A: I never received such direct instructions from the Gauleitung.
A: What were your duties as Gaugruppenwalter in the Jurist's League for the judges' and prosecutors' groups?
A: In part that question has already been answered. All problems which fell within the scope of that professional organization, the Jurist's League, all problems which reached that organization could come to us from any quarter, as they could come from the population itself. All those problems were passed onto the Gaugruppenwalter for to deal with,and they were forwarded to that group, the members of which were in some way affected by the event under discussion.
On the other hand, naturally, we also had to cope with the particular difficulties and problems of our members and we had to take care of their affairs because, after all, they had joined a professional organization like ours for that purpose.
I should like to give a practical example to explain this matter, and I will give an example of an event which actually occurred, an event with which we had to deal.
When the Administration of Justice was centralized, certain offices of judges worm down-graded. Hero at the District Court of Nurnberg, for example, the Department Chiefs who had had the rank of Local Court Directors (Amtsgerichtsdirector), overnight, and only because the Administration of Justice was being centralized, were downgraded by one grade. That was done without it being their fault in any way. Naturally that caused a tension, and naturally the people whom it effected were very much annoyed. They came to see me and told me about the matter. As far as I remember they were not Party members, they were of the older generation, and they said that they had been treated in a way in which people only should be treated if they had violated service regulations.
I then gave a precise account of the occurrence, made a report, and drew attention to the fact that such treatment of officials was untenable. To begin with, Berlin was against taking any interest and they used the well-known slogan, "The interests of the people have to take precedence over the interests of the individual. However, by again and again digging away at the matter, we succeeded in solving the problem in a way which was satisfactory to everybody concerned.
That was, for example, one of the duties with which we bad to deal.
Q: As Gaugruppenwalter for the judges' and prosecutors' groups, did you have an office of your own?
A: I neither had an office of my own nor a staff of my own. I merely had my chair and my two hands. The work that I had to do there I did as an individual, and as a rule I wrote it out with my own hand. I then submitted the matters to the Gauwalter.
Q: Did you wear a uniform in that capacity?
A: Except when I was in the army, all my life I have never worn a uniform.
Q: Did the area of the Gau Franconia comprise the entire area of the District Court of appeal, or were there other Gau leaderships competent as well?
A: Perhaps I had better start with the area of the District Court of Appeal. The area of the District Court of Appeal of Nurnberg comprised the Gau Franconia. Besides, it also comprised large portions of the Gau Bayreuth, and one little corner of the Gau of Main-Franconia, but that corner is not important for our purposes here.
Q: Did you at that time have any relations with the Gauleitung in Bayreuth?
A: Not in the least; I had nothing to do with the Gauleitung in Bayreuth either over the telephone or by way of correspondence, although as much of my official work was done in that Gau as was done in the Gau of Franconia.
Q: Did you know Gauleiter Schemm at the time, or did you know Gauleiter Waechtler in Bayreuth?
A: I never came face to face with them.
Q: Did you have any correspondence with the Gauleitung in Bayreuth in those days, or did you talk to them over the telephone?
A: Never, not concerning any problem; and the Gauleitung at Bayreuth did not play any part with us, not concerning any proceedings.
Q: Did you know any of the political leaders at the Bayreuth Gauleitung?
A: Not a single one.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(At 1630 hours, 11 August 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 12 August 1947.)
Bayreuth Gau are Amberg, and that is on the right half - right-hand half - and to the northeast Weiden. Then, in the right hand, in the middle of the lower half is Regensburg. Those are the three district court areas which are in the Bayreuth Gau.
Q What was the relationship in regard to the size of these districts to each other?
A In regard to the size of the two Gaus to each other, it was about the same, but I have to add that the Bayreuth Gau was only dealt with by our district court of appeal in part, and according to its entire extent it was much larger than the Gau Franconia.
Q You also exercised the activities of the special court in the Gau Bayreuth for the most part yourself?
A Yes.
Q Did you not feel the need to establish connections with the Gau Bayreuth?
A This idea never occurred to us at all; neither to me, nor to Oeschey, nor to Ferber. We never thought of establishing such a connection because for us it was a matter of course that the party had nothing to do with our activity.
Q Ferber in some parts of his testimony mentioned especially your good relationships with the Kreisleiters of the area of the district court of appeals. What is a Kreisleiter?
A A Kreisleiter was a so-called bearer of the sovereignty of the Kreis; that is of a part of a Gau.
Q In what places did the special court usually sit?
A The places where the special court held sessions, which may be important I later on, too, are Rothenburg on the Tauber, that is far to the left on the margin; then, Neustadt on the Aisch, that is northeast of Rothenburg, near the upper margin of the map. Then, Ansbach, that was the seat of a district court, and that I have already designated before. Then, in the Upper Palatinate, Neumarkt, that is to the southwest of Nurnberg, approximately at the middle of the map; Amberg is northeast of Neumarkt; Weiden is northeast of Amberg; Straubing is on the lower eastern corner of the map; Regensburg is to the northwest of Straubing; and Schwandorf is approximately in the middle half of the map.
Those were the places where the special court of Nurnberg was in session.
Q Did you know the Kreisleiter of Rothenburg on the Tauber?
A No.
Q Did you know the one of Neustadt on the Aisch?
A No, not either.
Q Or the Kreisleiter of Ansbach?
A I did not know him either.
Q The Kreisleiter of Nurnberg?
A I did know him.
Q When and where did you meet the Kreisleiter of Nurnberg? And what was his name?
A His name was Zimmermann, and I met him in the course of the year 1940. And I would like to state that on the 1st of April 1937, I came to Nurnberg.
Q Did Zimmermann participate in sessions?
A The possibility exists that perhaps he participated in the SchmidtFasel case which was repeatedly mentioned here. However, I can not state so with certainty; anyway, I cannot remember at all whether he took part in any sessions.
Q Did you have party or official connections with Zimmermann?
A Not in a single case.
Q Did you know the Kreisleiter of Neumarkt?
A The Kreisleiter of Neumarkt was a man by the name of Detzer, who, as far as I know, participated in the trial against Engelbauer. Later on, after the session, we were sitting in the station hotel of Neumarkt having a beer; we were sitting there together. I never saw that man again.
He was drafted and fell in action, as far as I heard, when he was flying over England.
Q Did you know the Kreisleiter of Amberg?
A: The Kreisleiter of Amberg I knew. I knew him because he mediated for us so that we could get a courtroom.
Q: Did you know the Kreisleiter of Cham?
A: I met the Kreisleiter of Cham in connection with the trial of the Schlemminger case, which is important here too. In that case we had eye-witness accounts taken in the village of Delflingen. In order to go to the village we needed a vehicle, which was put at our disposal by the Kreisleiter of Cham.
Q: Did he participate in the sessions?
A: As far as I remember, he participated in three to four sessions, in the audience.
Q: How large is this place Cham?
A: Cham must have some few thousand inhabitants.
Q: Did you know the Kreisletier of Regensburg?
A: I did not know the Kreisleiter of Regensburg; I don't even know his name.
Q: How large is Regensburg?
A: Regensburg is one of the bigger cities of Bavaria and certainly has more than a hundred thousand inhabitants.
Q: Did you see the Kreisleiter there?
A: I never saw him.
Q: Did you know the Kreisleiter of Straubing?
A: I did not know the Kreisleiter of Straubing either, and to this very day I don't know his name either.
Q: Did you see him in a court session, or anywhere?
A: He did not participate in any session on any occasion; otherwise I would have seen him.
Q: Did you know the Kreisleiter of Weiden?
A: I didn't know the Kreisleiter of Weiden either. On the other hand, I did know the Lord Mayor, Harber, of Weiden.
I met him because Georg Engert, who was examined as a witness here, occasionally introduced him into our circle as a relative of his.
Q: And finally, did you know the Kreisleiter of Schwandorf?
A: I did not know the Kreisletier of Schwandorf either, and until this very day I don't know his name either.
Q: What offices were asked about the political attitude of a judge and a prosecutor, and who made out the final qualifications?
A: Political qualifications were exclusively made under the responsibility of the competent bearer of the sovereignty, that is, the Kreisleiter or the Gauleiter. For these questions they had a so-called Kreis Personnel Office, or Gau Personnel Office. When a so-called political qualification of a civil servant was to be made, these offices addressed inquiries to offices where the civil servant or official concerned was known; that is to say, if he was a member of the NS Lawyer's League, they addressed an inquiry to the Gauwalter of the NS Lawyer's League, or, in another instance, to the competent office of the Civil Service League, or to the Ortsgruppe, Local Group of the Party, or to the SA or SS. The answers to these inquiries were then gathered at these offices and from there, if necessary, by reviewing or examining the facts that were reported, the so-called political qualifications report of an official was made out. This political qualification report was made out because the supervisory offices of this civil servant, by provisions of the law, were obligated to form a judgment on this question with the intervention of the Party.
Q: How did this develop in your case, and according to what principles did that proceed?
A: That was an affair which caused the least difficulty. The Gauwalter gave the slip that had been sent in by the competent Party office to the Gau Group Administrator who was competent for that official. That was I, myself, in the case of inquiries regarding judges and prosecutors, as long as I was entrusted with that function. I then returned the slip, after it was filled out, to the Gau Administrator again, who, on his part, then reported to the Party office.
It is important to know here that, according to an express order, a man who was a Party member was not permitted to be judged as politically unreliable as long as a Party disciplinary proceeding had not been carried out against him because of some established facts.
During the time of my activity in regard to that function, it is of significance that at that time almost all judges and prosecutors were members of the Party on account of the well-known action on the 1st of May 1937.
Q: Did you hear of a case in which a judge or a prosecutor was described as politically unreliable? And if so, what happened to that man?
A: In my time I did not hear of such a case. The declaration which we made in every case had the following stereotyped contents: "Circumstances which could raise doubts as to the political reliability of the person concerned did not occur."
Q: The witness Ferber, on the 3rd of April, in the morning, at page 1558 of the English transcript, stated that you had made difficulties for District Court Judge Roth when he wanted to get a position in Nurnberg. Did political reasons exist for this, and who prevented his promotion to Nurnberg?
A: The Roth case is very instructive and very illuminating. Roth was from my home town. He was seriously injured in the first World War; he lost one leg. My relationship to Roth was formerly a very friendly one. Later on he showed a certain reserve toward me.
The following facts were brought up against Roth: First of all, he was charged with having been aggressive against the Nazi Party, before the seizure of power, in his official capacity and outside, in Lauf or Hersbruck, where he was working as a judge.
A second occurrence with which he was charged was the following: Approximately in 1933-1934, embezzlement, scandals, etc., occurred in the NSV, the NS welfare organization, of Nurnberg. These matters were discovered and tried, and the offenders -- who in part played an important role in the Party -- were sentenced to long terms in the penitentiary. Roth, as an associate judge, wrote to the decision. In the opinion, to justify the heavy penalty, a speech by Streicher was referred to in which Streicher, in general, spoke in favor of more severe penalties. Thus it was concluded that Streicher had unintentionally been beaten with his own weapons, because the Party did not agree to these high penalties. That was the basis for the political animosity against Roth.
I had heard about these things only by hearsay but now, on the 1st of May, 1937, Roth had become a Party member. He was a friend of Schroeder who was also a friend of mine - later Senior Public Prosecutor of Nurnberg. Now, one day, Schroeder came to see me and again called my attention to the Roth Case with the request to think of whether it would not be possible for me to have this man, who was a serious invalid from the war, promoted. Thereupon, I had a discussion with the President of the District Court of Appeals, Doebig, who was examined in this court room as a witness, and I put to him that for us it was not good that this efficient man, who was a disabled veteran, would be put in the lower position. Doebig thereupon announced that he would not touch this piece of hot iron; that he had suggested Amberg and Straubing to him. If he did not want to go there, Nurnberg was out of the question for him. Thereupon, I told him that we would be ready - that is, Oeschey and myself - to clear out everything that had been brought up against this man. Doebig, however, did not agree to anything. I suppose that here he was afraid of the Civil Service League which had nothing to do with us. Thereupon, I made a report to Oeschey in the sense which we wanted in order to finish up this problem in accordance with Roth's wishes. As far as I know, Oeschey also called on Doebig in this affair and was also unsuccessful. In connection with these negotiations, I told Ferber, who was in especially confidential relationship with me, about my lack of success in the Roth case. Thereupon, Ferber told me - this is the meaning of what he said - "Be happy. You would have wasted your efforts on an unworthy person because Roth, for a long time, no longer greets me any more. He does not greet me because I am being used here."
This is the truth about the Roth case.
Q.- Did you work again Local Court Judge Hoeber?
A.- In the same connection as in the Roth case, I also dealt with the question of another disabled veteran, Local Court Judge Hoeber.
Hoeber got a very serious injury of his back during the first World War and this forced him, and still does, to go to the hospital at certain intervals in order to have the pus removed. Therefore, Hoeber cannot sit during the sessions and, in the sessions, was used in the voluntary jurisdiction where he had to work only in the office and not in the court room. I pointed out that it was necessary, after all, somehow to promote these people because, otherwise, it would look as though they were being punished because they were disabled veterans. Here too Doebig refused flatly. He could consider only the official use to which the person could be put. This man could not be used in court sessions and, therefore, he was out of the question for such a position. Thereupon, I told him that he could continue to do that work he had carried on so far even if he were promoted because I knew that other cases were dealt with in the same way, but he could not be moved to agree to our point of view.
In conclusion, I would like to say that neither Roth nor Hoeber personally, in any way, discussed these affairs with me. Both of them were of no significance at all for the Party.
Q.- Were you against the promotion of the Oberlandesgerichtsrat Grueb, who reference to that man?
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q.- No evidence was submitted, but the witness Ferber made some allegations about this man. Grueb himself, when he was examined, said he did not know for sure whether Rothaug was against it.
A.- I want to state briefly in regard to this that, I, as well as Oeschey, were asked for our opinion by the President of the District Court of Appeals in this affair. He wanted to know whether we believed that in the Party any difficulties were being made. Oeschey, as well as myself, told Doebig explicitly that we were supporting his plan fully. If, later on, any difficulties did actually arise - and I don't remember this today any more - these difficulties could only have come from other offices that were asked also.
Q.- Was your position one of confidence in relationship to the judges and prosecutors?
A.- The position of the Gaugruppenwalter (Gau Group Administrator was that of a confidential relationship. We were supposed to take care of our people as well as possible and, in our case, nothing else happened either.
Q.- What was the effect of this?
A.- Either, as I have already described in the Roth and Hoeber cases - namely, that on the basis of my own initiative I acted on behalf of those people - or one of them came to me, the individual concerned and told me what was oppressing him.
Q.- Do you know of any other cases where difficulties had to be ironed out?
A.- I don't know whether the Tribunal wants me to discuss those cases.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we have wasted a good deal of time on very minor matters this morning. The witness apprehends our feeling on the subject, I think.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q.- Did you concern yourself with other affairs, as for instance, unjust demotions?
A.- I remember a Meyer Case. I know Meyer from the time when I was at the local court. He was attacked because he was a member of the Free Masons Lodge for many years, and was also demoted. After, in 1937, I had returned again to Nurnberg - it may have been already during war time - I happened to meet Meyer and asked him about his situation.
Q.- Witness, I don't think we have to explain that any further. I shall submit an affidavit about this.
Did you also have cases in which attacks were made, from the outside, against judges with the aim to put judges into a difficult position?
A.- Such cases did happen. In order to state it quite briefly, in our case they never developed into a situation from which any disadvantages arose for the judges.
Q.- Did you ever have any disciplinary proceeding against any judge?
A.- No.
Q.- Would you have had material for such proceedings?
A.- If one would have wanted to, one could have brought up quite a few things. But there were no such endeavors on our part.
Q.- Did you ever speak with the Chief of the NS Lawyers' League, Reich Minister Frank?
A.- Never in my life.
Q.- Did you ever see him?
A.- On the occasion of the Jurists' Day in Leipzig.
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't make any difference whether he saw him or not. Let's get along to something important.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q: Of the entire high up Party leaders did you know anybody?
A: Nobody. I knew neither Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, nor Rosenberg, nor Frick, nor Kaltenbrunner, while they were still alive. I saw Hess, here in prison by chance for the first time.
Q: Did you have any relationships to any gentlemen in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A: Not the least connection.
Q: When you were here in Nurnberg did you know Under Secretary Freisler?
A: I knew neither Freisler nor Schlegelberger, nor Miethsam. I knew only the defendant Engert because, in 1936, I once came to see him in Munich because of my apartment situation.
Q: How frequently did you enter the building of the Gau Leadership of the Nazi Party in Nurnberg, and on what occasions?
A: The building of the Gau Leadership of the NSDAP in Nurnberg I entered only once when, in 1942, I was ordered to see the Chief of the Gau Personnel Office; once when Gauleiter Holz called me in the Ramsbeck Case, which had already been sentenced at that time; and once when Holz informed me that I had to assume the position in Berlin.
Q: Several witnesses mentioned that you had relationships to Stricher. How often during your life did you see Streicher?
A: I saw Streicher four times in my life.
Q: Before the seizure of power?
A: Never.
Q: During the seizure of power?
A: During the seizure of power I saw him in the Court Yard as he entered the court yard of the Palace of Justice in a vehicle.
Q: And later on?
A: Later, I met him in connection with three occurrences. Once, in his garden, once on the Hesselberg, and once in the Heller Case.
Q: He was supposed to have been present in the SchmidtFasel Case too.
A: Yes, in the Schmidtfasel Case too. That's right.
Q: Why did Streicher ask you to come to see him in his garden?
A: To say it in a few words, it was as follows. One day, during the summer, a vehicle stopped before my house and the driver rang the doorbell and informed me that Gauleiter Streicher wanted to speak to me. Thereupon, I went, by this car, to the Kramer-Kletschstrasse and then I entered Streicher's garden where, in the circle of a large party of men and women, he was. As a reason for calling me he stated that he wanted to meet me. Then, in that group of people, we had a conversation about all kinds of things. Mainly, Streicher was telling stories from his life. After about an hour, Streicher disappeared and was not seen again. After that I went heme. I was accompanied by one of these gentlemen who had participated in that conversation. I talked to him about all the things Streicher had told me. He said that he knew them all, that he had already heard them dozens of times.
Q: When and on what occasions did you speak to Streicher on the Heller case? Dr. Kunz here in this trial during his cross-examination referred to this.
A: In the Heller Case I got in touch with Streicher in the Munich-Stadelheim Prison. During the time after our arrival we were waiting for the time of Heller's execution. At that time, quite unexpectedly for me, Streicher suddenly appeared. What I discussed with him was the following. After Heller had been told the time when he would be executed and he was led to the so-called death cell his last wish was granted and this consisted in having him given white bread, sausage, beer and cigarettes. I sat down in his cell with him with the warden and I had a conversation with him. After that, Streicher suddenly appeared on the scene and started a conversation with Heller. The contents was approximately as follows. Whether he knew who he was and he also went into the question of his family. After that, Streicher left the cell and asked me to come out into the hall and told me that, if it were in his hands, he would pardon this man because Heller must be a good soldier. I contradicted Streicher and told him that the merits of a soldier would be based on the opposite characteristics then the consequences of a criminal; that the soldier was acting altruistically, whereas the criminal in his seeming courage in an offense acts out of egotism. Streicher said that he guessed I was right.
Those were the main points of conversation which I had with Streicher at that time.
Q: You have already mentioned that Striecher was present in the Heller and Schimdtfasel Cases. Did you invite Streicher to come and attend these sessions?
A: Streicher attended only two sessions - the SchmidtFasel Case and the Heller Case. He was present in the court room. In the Schmidt-Fasel Case I had never spoken to Streicher at all.
Therefore, I had no cause nor a possibility even to invite Streicher to attend this session.
Q: What was his attendance due to?
A: That is quite obvious. In the SchmidtFasel Case we were concerned with a sexual proceedings against two clergymen. These matters had, at that time, at the instigation of the Propaganda Ministry, to be set up in an especially grandiose manner. Now, the press office of the administration of justice - that was an institution of the administration of justice - was informed of every pending case in a brief report which it forwarded to the Gau Personnel Office for the information of the press and there all further steps were taken in regard to publication. I did not attribute any particular significance to that case. This can be seen already from the fact that, first of all, I had scheduled it for a small court room. When, on the day in question, in the morning I entered the Palace of Justice the procession of people who were flowing into the Palace of Justice came to my attention. The first thing I thought of was not my case, but then I noticed that there were crowds surrounding the court room. I started the session in that court room and Streicher appeared in this room, together with other members of the Gau Leadership, in order to attend this session. I was approached in view of the many people who had come to go to the large court room. Of course, I complied with that request. The reason for this crowd was that the Gau propaganda office had announced this case in public placards throughout the city and it is due to this action which was undertaken by the Propaganda Office that Julius Streicher and his people also appeared at the session. I did not initiate it by anything.
Q. When was Streicher removed from his office as Gauleiter?
A. That was after the Heller case. I have still something else to say. In the Heller case and. the Heller-Muendl case too, I did not have to ask Streicher to attend this session. This case had a most general interest. Streicher had already interfered in this case before I, myself, even found out anything at all about the existence of this case because Streicher was, as I found out later on, already participating in the investigation of the defendants. He had already gone to see the investigating judge.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question? The Heller case which you have been discussing, is that the case in which Hitler intervened on which we had some other evidence?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, In addition -
DR. KOESSL: Just a moment. The president wants to ask you another question.
THE PRESIDENT: At what stage of the case was it that Hitler ordered the death sentence or ordered execution in that case?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor -
DR. KOESSL: We shall deal with that case later on.
THE WITNESS: I understand the question. Do you mean at what stage of the proceedings Hitler appeared? I wanted to describe that in another connection, but in my opinion that is very important that I go into the answer to the question that the President of the Court asked me here. This question is of significance here too. The only description of this case that was given here so far was that by Faerber and he alleges that during the course of the main trial, that is, during the time while we were sitting in court and trying this case, and at that time Denzler and Streicher as well as the Court found out about the presence of Hitler in Nurnberg and that now Hitler is supposed to have only, when the clemency question was already being discussed, interfered in this matter. This is supposed to say that the speed of the preceding trial had nothing to do with Hitler, but the truth is as follows:
The offense was committed on the 16 of December, 1938, in the evening hours. It was still clarified by the police during that night. On the morning of the 17 of December, 1938, those defendants were brought to the investigating judge in order to clarify the question of the arrest. This was when Streicher appeared for the first time. This was a case in which the defendants confessed their deeds to the fullest extent, as far as the course of events was concerned, and also as to their intentions. Following the interrogation by the investigating judge, the indictment was then, during the course of the day, soon written. Only in connection with this was I informed about this pending case and then I found out something about it only about ten o'clock at night.
Senior Public Prosecutor Denzler appeared in my apartment at this time and filed the indictment in the Keller-Muendl case with me and now I found out the following: During the course of the afternoon the Ministry of Justice, which had been informed of this case by telephone which was important in itself - had stopped the further carrying out of this case and had stated as a reason for this that first, they wanted to await what legal position the Reich Supreme Court would decide upon in another case pending before it. This stopping Streicher had heard about -- I don't know how -- and Streicher now, on this very day, that is to say, on the 17 of December -- it happened toward evening when Hitler arrived in Nurnberg -- informed Hitler of all the occurrences and especially also about the stop that was put to the case by the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Thereupon, - that was reported to me in a manner that I believed it at the time, - Hitler immediately got in touch with the Reich Minister of Justice by telephone and is supposed to have told him in a very enraged manner about his surprise and amazement that this case was not tried immediately, but was stopped. Moreover, Senior Public Prosecutor Denzler was called to Hitler and was instructed to file the indictment with me immediately, during that night still.