THE PRESIDENT: 201.
DR. GRUBE: 201.
The next document is an affidavit by Dr. Wolfgang Zarnack and describes the person of the defendant Lautz. He also given an opinion on Freisler. He says that Lautz frequently supported clemency pleas made by Zarnack and then gives a general judgment of the character of the defendant Lautz. What may be of interest is his statement that the defendant Lautz prior to 1933 had filed indictments against National Socialists and therefore had difficulties at a later date. I offer this document as Exhibit 202.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 200, 201 and 202 are received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document 61 is an affidavit of Kall who was an assistant of the defendant Lautz when Lautz was in Karlsruhe as General Public Prosecutor. Kall in this affidavit states cases which the defendant Lautz mentioned himself when he was testifying here concerning the police in Karlsruhe and so forth. I think it is also of interest that Kall states here he knows that Lautz frequently sent a protest to the Reich Public Prosecutor to relieve him of his duties, as senior Reich Prosecutor. I offer this as Exhibit 203.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is document 56. It is another affidavit. The affiant is Dr. Rudolf Lucas. Ho describes the person of Lautz in a general direction and he also describes the attitude which Lautz had. I offer this document as Exhibit 204.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is No. 53 and is a very comprehensive affidavit by the Public Prosecutor Vollmar of Mannheim. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal in particular to the description of the Ihde case which Vollmar gives on page 48 to 50 of his affidavit. Ihde was indicted by Vollmar at the advise of the defendant Lautz not before the People's Court but before the Reich Supreme Military Court, because it was to be geared that otherwise Freitag would be the judge.
I offer this document as Exhibit 204.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: I beg your pardon, I believe it is 205.
THE PRESIDENT: 205, yes.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is an affidavit by Spahr, who worked at the Reich Public Prosecution. What is important is a reference to the description by Spahr of Lautz in respect to the standards which Lautz had concerning his own work. On page 53 there is a description of the attitude of the defendant Lautz concerning punishment and in particular there is a description of Lautz' attitude to the little people, the man on the street. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to page 54, where Spahr describes a case where a Polish captain was to be indicted for espionage but Lautz was against that since the facts of the case in the view of Lautz did not comply with the espionage provisions of the law. Spahr stated that Lautz held a different view from that of the Foreign Office and that of the Reich Ministry of Justice and he had to give way to their views, yet Lautz with all means at his disposal tried to protect him against the death sentence. Of further interest I think will be Spahr's statement on pages 55-56 where he states that Lautz was free of narroz-minded hatred against other nationalities and that he himself welcomed that very much since he had had difficulties because he was married to a Swedish woman and because some of his close relatives were American citizens.
I offer this document as Exhibit 206.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: May I refer now to document 294; one of my last two documents, This is a transcript of the French Republic and the French Government has made it available to me. It is on page 60 and following pages.
This transcript contains interrogation results of three French nationals concerning the attitude of the defendant Lautz when 23 members of the Alsatian resistance movement were sentenced to death. All 23 had been condemned to death and although it was not within the competency of the defendant Lautz he tried to break the resistance of the civil administration chief Wagner, who was trying by all means to prevent clemency. It will probably be of interest that clemency was exercised in the case of all 23 Alsatians, comprising a certain Dr. Weninger, to whom I will refer in the following document.
May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to page 26 where Wiederkehr during his interrogation before some French Police Commissar stated Lautz never used malicious or derogatory words about the Allies. Of further interest is the statement in the transcript on page 65 which shows that Lautz purely for reasons of humanity also worked to the end that the convicted people were told that clemency had been exercised on them although such notification was not yet to be passed on. On page 65 he says that the defendant Lautz although that was not within his competency, tried to see to it that the convicted persons were allowed privileges.
I offer this document as Exhibit 207.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 207 is received.
MR. KING: As to this last document, Your Honors, I am afraid I did not quite understand the process by which it was compiled. It seems to be a series of affidavits which ware taken to be introduced in evidence at this proceeding, yet they do not, so far as I can see, meet any of the requirements of rule 21.
THE PRESIDENT: You may present your objection in the morning at nine thirty. The Tribunal will recess until that hour.
(The Tribunal adjourned at 1630 hours to meet again on 8 August 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetten, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 8 August 1947, 0930-1630. The Honorable 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. That notation will be made.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the court, may I continue the submission of my documents?
To begin with, I would like to state my position again to Document 294 which was the last exhibit I introduced yesterday, Exhibit 207. That document contains the three records about the interrogation of three French nationals, an interrogation which was carried out at the request of the French Ministry of Justice, and it refers to the Lautz case. May I remind you that those records show that twenty-three French nationals, thanks to the intervention of the defendant Lautz, were pardoned. At the end of yesterday's session, Mr. King objected to those documents, but he has just told me that he has withdrawn his objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 207 will be received.
MR. GRUBE: The next document which I offer id Document 286 on pages 57 to 59 of my Document Book 4-C. Yesterday, when submitting Exhibit 207, I had already pointed out that one of the Frenchmen who had been sentenced to death, and who had been pardoned at the instigation of the defendant Lautz, was a Mr. Weninger.
That is evident from Exhibit 207. Concerning my Document 286, page 1, one can see that the sister of that man Weninger, Frau Magirus, has given an affidavit. In that affidavit she confirms that approximately twenty-three Frenchmen and women were concerned and that clemency was exercised, thanks to the intervention of the Defendant Lautz. Weninger's letter, dated the 24th of May, 1947, on page 59 of my document book, shows that Weninger too confirms that, by Lawyer Wiederkehr who is mentioned as having been interrogated in Exhibit 207, he was told that Lautz had undertaken steps to have clemency exercised. That letter by Weninger, on page 59, also shows that Weninger - that is to say, one of the people on whom clemency had been exercised - is now the director of the office in charge of the supervision of the administration of justice in the French Zone of Occupation.
I offer this document as Exhibit 208.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, which exhibit are you offering as Exhibit 208?
DR. GRUBE: Document 286 on pages 57 to 59 of my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received.
That completes your document book, doesn't it?
DR. GRUBE: Yes, Your Honor.
Yesterday, when I submitted Document Book 4-B there were some difficulties because the Translation Department evidently, in referring to the various documents or portions of documents, had made mistakes. I have now compared the English text of this document with the German text. There are merely four typing errors and, in the interest of expediting the proceedings in the case of that document, I would ask you not to make me return the whole of the book to the Translation Department as it would take some time before it gets back to me. Perhaps you will be good enough to make those corrections in handwriting. It's only a case of four corrections.
The first correction is this. In the English document book, after page 85, there follows a page with the number 88. That page should be taken out and cancelled.
On page 89 in the English document book, at the top, it says: Lautz Document 141". What it should say is "136".
The same applies to page 90. There, instead of "141" it should again say "136".
On page 91, "141" should be crossed out and be replaced by "l39".
The last correction is on page 93. The figure "133" must be replaced by the figure "73".
May I now submit the remaining documents from 4-B?
Document 141 on pages k6 to 88 contains excepts from a decision by the Reich Supreme Military Court concerning the jurisdiction in the field of espionage. It seems important to me to consider this decision because of the definition of the term "military territory" such as the Reich Military Court finds it. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the Reich Supreme Military Court, in this decision, takes the view that military territory, in a total war means, in fact, the whole of the Reich territory.
I offer this document as Exhibit 209.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is Document No. 136 on pages 89 and 90. This document, too, contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Military Court and states its position on the concept of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It should be of interest that the Reich Supreme Military Court, in this decision, takes the view that giving aid and comfort to the enemy, within the meaning of Article 91 B, exists as soon as a person helps or tries to help even one single man able to bear arms and subject to the draft or an expert who possesses special technical knowledge, to go over into enemy territory.
I offer this document as Exhibit 210.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 129 on pages 91 and 92 of the document book also contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Military Court and this too comments on the question of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The facts of the case were as follows: French civilians had helped two British soldiers escape. The Reich Supreme Military Court again states that, even if only one single soldier is helped to return to his unit, a case of giving aid and comfort to the enemy exists.
I offer this document as Exhibit 311.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: The following documents comment on the question as to whether the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia is to be regarded as a foreign country. To begin with, Document 73 on pages 93 and 94. This is a decision by the District Court of Appeals at Brealau of 2 February 1940. It states that the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, from the point of view of constitutional law, must be regarded as part of greater Germany and that offenses committed there must be regarded as offenses committed inside the Reich.
I offer this document as Exhibit 212.
TEE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 85 on page 95 is an extract from the official compilation called "Survey of the Most Important Laws and Ordinances since 1 January 1940" in the official journal of the Reich Ministry of Justice, "Deutsche Justiz". This compilation points out that the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia has no independent status under international law, as the Protectorate is part of greater Germany.
I offer this document as Exhibit 213.
TEE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 178 on pages 96 and 97 is an excerpt from a decision by the Reich Supreme Court in penal matters. Again it is pointed out that the Protectorate is part of greater Germany and that every competent local German Court is competent for passing judgment.
I offer this document as Exhibit 214.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: The last document in this volume is another decision by the Reich Supreme Court on penal matters. I am referring to Document 177 on pages 98 and 99. The Reich Supreme Court states that the inhabitants of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia cannot under any circumstances be regarded as foreigners, foreign nationals, that is. Again it is pointed out that the Protectorate, from the point of view of constitutional law, is part of greater Germany.
I offer this document as Exhibit 215.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: For the moment I have concluded the submission of documents, but there are another three volumes coming which haven't been returned to me yet by the Translation Department. Will you kindly allow me to introduce those volumes when I receive them?
THE PRESIDENT: You may present them later. We'll rule on them when they're presented.
Are there any other defense document books ready for presentation?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (Defense Counsel for defendant Rothenberger):
Your Honor, unfortunately, compared with my explanation to the Tribunal, yesterday nothing has changed in the situation concerning my documents. I have only received two of my English copies, that is, Document Books 3 and 4, and I haven't received an German copies and, therefore, naturally, I am not in a position to present document books if I have no German text at all. I cannot even tell the pagination because I don't even know how the pages will run in my German book, I cannot quote from the English books because it's too difficult for me, and I regret very much that unfortunately I am not able to present my document books today.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other document books available?
Are there any other matters to be presented to the Tribunal today?
We have assured the defendant Rothaug that his case need not proceed until Monday morning. I assume there's nothing further to he done today.
The Tribunal will adjourn until Monday morning at 9:30.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 11 August 1947)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal 111 in the Matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 11 August, 1947-0930-1630. The Honorable Janes T. Prand, Presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judge of Military Tribunal 111. Military Tribunal 111 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 as certain 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 and Schlegelburger, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Counsel for the defendant Schlegelberger be temporarily excused on account of illness?
DR. DOESSL: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: He will be excused.
DR. DOESSL: May it please the Court, with the permission of the Tribunal, I call the defendant Rothaug into the witness stand on his own behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: You may call him.
OSWALD ROTHAUG, a defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Will you hold up your right hand and repeat after me. 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.)
JUDGE HARDING: You maybe seated.
THE PRESIDENT: Proper notation will be made of the fact that the defendant Schlegelberger and the defendant Engert are excused. You may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for the Defendant Rothaug)
Q. Witness, please give a brief survey of your life until the conclusion of your legal education.
A. I assume first of all you want to find out my personal data.
Q. Yes.
A. Oswald Rothaug; born 17 May, 1897. In my affidavit the birth date is given as 12th of May, 1897; that seems to be incorrect, because according to everything I know, I was born on the 17th of May. That seems to be all. As far as my life is concerned after attending the primary school, as in customary, I entered the new gymanasium (high school in Werzburg. In 1914 I-
Q. Please repeat. In 1914 you changed schools.
A. Then I entered the gymnasium (high school) in Aschaffenburg. Toward the end of 1915 I was drafted into the army. I participated in the first World War until 1918. Already before that time I had matriculated to Forestry University in Munich, and after the end of the war I studied forestry. But a short time after that, in view of the conditions that prevailed in Munich at the time, and out of personal considerations, I gave it up, and subsequently I began to study law and political science at the University of Wuerzburg. After I concluded that study, I first entered the preparatory service at the local court of Aschaffenburg, and the district office(Pezirksamt), and continued my preparatory service in the spring of 1925 with the lawyer Justizrat Raier, at Ansback. Then, toward the end of 1925 I took the examination for the higher legal and state service. Soon after the results of this examination were made public, I was call into the Bavarian service of the administration of justice, the administration of justice of the state. That is my personal data until I concluded my legal education.
Q. The witness Miethsam on the 3rd of June 1947, during the cross examination page 3,911 to 3,915 of the English transcript, stated that your behavior was described as brusque in your personnel file. Several other witnesses described your hardness in service and your severity towards yourself and others.
Frequently brusqueness and severity of a person are connected with the hardships encountered during his life. Therefore, I am asking you in your life did you have to overcome difficult, hard years?
A. They call me not only brusque, but they call me domineering, brutal, cynical, moody, a tyrant, a devil, am intriguing person; and in between that they say I am also friendly, polite; I am describe me as a human being who can only love or hate. I am supposed to have a super super human mind, and where that is not sufficient, I am supplied with a power of suggestion, of hypnosis, or even of magic. Everybody describes me in some way which is closest to his own nature and as the interests of the day require it. I myself knew nothing of these allegedly super natural and sub-terranean powers which are supposed to be dormant within me. Up to this hour with my surroundings at any time from birth until the terrible catastrophe which these came upon us, in my service and in my life, and in all situation of my life, with very few exceptions, I was not only on tolerable but in the best of terms also with those people who since catastrophe believe they have discovered my infernal or faustain soul. You now want me to comment on the most harmless of the characteristics described my alleged brusque manner.
For many years I have occupied myself with the study of the soul of a human being, but I have never made the attempt to undertake a research journey into my own soul; nothing comes of something like that. No person can understand his own soul, and we may be grateful to the Gods because it is just this very thing which they are merciful enough to cover up with night and horror.
Naturally, the course of life of a human being can assume significance from the point of view of his character and of his behavior. There is little to be said here in my case from this point of view. The young soul is most easily formed. I grew up among farmers. In their tactics, deplomacy is used to master the difficulties of life, but one's own power. Outside of a few harmless conspiracies, the grammer school did not show any peculiarities.
The first year of the war, 1914, brought the death of my father. Toward the end of 1915 I was drafted into the army and participated in the World War with a mine-throwing unit of the First Bavarian Jaeger Regiment until 1918. Here I learned to fulfill my duty for the ideal of the Fatherland to the utmost. What was hammered into my young soul at that time remained with me for the rest of my life; the principle of fulfilling one's duty for its own sake, and the idea that there are situations in life in which, as before Verdun, there are only living people and dead ones, but no sick people.
On the 19th of January, 1919, the very same day that I returned home, my mother died. She had died of the hunger, the sorrows, and the deprivations of war, as did many millions of others at that time.
My plans to continue my studies at the Forester's school in Munich where I had already registered during the war, were now in doubt; at the advice of my brothers and sisters, who held small jobs at that time, I dared to do the seemingly impossible. However, soon after that I gave it up and, as I have already mentioned when I described the course of my life, I began the study which, by its nature, seemed entirely foreign to me, and that was the study of political science, of the theory of the state, at my home university of Wurzburg.
The study, as such, did not offer any difficulties for me, but the outside conditions did and how I overcame those is still a mystery to me today. I got through and the rest of my life was dominated by the idea of duty, and that it had to be fulfilled with the utmost energy, especially during the most difficult years. That is in a more crude form, I would say that the human being lives in order to be born, work himself to the bone, and be buried. Duty was above all else for me. I did not spare myself in this respect, and also would not let others spare themselves. That is how it happened that once in a while, here and there, there were frictions which, to me, seem to be nothing extraordinary. They never entered into the personal relationship. After half an hour we were again good comrades. Only in one single case did it cone to a break.
I was what is described in Germany as a straightforward person. I told people my opinion as it really was. I could do so because I was not their superior. I was accepted by my surroundings as the Lord had created me and, as far as I can see conditions, they were satisfied with me.
Q. The witness Niethsam testified, at page 3912 of the English transcript, that when you were transferred he had made inquiries as to whether you were suitable for the position of a district court director, and that Heuwieser said you were suitable for that position but was against your being employed in the Administration of Justice because you were too brusque in your manner. Who was Heuwieser?
A. Heuwieser was the President of the District Court of Appeal of Bamberg. Schweinfurt, where I was working at the time at the District Court, belonged to the area of the District Court of Appeal of Bamberg. Thus, without doubt, Heuwieser was the right address for inquiries regarding that question.
Q. Did Heuwieser meet you personally?
A. One cannot say that Heuwieser got acquainted with me personally. The occurrence was so peculiar that actually one can say only that he saw me once.
Q. Please describe this incident.
A. In brief, it was as follows. I describe this incident because it is characteristic of the personal of the nan who judged me.
I was sitting in my office in Schweinfurt and working one day when a gentleman, accompanied by another one, appeared in my office. This gentleman did not pay any attention to me or the fact that I existed, but merely found out that the room did not need.
Q. Just a moment, what did you say about the room? The interpreter did not understand what happened to the room.
A. He merely found out that the room did not have to be painted, and he then left without greeting me. That was the only meeting I had with Heuwieser.
Q. Thus you never spoke a word to him?
A. I never exchanged a single word with Heuwieser
Q. When did he become President of the District Court of Appeal?
A. Until 1933, at least during the preceding era, or a few years before that, perhaps, he had been president of the District Court of Appeal in Nurnberg. He was in charge of the penal chamber in which the political cases of that time were tried and it was noticeable, as was being said at the time, that he had criminal police accompany him to his apartment from the office.
I could not understand that. During the most difficult times, for years, at any time of the day or night, I moved around in this city without carrying any weapon. I did not even carry a pocket knife. The idea that anything could happen to me, who after all was known everywhere, never occurred to me at all. That was my inner relationship with all levels of the Nurnberg population.
In 1933, Heuwieser was the man whom the then Minister of Justice, Frank, appointed as the first to the position of President of the District Court of Appeals of Bamberg. The emphasizing the danger of his activity in the struggle against the overthrow from the Left thus bore fruit. Heuwieser himself, as is demonstrated by the incident I already described, was of a cynical and rude nature. I am speaking about these matters only because Miethsam made the attempt to describe my character in such a way and supports this description by naming a man who, in that respect, should not feel himself free of faults. Moreover, it is interesting to find out in what reliable manner the people came to form an opinion of me. Here I may mention that, at that time, I had never seen Miethsam at all in my entire life.
Q In what places and what official positions were you employed before you become presiding judge of the special court of Nurnberg?
A I have already mentioned that, after the result of the state examination had become known, I was soon called into the Bavarian administration of justice. My appointment was first with the public prosecution in Ansbach for the so-called post-practice (Nachpraxis). This postpractice was supposed to last for about three months. In my case, however, it was interrupted after only three weeks. Perhaps, I had proved myself a good pupil and, after that, I was first transferred to the local court in Weissehburg. I want to mention that I was called to the prosecution in Ansbach on the 1st of May, 1926. Until approximately August, 1926, I was working at the local court at Weissehburg. Subsequently, I came to the local court at Pfaffenhofen on the Inn.
Q You just mentioned Pfaffenhofen on the Inn. Were were you living at the time?
A I would consider it more to the point if I would first describe my official positions now. Up to the special court in Nurnberg. That's what you asked me, isn't it?
I believe I have already mentioned that I came to the local court at Pfaffenhofen on the Inn. There I was employed until the turn of the year 1926-1927. Subsequently, I came to the local court at Ingolstadt on the Danube. I was Court Assessor during all this time up till the 1st of June, 1927. At that time, I became public prosecutor in Hof. In the late fall of 1929 I became Amtsgerichtsrat (local court judge) at the local court of Nurnberg. In the middle of 1933, I became first public prosecutor at the public persecution of Nurnberg-Furth. In the late fall of 1934, District Court Judge at the Schweinfurt District Court, and on the 1st of April, 1937, District Court Director at the District Court Nurnberg-Furth and there I was, among other positions, employed as presiding judge of the special court of Nurnberg.
Q You mentioned Pfaffenhofen on the Inn. With whom were you living at the time?
A In Pfaffenhofen on the Inn I was looking for a room. I was advised to take a room with a family who were from Franconia because I myself was from Franconia. This family had a small meat factory outside of Pfaffenhofen on the Inn. The family's name was Haberkern. That was in 1926.
Q Is that the later Gau Inspector Haberkern who was the owner of the "Blaue Traube" where the political table was that was supposed to have been the basis for your political position of power?
A That is correct. That is the same Haberkern who later on became Gau Inspector of Nurnberg or, more correctly, was working with Gauleitung of Nurnberg. He was.....
Q (Interrupting) Excuse me. I refer here to Exhibits 151, 237 and 222.
A He was the owner of the hotel "Blaue Traube" where that famous table is supposed to have stood on which my political position of power was built up.
Q In that time when you were in pfaffenhofen on the Inn did you also have closer personal relationships with the Haberkern Family?
A Yes. It is in accordance with my character that I do not merely live among people and just pass them by, but that I establish relationships of a personal nature. I could not imagine myself without doing so.
Q Did politics play any role in your relationship with the Haberkern Family at that time?
AAt that time, politics did not play the slightest role in that relationship. I myself, especially in regard to Party political affairs, had no interest at all and these young people, had to struggle with estraordinarily difficult economic conditions, so, at that time, certainly, their shirt was closer to them than their coat.
Q Were you, at that time, a member or a follower of any political tendency?
A I was neither a member nor a follower of any political tendency whatsoever. My political attitude, I would like to describe as patriotism - loyalty to the state even under the conditions which existed at that time. However, in order not to create a wrong impression, I would like to limit this statement to the extent that I, was in no way, enthusiastic about the developments that were taking place at that time. However, in these conditions I saw, nevertheless, compared with the conditions that had resulted from the collapse in 1918, a basis on which the German state could develop. That I was not an enemy of the state of that time, in the real sense of that word, can be seen from the fact, I think, that in 1926 I decided to serve that state. I did so even though my chief of that time, Lawyer Baier of Ansbach, whom I still esteem very highly, asked me to become a partner in his office.
At the bottom of my heart I would like to describe my basic political attitude by saying that I was a monarchist and that I have remained a monarchist to this day.
Q Then you left Pfaffenhofen, did you keep in touch with Haberkern?
A Yes, but that was the usual contact that exists between people who have met. We corresponded and wrote letter, or post cards on this or that occasion, and then everything became dormant. I believe that this condition had already existed during the time when I was in Hof, that is, before 1929.
Q In other words, you came to Hof in 1929?
A In '29 I came to Nuernberg.
Q When did you come to Hof?
A I came to Hof, as I believe I have already stated three times, on the first of June 1937.
Q That can't be correct.
A Oh, yes, '27, of course, I beg your pardon. This all refers to '26 and '27.
Q What official position did you hold in Hof?
A In Hof I had the position of a public prosecutor.
Q As public prosecutor you were a civil servant?
AAs public prosecutor I was a civil servant, that is to say, between me and the state there existed that unilateral relationship of power as exists between the state and every other official; a power relationship in which only one of the two parties has a right to issue orders and that is the state, and only one of the two has to obey, and that is the civil servant. That is the constitutional position, roughly, of the German civil servant, and that is true also of the public prosecutor the relationship of the public prosecution to the state. One becomes a civil servant, and also a public prosecutor by a unilateral, sovereign act of the state, not by a contract.
Q Was your position in accordance with the civil service law?
A Yes, the position of the public prosecutor, of a judge, and of very civil servant in Germany, is regulated in accordance with the civil service law which lays down his position and describes it exactly and without any doubt, unequivocally, and unilaterally tells everybody where the limits of the authorities of the state are.
This relationship is so comprehensive exhaustive that it does not leave any room at all for conspiracies, for example, between a superior and a subordinate, outside of this power relationship. Matters of that kind perhaps occur on a horizontal basis but never in a vertical direction in the civil service. Where the fields of acts contrary to law began, the relationship of a civil servant stopped, because the civil service law contains the express principle that the civil servant through his official acts is not allowed to violate the law, and that does not obey nor need to obey the directives and orders which are contrary to the law, but that he is not allowed to do so.
Q What fields of work were assigned to you as public prosecutor in Hof?
AAs public prosecutor in Hof I was exclusively concerned with cases of a general criminal nature, with theft, murder, arson, and like acts.
Q Were political cases assigned to you?
A Political penal cases at that time already required a special sensitivity so that tho chief exclusively concerned himself with this field. However, as a rule, I was employed during the trial of these penal cases as prosecutor. In other words, I had to represent the prosecution during the trial. And according with the conditions existing at that time, these penal cases were, roughly expressed, of such a nature that they were directed against movements for overthrow from the right or from tho left. Thus, they were mainly trials against National Socialists and Communists. Thus, it was as follows: Today Communists were tried and tomorrow National-Socialists.
Q At the time then, how did the chief judge your work as public prosecutor of Hof?