"But, for example, one had gained tho impression ostentatiously in the Katzenberger case that there was a cooperation of political and SD forces with Rothaug from the very beginning on the basis of telephone conversations."
The witness Elkar says, in regard to the Katzenberger Case, in the transcript, page 2895, and I quote:
"In order to quote an especially typical case, we once discussed the Katzenberger case. However, I do believe it was already after the sentence was pronounced. At that time, I expressed my opinion to the effect that, according to the instructions which I received as a SD man and also as far as anything became known generally, the facts of racial pollution did not exist to the fullest extent in that case for, as far as I know, the laws required that there was intercourse between the German and the Non-Aryan."
In the following testimony Elkar reports that you said, at that time, and. I quote:
"It would hardly be conceivable that such a person as he described himself......" (he meant Katzerberger)".... said that nothing happened if a girl sat on his lap and that, therefore, he considered the evidence as conclusive."
I, therefore, ask you, was the SD or any other political office introduced into the pending trial of Katzenberger?
A.- Neither the SD nor any other political office interfered in the Katzenberger trial before, during, or after the trial.
Q.- Did. you write down the question of guilt and the judgment for political offenses before tho sentence was pronounced, or did you take into consideration the wishes of political offices before the Sentence was pronounced?
A.- First, I can say the following in principle. The Katzenberger case, as I shall explain in detail later on, was taken over into the sphere of the special court by me after it was submitted to me with the following question, and I had studied the files thoroughly.
Immediately after this study of the files, I decided upon the question, and that was by my own decision, that the suspicion in this case was of such a nature that when one followed up this affair further the special court of Numberg could become competent in this case. Between the conclusion of the study of the files and this decision, a third office did not even have the theoretical possibility to influence me in any way. Within the where of the Party itself this case did not become known through me but, on the basis of the consequences of the duty of the prosecution, which exists according to the regulations, to report about criminal cases to the Gauleitung (Gau Leadership), to report about cases in which a Party member was involved. Here it became important that Frau Seiler had been a party member. At the moment in which the prosecution began its proceedings against Seiler, the prosecution had to make a report to the Gauloitung. Because of that, the entire occurrence became known to the Gau leadership. However, neither the Gau Leadership nor any member of the Gau Leadership orally, by telephone, or in writing, or directly or indirectly, in any way, even tried to exert any influence in this proceeding.
TIE PRESIDENT: Ask you next question, please.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q.- The witness Ferber has reported -- English transcript, page 1393 to 1395 - that, at a meeting in Strasbourg in 1942, Freisler had spoken to him on account of the Katzenberger case and had described the using of the decree against public enemies in this case as rather doubtful. Ferber immediately objected to the decision of the Ministry that the sentence was executed. When Ferber related this incident to you, you are supposed to have told him, with a raised finger, and I quote:
"They should have dared to pardon Katzenberger."
Is this testimony of the witness Katzenberger correct?
A.- Ferber, as my protege, was in Strasbourg. I knew that he would like to go and I helped him to go. After he returned....
THE PRESIDENT (Interrupting): May I interrupt you? Will you direct your attention to the question that was asked you?
A.- After his return from Strasbourg, Ferber told me about what went on there and, in so doing, he also mentioned that Freisler bad said the judgment in the Katzenberger case had been just on the verge of being tenable, Thereupon he, Ferber, immediately had asked the counterquestion regarding the sentence: "But, Mr. Under Secretary, why did the Reich Ministry of Justice have the sentence executed. Thereupon, Freisler is supposed to have been silent. In that connection, I too said that the sentence was legally tenable and I certainly was of the opinion that I considered it impossible that the Reich Ministry of Justice, for reasons of lack of the legality of the decision, would have pronounced a clemency decision because this was the only question that was at stale. Namely, whether the sentence was legally tenable.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if the witness will direct his attention to the questions that are asked him, he will get along faster. I recollect the question to have been whether you raised your finger and said they should have dared to pardon Katzenberger. Did you say that, or didn't you?
A: I said what I answered to that question, and I answer that question in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask another question. Next question, it is not very important anyhow.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q: Elkar reports about the Bochmer case, page 2894 in the English transcript. In that case, you were to have considered the denying of the right of clemency, is that possible?
A: That is absolutely possible. I considered the nullity plea against the defendant not correct.
Q: According to the testimony of the witness Elkar, page 2892, you seem to have discussed the criminal proceedings against the Poles once too, and Elkar says that in your opinion before the law against Poles was promulgated, there was sort of a gap in the law. During cross examination Elkar said that as for the discriminatory jurisdiction of the courts, if offenses committed by Poles came to your attention, that you represented the point of view that the discriminating administrative regulations would have to be replaced by a law. That the Poles' offenses against Germans and against law andorder should receive severe penalties, as for example of such an offense, Elkar sites the threat of a slap in the face. I now ask you before the law against the Poles of the 4th of December '41 was promulgated, did you see a necessity to issue a special criminal law for criminal offenses committed by Poles?
A: Such a necessity did not exist. Before the law against Poles was promulgated, the Poles were sentenced according to the same laws as Germans. The cases which were discussed here in part, or will be discussed here, as for instance the Lopata case or the Schuttrich case, demonstrate that in all of these offenses the so-called inner facts were especially important. The Reich Supreme Court established very extensive principles in this respect, and we could not just push them aside. The law against Poles was promulgated absolutely as a surprise to me and my assistants. As every other war time law was. None of us had any idea that such laws were being prepared. The practice of other Special Courts and the Polish question, we did not know except in those cases where the Reich Supreme Court stated its opinion on the judgments of other Special Courts and had developed certain definite principles on the basis of this judgment, which, of course, we also had to take into consideration when we tried our own cases. As for Administrative regulations which are mentioned here which were supposed to regulate the behavior of the Poles, I don't know anything about that even today. I have never seen suck an administrative regulation. The living conditions under which the Poles were living, I did not gain any insight into, either, because in general the Poles were living in the country; therefore, I would not know either I am supposed to have developed any usable opinion in this connection.
Q: Did you observe any abuses which had to be stopped?
A: I did not observe any abuses.
Q: Elkar says, in English transcript page 2922, I quote:
"The draft for such a criminal Law, of course, did not originate with Rothaug, but it was expressed in the transcript of the court, partly when I made the reports, partly in exact wording as Rothaug, has given it. There would h have to be additional regulations for certain facts." Elkar mentioned the wrong feeding of animals by the Poles as an example. The thoughts which you gave to Elkar in order for him to use his reports. Did he report them correctly?
A: I never suggested that criminal facts should be formulated. I cannot judge what Elkar tries to say here since he states it in such a general way. Even less, I cannot defend myself against this charge. I would have to be charged with concrete events; the alleged practice in other connections is mixed up with the possibility that it might have been so.
Q: The witness Faerber, page 1397 and 1398 in the English transcript, reports about a case in which a Pole was sentenced to death because he mixed glass splinters into the food for a cow. Faerber says literally in one case I know that the death sentence was founded on the corresponding provisions of the law against Poles. Thus it was easy to construct a crime which was worthy of being punished with death," and I would like to say in quote "to construct", what can you say about this case?
THE PRESIDENT: And the name of the case, the name of the defendant?
DR. KOESSL: Faerber did not name a name; therefore, I am, unfortunately, unable to toll you the name of the case. Faerber spoke only about a case in which a cow, by mixing glass splinters into the fodder, was killed.
THE PRESIDENT: The case appears in some of the exhibits.
I thought you could remember the name of it. We have seen the case.
DR. KOESSL: I do not know the name. The page I quoted, page 1397 of the English transcript.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q: I believe that you can answer.
A: At least one such case did occur. I do not recall the name of the offender anymore either. I also do not believe that Faerber had anything to do with this case. I am also not in a position to reconstruct this case in all its details, but I do know this much. It was found out, and I remember this for certain, by the confession of the defendant himself, that on purpose he had mixed splinters into the fodder and the cow had died because of these glass splinters as was shown by an autopsy. And it could not have been any different according to all the circumstances. Furthermore, it was also known for certain that this case happened out of the sole intention to commit an act of sabotage as it was generally advised to the Poles to do by enemy radio, by leaflets that wore dropped; and as it happened otherwise, too, in a similar or different way. What the final result of the case was, I do not remember anymore; but I believe that the death sentence was pronounced because generally this case was regarded as a serious offense against the war effort. In that connection it mentioned in such a way as if the death sentence was pronounced for cruelty to animals. That of course, is incorrect. Whether the law against the Poles was applied in this glass splinter case, I don't know. The possibility too exists that the case was already tried before the law against Poles was issued. However, in that case too no other penalty would have been pronounced either.
The principles which were applied here were applied by the Special Court with all three courts that were sitting; not only when I was presiding judge. The penalty was laid down absolutely certain by Reich law and the point was that there were taxes upon the cattle during wartime with the aim of hurting the war potential.
Naturally; the individual cow was not a party in judging the case. What was the important factor was -
THE PRESIDENT: We fully understand that the cow wasn't the essence of the charge.
BY DR. KOESSE:
Q Would a German have been sentenced to death if he had committed the same deed; witness?
A Of course; every German who, under our tense food situation; would have killed some piece of livestock with the aim of hurting the German war potential would have been sentenced to death.
Q Ferber mentioned another case; a second case of the same nature in which a Poles had hurt a cow in the leg, He says literally; "The case was built up as a so-called sabotage against the war efforts and the Pole was sentenced to death." The sentence was executed too, In your recollection is that description correct? There is no name stated in this case either.
A I do remember that cases of that nature occurred and the leg of the cow; especially partly also between the claws; was injured in order to render the animal valueless in that manner. But the individual circumstances; however; which were important for judging the act and the amount of penalty that should be pronounced I do not recall and what is hero given as a description of a case is not sufficient as a basis for judging the case. Whether I was presiding judge in such a case at all I do not know. It is possible that my memory is based on the fact that when tap opening date of the t rial was set I had read only the indictment.
Q In individual cases of t hat nature were exact investigations made in order to find out whether the intention was to sabotage the German economy?
A These occurrences against Poles were investigated just as thoroughly as they were investigated if the cases were against Germans. There was no difference made here between Germans and Poles and no distinction could be made because the aim was always the same against both categories of people, namely, with a great deal of thoroughness to find out the truth, which, in a criminal trial, is the most important element, the primary consideration. And, therefore, especially in the case of such sabotage acts we consulted a number of experts, veterinarians and experienced-farmers in order to supplement our knowledge in these matters and to make it more sure.
The requests for submission of evidence in cases against Poles were no less than in the case of Germans.
Dr. Koessl I want to point out that the description which the witness has just made will be enforced by us by discussing a case Cudsik. That is an example of economic sabotage committed by a Pole and the investigation of this charge by the Special Court of Nurnberg.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Ferber explains that his expression, "A crime that is worthy of a death penalty" was constructed by pointing to Article IV of the Decree Against Public Enemies and the sound sentiment of the people and in so doing Ferber says: "It was regularly like this, that against Poles in particular not the real sound sentiment of the people decided it but a Fuehrer Order, a modified Party directive, a request by the RSHA and that took effect just according to the attitude of Rothaug himself in the individual case, depending on Rothaug's attitude in'an individual case, sometimes in a more brutal manner and sometimes in a less brutal manner," English transcript page 1398. What can you say about this description by Ferber, especially? Did you have a Fuehrer order or a modified Fuehrer order or a modified Party order? Did you have anything to do with them and what about requests by the RSHA?
A If we regard the attack Upon the livestock as an act of sabotage, if such a case is proved, the question is no longer what the sound sentiment of the people requires or doesn't require, but what is laid down here is apparent from the very clear wording of the law. I never received a Fuehrer order, neither in individual cases nor in general. I never received a request of the Party either, nor a request from the RSHA. All these matters 'were not necessary but our practice was the same as I believe it is in the entire world, that in case of war an act of sabotage, in accordance with the existing intention, has very serious consequences. One has to take into consideration the maintenance of the livestock level in Germany during the war played quite a different role than was the case, perhaps, in other countries, because all of Germany possessed certainly less pieces of cattle than there were, for example, Poles in the whole country. The effects, especially by pests, and consequences of such cases of sabotage, therefore, could have catastrophic results and from that point of view matters, at least according to the legal situation, that could be recognized and, according to the jurisdiction of the Reich Supreme Court that is the way they were regarded in Germany.
Q In order to elucidate how severe, for example, the Reich Supreme Court, in particular, generally judged the situation in those cases is demonstrated by the case in the list of death sentences of the Special Court Nurnberg in which the notation is made: Sentence of the Reich Supreme Court. I believe it was in 1941. The following were the facts.
A Pole had given a civilian pair of pants to a Serbian WP in order to enable him to flee into his home country. In fact, the Serbian prisoner did escape. The Pole confessed, however, he denied decisively that he had intended that the Serb should join the Tito forces; that he only did it out of compassion. Therefore, we sentenced him to a penal camp, three years in a penal camp. Thereupon, a nullity plea was filed, the Reich Supreme Court changed the sentence, did not even refer it back to us, but quickly sentenced the Pole to death by stating in their opinion that the facts which we had determined ourselves.
, as I have just told you in a few brief sentences now, were absolutely sufficient to pronounce the death sentence.
And I still recall that the important point of view was --- and I remember it because I was interested -- that it could not matter in wartime what concrete intentions he had but that it was absolutely sufficient that the Pole could have counted upon the possibility that the Serb would join Tito's forces.
Q Please continue.
A We did not hold in any decisions of ourselves.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q May I ask you a question. Do you recall the name of the Pole in that case?
A Your Honor, at the moment I cannot recall it, but you can see it from the list of death sentences pronounced by the special courts, Nurnberg. Yes -- Kodak is the name of the case. The name Kodak is listed in the list of death sentences by the special court Nurnberg -under the name Kodak.
Q The death sentence wasn't pronounced by the special court, was it?
A First we sentenced him to three years in the penal camp. Then, there was a nullity plea, and then the Reich Supreme Court, contrary to the usual practice, did not refer the case back to us, but pronounced a death sentence itself because the facts which we had determined already made the death sentence appear so just that they did not consider it any more necessary to refer it back to us.
Q What you said was that it was in the list of death sentences pronounced by the special court, and the sentence was not pronounced by your court at all; was it?
A Yes, it is listed on that because the prosecution in Nurnberg executed it, but on the list itself it is noted expressly that we in the special court in Numberg did not pronounce the sentence, but the Reich Supreme Court did.
Q And could you give me the approximate date of that case?
A Your Honor, I believe it was in 1941 or 1942, but in the list the sentence is designated exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. KOESSL: The list has the Exhibit No. 238 in the Prosecution Document Book III-L.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, from a comparison of Ferber's and Elkar's testimony we can see that Elkar characterized your relationship with the SD as a supporting activity; whereas Ferber apparently wanted to make you a blind tool of the RSHA. Did your activity show the tendency which is ascribed to it by Elkar; or; does Berber's come closer to the tendency of your activity.
A I can that none bf these two tendencies dominated him in my case. Moreover, I cannot evaluate these two testimonies because otherwise the President of the Court will object.
THE PRESIDENT: Correct.
Q Now, we want to gain an insight into your basic attitude into the Polish question. If every case was not tried as every other case, nevertheless it lets one draw, or allows one to draw conclusions as to the basic attitude. Can you cite a case in which a Pole, because of a crime, according to Article I of the order on War Economy, was indicted but was finally acquitted?
A If I may be permitted, I would like in regard to the proceeding question to add something which may perhaps be of significance. I just remember that Elkar once made the statement as if the law against Poles was not so significant at all for our jurisdiction here in Nurnberg because previously already through the laws which existed, we had gotten the same results. The list of death sentences which is mentioned here shows an unequivocable answer to the problem that we have broached, for it proves that in fact through the promulgation of this law against Poles, a not inconsiderable increased severity did occur, and that was not surprising if one is familiar with the law against Poles, but we shall go into that question later on. In regard to the question I was asked last, I can refer to the case, the name of which has been mentioned already, Cudcich -- C-u-d-c-i-c-h. In this Cudcich case, the file of which we shall submit, this is a case of such sabotage against the economy -- economic sabotage. Cudcich was charged that as a shepherd in Roeding, during the war, he had destroyed a large number of sheep, and that his intention had been sabotage.
Q What was the result of the trial?
A I conducted the trial myself; the Poles was acquitted after extensive investigations.
Q When was this acquittal pronounced?
A I don't remember, but anyway it was after the law against Poles became effective.
Q Why was the Pole indicted under the war economy order and not under the law against Poles?
A The law against Poles at the time the indictment was filed was not in effect yet; that is, it had not been promulgated at all yet.
Q Can you cite another case or cases in which through extensive evidence during the trial the incorrectness of the charge in the indictment could be proven?
A We above all wanted to object to the representations in trials against Poles or against foreigners in general. The general impression is that we used not to ask for as much evidence in trials against foreigners as in cases of Germans, but this is absolutely not correct. Rather, the trials which were conducted were conducted under the same law as against Germans, even after the law against Poles had become effective. The evidence was presented with the same thoroughness and care by witnesses and experts, because already we ourselves were very much interested in seeing it established whether tendencies for sabotage existed at all; or, an acute danger existed for our situation. In one case the name of which, however, I cannot remember, a Pole was indicted in a mine; he had hit against the supporting beam of the ceiling as an act of sabotage in order to obstruct the path and in order to bring it to collapse. This would have endangered people, and, above all, the mine could not have operated for a long time. This proceeding, at least when I was presiding judge, was adjourned at least twice.
In each case approximately twelve witnesses appeared who with absolute certainty said that they had material to show that the Pole did damage the supporting beam. In the third trial there was a recess again, and we had determined that we would go to see this mine and wanted to examine the place where the offense was supposed to have been committed, in order to find out whether the witnesses could make such an observation as they had testified to before the court. In any case, the trial did not come to an end while I was presiding judge, but what the final fate was, I don't know, but I cannot imagine that it led to a conviction. If we would have been interested with weak evidence to proceed here because the life of this foreigner was not important for us, we would not hardly have called three adjournments in order to find out and discover the truth after a dozen people had already arrived and stated that they had arrived at a firm conviction already.
Q We started with your relationships to the SD. On what formal basis were your relationships with the SD? Were you a member of the SD?
A I was never a member of the SD; I don't know either whether there was such a thing as a membership of the SD; or, whether the people were assigned to the SD from the SS. Only during this trial did I hear that there was such a thing as an actual membership in the SD. At that time I assumed that it was an institution of the nature of an official agency, the personnel for which was appointed by the SS. I never made any application for any membership in this institution; I never signed anything.
Q Elkar says that in 1940 you had taken an oath as collaborator of the SD; that is in the English transcript at page 2896. Did you take an oath?
A I can say this with absolute certainty, that I never took an oath in that connection. The possibility exists that it was called to my attention that matters which I found out in connection with such conversations were supposed to be kept secret. However, I do not have the slightest recollection of this either, so I cannot imagine that I was approached on this matter in a solemn ceremony. It is a fact, in any case - and this is why the people who worked for me also knew about these occurrences - that the matters which were discussed there, without exception, I believe, I had also discussed with them and among them. Thus I had no thought of violating any secrets or any pledges of secrecy.
Q What was the status called that you had with the SD?
A In former times I never worried about that because for me it was not a question of practical importance as to what I would be designated as, since I had agreed to hold conversations of the type that I used to carry on with Elkar. Thus, in former times, there was no need to have some kind of a rank for that, or whatever you want to call it.
Q Did you ever become a member of the SS?
A I was never a member of the SS.
Q The witness Gross says - at page 2864 of the English transcript that you had been a high functionary of the SD. Did you perhaps hold an honorary rank in the SS or the SD?
A No. I don't know how Gross got this idea of the high functionary, but I assume he was a stranger in the place and that is how he imagined these things. The same is also true of his assertion that I visited Streicher on his estate. That is the only way I can explain those statements. I never held an honorary rank or something like that, and I was never offered it either: and I hardly attached any importance to it either.
Q Have you finished?
A Yes.
DR. KOESSL: In that connection, I would like to recall, for the attention of the Tribunal, that the honorary collaborators of the SD, as far as they were not members of the SS, were expressly excepted by the IMT judgment from the circle of persons who were described as members of the criminal organization of the SD. This decisions made by the IMT at the beginning of the second day when the judgment was pronounced. Count 4 of the Indictment does not make any accusation against Rothaug. However, I point out this IMT judgment in order to eliminate any misunderstanding.
Q The witness Ferber calls you a leading member of the SD -English transcript page 1353. Since, in the German language, "Federfuehrend" means the responsible leader of a certain faction in an official agency, I ask you whether, in any office of the SD in Nurnberg or Berlin, you dealt as responsible leader of a certain part of the SD.
A I never had a partial field, either locally or anywhere, but my activity was limited to the conversations with Elkar, which I have already described. Ferber knows that too. I did not even have the possibility in regard to time, since I was so overburdened with my work.
THE PRESIDENT: You have answered the question twice, or more.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q In what connection was your relationship with Dr. Malz, whom Elkar mentioned in his affidavit?
A Malz once attended a meeting, which Elkar mentioned, which took place here in Nurnberg at the SD office. I had been invited to this gathering, a so-called evening of comradeship, because I was supposed to give information there in the form of a lecture about the significance of the Special Courts. I did not deliver that lecture at that time, but recommended that questions about which there were doubts regarding this institution should be put to me and that I was ready to answer such questions.
That is what happened, and in that connection I met Regierungsrat (Government Counselor) Dr. Malz. When I was transferred to Berlin, he called me up some time later and asked me whether I could not see him sometime. His office was a few minutes away from my office. I did visit him there, and we had a conversation. After that, perhaps two or three times, we had dinner together at night.
In November of 1943 - that is, about six months after I had assumed office in Berlin - I was completely bombed out of my apartment and therefore I moved to Potsdam. However, before this occurred, Malz had been transferred away from Berlin so that I no longer had any personal contact with him.
I do want to say, however, that Malz was in the office, at that time, where the reports were dealt with which went up to the higher levels from the lower levels; that is to say, he divided them into the individual fields according to the subject matter, and they were referred to the different agencies.
Q The witness Ferber, on pages 1714 and 1715 of the English transcript, mentions, in addition to the Nurnberg SD leaders, the SD Chief in Regensburg who allegedly received reports of the sessions regularly; furthermore, as to an SD Chief in Amberg, and a trusted man in Cham, that you had told Ferber and your assistant yourself that they were SD people. Of what nature was your relationship to those people?
A Which?
Q He mentioned an SD Chief in Regensburg.
A Oh, yes. I did not know at all where the SD office was situated in Regensburg; therefore, I did not know any member of this SD office either, with the exception of one single case. On the occasion of a court session in Regensburg in which the courtroom was overcrowded, a young man reported to me. He was wearing the uniform of the Waffen-SS but it is possible too that it was the uniform of the SD. He requested permission from me to be allowed to enter the overcrowded courtroom, too.
He told me, in making this request, that as a disabled veteran and member of the SS he was working for the SD in Regensburg. Thereupon I asked the chief of the guards to find room for this man in the courtroom.
That is all I had in the way of personal relationships with an SD office that might have existed in Regensburg. That is all I know about it. I don't remember the name of that SD man either, and I never saw him again.
Q What happened to the SD collaborator?
THE PRESIDENT: We are advised that the film is exhausted, and we will take our recess at this time. Fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, would you tell us briefly, please, what were your relations with the SD assistant in Amberg and to the agent in Kamm which Feber mentioned?
A. In Amberg, the following occurrence took place, an occurrence which in one way brought me in contact with one SD-man at Amberg. A man in civilian clothes came to see me and wanted to talk to me in the matter of the witness who had been summoned as a witness, at a trial The man told me that he had come from the SD office. The witness had called on him because he found it embarrassing to appear as a witness in a case. The event in question was of the kind that occurs quite frequently. The man was to give information in a political penal case in which he had been interrogated by the police as a witness, and he found that embarrassing. He did not want to appear to be a man who denounces others. As I remember with absolute certainty, he was not the sort of person who denounced others. The police interrogated him because the police were of the opinion that he was bound to have some knowledge, and in fact he did know something. The man from the SD asked me in connection with the examination of this witness, in some way or another, to make it known that that witness -- whose name I no longer remember -- by testifying as a witness was not doing anything dishonorable. I told him that in the proper manner in order to protect that witness, I would prefer to that point, and I did so. That was not only my privilege but it was my duty to act in the manner in which I did act in such a case. There was no question of a person who denounced someone else or even a so-called informer being covered up for in the case. That man from the SD, whose name I no longer remember either, also told me on that occasion, that he would like to draw my attention to conditions which existed at the Hermann Goering Works. The Hermann Goering Works were iron works in the close proximity of Amberg. The "Initpoldhuette" was the name of it.