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.
That is how it happened that the indictment was filed with me in my apartment during the night, that is to say, in a very unusual manner.
Subsequently the summons was issued, the appointment of defense counsel and finally the hour for the opening of the trial was set. We had scheduled it for 11 o'clock in the morning when all the participants, including the defendants, had waived the time limit regarding the summoning. When the session opened Hitler was no longer in Nurnberg at all because during the morning of the 18 of December he had already left Nurnberg again.
The actual conditions are thus quite the opposite from the way they were described here so far. In what way Hitler then, during the further course of affairs, that is to say, regarding the clemency question, after the sentence was pronounced, continued to interfere in the case I do not know. I had nothing to do with it.
THE PRESIDENT: When was the judgment rendered, the 18th?
THE WITNESS: The judgment was rendered at five o'clock in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Of the 18th?
THE WITNESS: The session began at 11 o'clock. There was a recess of two hours and at five o'clock in the afternoon the judgment was rendered. The session itself was carried out as every other session. Both defendants confessed to the fullest extent.
DR. KQESSL: We shall speak about this case again in another connection since other wrong description were also given about this case.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, when was Streicher removed from his office as Gauleiter?
A. Streicher was removed from his office on the turn of the year 1939-40.
Q. The last time you spoke to Streicher was at the execution of Heller?
A. Yes, That is, on the 18 of December, 1938, around midnight.
Q. Did you find out any details about the reason for Streicher's removal from office?
A. There were many rumors about this, but I hardly believe that the Court is interested in this.
Q. The witness Gross, on the 30 of April in the afternoon, reported that on a business trip you told him - and I quote - "that you had been invited to Streicher or had visited him on his estate."
That is page 2,864 of the English transcript. Were you ever on Streicher's estate?
A. Never in my life.
Q. Did he invite you there?
A. He did not invite me either, ever.
Q. Do you know where Streicher stayed after he was banned from Nurnberg?
A. I knew that he was on an estate near Nurnberg and that the estate belonged to him.
Q. Can you name the place?
A. I know neither the name of the place nor can I describe the place. I think they were always talking about the area around Cadolzburg.
Q. You did not enter the place?
A. I never entered it in my life.
Q. Do you have any reason to be grateful to the Party and to Streicher in your official or private life?
A. No, not even the dirt under the nail.
Q. Did you ever correspond with Streicher in a pleasant or unpleasant manner?
A. Not even a letter did I write to him, not one letter.
Q. Did Streicher ever call you by telephone?
A. Never.
Q. Do you have any award from Streicher - a book or something like that?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see Streicher in the Blaue Traube Restaurant?
A. No.
Q. Who was Karl Holz?
A. Holz was the deputy Gauleiter.
Q. When did you see Holz for the first time?
A. Holz was in that party at Streicher's garden -- where I was fetched once.
Q. What happened to Holz?
A. Holz, who during the Aryanization measures in 1938-1939 was involved somehow, was drafted during the war, and until about the middle of 1942 he was participating actively in the war. He fell in action in the battle for Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: May I continue with my examination?
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q: Witness, during the time when you paid a visit to Streicher in his garden, did you see Holz between that time and his return from the front, or did you talk to him?
A: I neither saw him nor spoke to him, nor did I correspond with him. We didn't even exchange one single letter.
Q: Was Holz accustomed to going to the Blaue Traube?
A: I can't remember that I saw him there one single time.
Q: Why was Holz brought back from the front?
A: Holz' return from the front was due to the fact that he was appointed to be Gauleiter of Franconia.
Q: Did you talk to him in connection with that appointment?
A: No.
Q: Were you there when the Gau was handed over to him?
A: No.
Q: When did you meet Holz for the first time, and what was the reason for that meeting?
A: You are referring to our meeting after his return from the front?
Q: Yes.
A: That was in the autumn of 1942, when he referred to me in connection with the Ramsbeck case, which has been mentioned here frequently. He asked me to come and see him. Later he, like myself, was present on the occasion of Thierack's visit -- about one week after that -- and he informed me that I was to be transferred to Berlin.
Q: Did you see him once again after that?
A: Apart from the occasions which I have already mentioned here, I did see Holz once again. That was in connection with the Grasser case, which has played a part here.
DR. KOESSL: The Grasser case is Exhibit 139; that case will be discussed separately.
A: (Continuing): Holz appeared in the courtroom after the opening of the session.
Q: Did you talk to Holz before, during, or after the session?
A: I talked to him neither before, during, nor after the session concerning the Grasser case. Never in all my life did I exchange one word with Holz over that case, neither orally nor in writing.
Q: Apart from the Ramsbeck case which we have mentioned, did you ever discuss any other penal or civil cases with Holz?
A: No.
Q: How was it that Holz made an appearance in the Grasser case?
A: As to the reason for his appearing there, I know nothing. All I can point out is that a report was made to the Justice Press Office of every case that was pending, and that report was passe on to the Gau leadership. Grasser was a man in whom the Gau leadership could be interested for the reason that his brother-in-law, Bessler, was the Gau office leader (Gauamtsleiter).
In this connection I would also like to point out that Grasser, on account of efforts made by the Gnu leadership of Franconia, was set free from a concentration camp approximately in 1938.
Q: The Grasser case, then, was the first case when Holz attended a session over which you presided?
A: At any rate, as for as I remember it was the first case. It is possible that he also attended a case which occurred when I was first in office in Nurnberg -that was the Schmidt-Heller case. It is possible that he attended that case as a member of the audience, because a number of people from the Gau leadership did attend that session. However, I don't know that for certain.
Q: At what time in the Grasser case -- to which we will refer later -- was the possibility of a death sentence under consideration?
A: That is clearly evident from the files. Shortly before the session, in the same way as I did in other cases, I examined the Grasser case in detail. On the basis of that examination -- that was about one or two days before the session -- I arrived at the conclusion that possibly the facts in the case might result in a death sentence being passed. That is evident from the files.
Q: How many penal cases came before the Special Court in 1942?
A: My estimate is 900 or 1000.
Q: The Katzenberger case also occurred in 1942?
A: YES, it did.
Q: Do you remember that the witness Seiler testified here under oath that Holz had attended that session?
That is English transcript page 1048.
What are your comments?
A: I know that is what the witness testified; that testimony is wrong. I know with absolute certainty that Holz did not play any part in the Katzenberger case, and, in particular, that he was not among the audience during the session.
Q: How do you know that?
A: I know that with such certainty because at the time when that session took place Holz was still at the front.
DR. KOESSL: I shall submit an affidavit on that matter.
Q: Do you know of any circumstances which could have caused the witness Gross to say that you had always been in contact with Gauleiter Holz and that you had received directives from him continuously?
English transcript page 2864.
A: I know of no circumstances on which Gross might have based himself in making that guess.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure that I understood your answer to a question a few moments ago. You said 900 to 1000 cases in the Special Court in 1942. Do you mean cases filed or cases tried?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, all cases which came before the special Court, under law, had to be tried by the Special Court. Nine hundred to 1000 cases were tried before the Special Court. That is according to my recollection, and I believe I can prove that figure by files which will be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: And you are referring to the Special Court at Nurnberg?
THE WITNESS: I am referring only to the Special Court at Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q: Who was Zimmermann and what offices did he hold?
A: Zimmermann was the District Leader, the Kreisleiter of Nurnberg; and when Gauleiter Streicher had been sent into exile he - I believe it was in the early spring of 1940 -- was placed in charge of the direction of the Gau Franconia. As for his other functions, I don't know what they were.
Q: For how long did he deputize as Gau leader?
A: Until Holz returned from the front in the year 1942.
Q: The witness Eckert said literally, and I quote: "As far as I know, the reactions between Zimmermann, Haberkern, and Rothaug were fairly close." English transcript, page 2896.
How did you come to know Zimmermann, and what were your relations with him?
A: I have already pointed out that it was only in the course of 1940 that I met Zimmermann by accident when he was at the Blaue Traube.
Q: How often did he attend sessions of the Special Court when you were presiding judge, and do you know why he attended this sessions?
A: I cannot remember one single case of Zimmermann attending one of my sessions. However, it is possible that he attended at the case of Schmidt-Fasel, which has been discussed here several times.
Q: As to Haberkern, you have already testified that quite by accident, as a young assessor, you met him in 1926 and that for many years you had no contact with him. How and when did you hear that Haberkern was in Nurnberg?
A: That was in connection with the National Socialist change over in 1933. In those days his name often appeared in the newspapers, and that was how I discovered that he was in Nurnberg and that he played a political role.
v6854 Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q You have already said that you did not resume contact, not even when against your will you were transferred to Schweinfurt? You have also given us your reasons. When and how was it that you renewed your relations with Haberkern?
A It was in 1938 as far as I recollect. One day Haberkern rang me up and asked whether I was that Rothaug who in 1926 had stayed in his home. I told him that I was that man, and he was very pleased and asked me to come to see him and his wife. They were the owners of the Hotel Blaue Traube, Nurnberg. I told him that I would go to see him some day, and one day I did go to see him. That was how I came to the Blaue Traube.
Q What were Haberkern's offices in Nurnberg and the Gau Frankonia?
A He was Gau Inspector, the leader of the catering organization, and he was also an Ortsgruppenleiter, a leader of a Local Group. I believe he was the Ortsgruppenleiter of the Old City.
Q Through this function did he have any contacts with your official position as a judge?
A No. The Gau Inspector, according to his official duties, has to take care of internal matters of the Party. As a leader of the catering trade organization all he could have done was to find me some room for my summer holidays. I had nothing to do with his Local Group because I belonged to a different group.
Q The witness Faerber on the 8th of April maintained that attorney Michel in the proceedings against the former Ortsgruppenleiter Ramsteck had stated that his client was indignant because he had himself observed or other people had observed in his behalf that the files on the penal case of Ramsteck at the Blaue Traube in the presence of Zimmermann had been returned to Rothaug. English transcript page 1674.
A I must point out that charge concerns quite an old matter. That charge was mentioned in the complaint which Holz made about me to the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin, and it was given great emphasis.