointment to the under-secretary. I had read about it and I was on leave. My home was still in Berlin and when the Statthalter came to Berlin, I called on him. Knowing that nothing was done in Hamburg without him, I had to assume that he approved of the appointment and even had caused it.
Q. I have your answer, thank you. In that connection, you said you knew that Thierack was a fanatical party men. I think that is a correct quotation.
A. Yes, I knew that.
Q. When did you come to that conclusion?
A. It is twelve years ago now and I cannot say now with certainty who told me but occasionally I had some business at the ministry of Justice and the experts there frequently discussed these matters and they used such expressions as "The Terrible Thierack". They also criticized Frank and in those days one did not know what role Thierack would play one day. Then once I had a look at him on the podium as I told yesterday.
Q. Is it safe to say that you had that knowledge before August 1942
A. I think that is saying too much. I did not like him but as I have heard now that he was a butcher, I did not know at the time.
Q. I referred only to your knowledge that he was a fanatical party man.
Q. Yes and I did not like him. I cannot tell you why. I simply did not like him. It was just an instinctive dislike. I said yesterday we saw him on that podium and my wife said to me: "What an unpleasant face that man has."
Q. When was that, do you remember?
A. That must have been at the May celebration in 1934 or 1935. I cannot recollect for certain. We were discussing many prominent men who were sitting on that podium and I said: "This is that man and that is that man", as far as I know them.
Q. Then your impression was formed before August 1942, wasn't it?
A. Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. May I ask your permission to ask two questions on re-direct examination?
I would like to refer to the President's last question to you, that is to say, Dr, Kauffmann's remarks to you when Dr. Rothenberger became under-secretary. Do you think Kauffmann meant to say that he wanted to have Rothenberger in Berlin representative of a definite line of policy?
A. I believe that. He wanted Rothenberger to exercise a moderating influence just like myself.
Q. You said to the Tribunal yesterday, you answered the Prosecutor just now, speaking of the exports in which some circles were in Germany were supposed to have been interested. Would you please tell us in what sense you were working on the export questions in respect to these government circles in Berlin so that we can understand the comparison between yourself and Rothenberger?
A. I will try and outline that in a few brief words. I had written an article for "The Hamburger Nachrichten" with the headline: "More Sea Breeze to Berlin". I believe that said everything and after that I was sent to Berlin.
In those days Germany was producing in abundance. It was a state of affairs of economic abundance.
Q. Witness, may I interrupt? All I want to know is one thing. Did you attempt to work against those autarky endeavors which were doubtlessly being made in Berlin as a Hamburg representation?
A. Yes, with all means. There was only the alternative of free trade or autarky and hunger.
Q. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be excused.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, I have finished with the witnesses whom I have ready here for the moment. Therefore, I have temporarily concluded my submission of evidence and I would like to reserve the further submission of evidence for a later stage of the proceedings, because the document books are still outstanding as are also some more witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any of your document books?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Unfortunately, not yet. Your Honor, but I hope I shall have them soon. I am going now to inquire. According to the information I had yesterday or day before yesterday no definite date could be given as to when they would be ready.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal assumes no responsibility in any sense for checking up on document books. That is the duty of counsel and the proper officials but we have been advised that three books prepared on behalf of the defendant Klemm are now ready and in possession of the Secretary General. Are any of counsel prepared to proceed with those books?
DR. GRUBE: For the defendant, Lautz:
May it please the Court, I would ask you to permit me before the examination of the defendant Lautz to introduce document book 1, 2-a and 3-a. They are all documents which will be submitted within the frame-work of the general defense. I have not yet received the German mimeographs, but I have been told that the English copies have been distributed.
MR. KING: I was wondering if it was possible for the Prosecution to furnish copies of the document book which Mr. Grube is about to introduce. So far we have not seen them. It is a little difficult to follow the testimony without having the documents in front of us.
THE PRESIDENT: You are entitled to receive them.
DR. GRUBE: The defense center has told me that the document books have been distributed to the Court and to the Prosecution, 7 copies in English language. Further document books in English have not yet arrived. Yesterday the Marshal of the Court also told me that the Tribunal was in possession of English copies. I was, therefore, asked to submit the document books at the earliest moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me see the document books which we are supposed to be in possession of. We have not seen any of then. I have no knowledge of the receipt of any document books in the case Lautz. The Secretary General will procure them for us. Have you a copy for the Prosecution?
DR. GRUBE: Unfortunately, I have not received one single English copy and I haven't received the German copies either but the defense center has told me that 7 copies of English have been sent to the Tribunal and to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me repeat that these are matters which the Tribunal should not be troubled with. It is a mechanical matter, purely administrative.
DR. GRUBE: I beg your pardon, I didn't get the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: I was merely intimating that if the Tribunal takes care of the judicial problems before it, it will have enough to do without taking over the defense information center and the secretary general's office.