The principle that a judge cannot be transferred against his will was, however, maintained, because under no circumstances transfers could be carried out only because a judge was undesirable for reasons that his sentences were either considered too lenient or too severe and to get rid of him in a certain area.
Q. Well, assuming that you had been ordered transferred, it would have been illegal because it was not based on the question of personnel, as I understand it, but upon other practice?
A. Yes. It would have been illegal because Miethsam admits himself that the nature of my sentences had been the reason for that intended measure. This I would consider defeating the purposes of the law.
Q. Now, assume then that your transfer had been ordered, which would have been illegal. What would you have done about it or what could you have done about it?
A. That question did't come through quite clearly.
Q. If your transfer had been ordered on the basis that you stated would have been illegal, what would you or could you have done about it?
A. I could not have done anything against it because the true reasons would not have become known to me. These reasons became known to me only here in this trial about the testimony of the witness Miethsam.
Q. You would have had no recourse against an illegal order then, is that correct?
A, If it had been known to me what the true reason for that transfer was, such as it has become known to me now by the statements made by Miethsam, then I could have requested against myself a discharge proceedings so that in that manner I could have seen the entire problem.
Q. But you have no way to know; is that correct?
A. Yes, yes. That possibility, of course, did not exist. The background of that action was covered up intentionally.
Q. So you could have been transferred for an illegal reason and had no recourse; is that correct?
A. In practice I did not have any recourse.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. But Doebig was dropped finally, how did that come about?
A. Doebig was not dropped but he was transferred to a position of equal rank with the Reich Supreme Court. I have already pointed out that in the Summer of 1942 I had voiced opposition against such a measure. In the late Fall of 1942 the Gauwalter - Gau Administrator of the Lawyers League, Oeschey - informed me that on the basis of a general directive an investigation of the chiefs of the authorities, as to their political loyalty in their present position, was intended to take place. That meant, therefore, not the general political reliability but the compatibility for certain specified positions, that is to say, positions which for reasons of personality and character one would not want to accept unless one had a positive attitude toward National Socialism.
I was then assigned the mission to report about the events in my Gau group in connection with Doebig. We discussed matters. The events in question were occurrences which had become known to us directly or through reports from others.
It was also material in part which we were not easily in a position to examine. What it was in detail I could no longer say today, but I know that it dealt with the notes which I had made concerning the attempt to have me transferred to the east, as I have already mentioned, and which I had deposited in the Gau office of the Lawyers League; and in addition an event played a certain role which had occurred in connection with the removal of the Streicher pictures.
That latter occurrence was in reference to the fact that in connection with Streicher's being sent into exile from all the office rooms and offices of the Party, his pictures, which had been hanging there were removed. In this connection Doebig called a subordinate official to him to ask him what he was going to do with his picture because he did not want to look at that vulgar face any longer.
What caused a certain amount of excitement in this connection was not the removal of the picture of Streicher from offices, because that was a matter of course and had been ordered, but one objected to the nature of this particular occurrence because Doebig, at least until the time when Streicher's star dropped, had been one hundred per cent in favor of Streicher's policy; that he had enjoyed the benevolence and sponsorship of Streicher in his own career; and that he now made use of the fact that Streicher was in disfavor to adopt an attitude which we call the policy of the donkey step. Only in this direction was there some excitement.
But, it has to be stressed that, from the very outset, we were unanimous about the fact that report should have no secrecy at all and we insisted that Doebig should be afforded an opportunity to answer to that report. In this connection, it is of importance that Doebig was a Party member and a member of the National Socialist Lawyers' League and, therefore, had subordinated himself, of his own free will, to the provisions and regulations of that organization. The first question, therefore, was whether he should be afforded an opportunity, in the form of an honor court, but that would have gone too far and, therefore, we preferred, since he knew the Deputy Gaueliter Karl Holz very well, to have the matter settled through Holz. At the same time, there was no secrecy connected with the whole matter, but it was carried out quite openly and publicly in contrast to the method which had been intended against me and the final aim of which had been that I should still kiss the hand that struck me, because I was supposed to have considered that transfer to the East as an honor and recognition. That was how it was planned.
Q Doebig calls you the "guiding spirit" in the intrigue against him-English transcript, page 1755. Would you please be very brief in your comments on this after all you have explained to us already?
A I was not the "guiding spirit" but, in that entire matter, I only worked on the basis of a definite assignment and I myself had opposed these plans before.
Moreover, that entire procedure was carried out quite openly - that is to say, within our circle, quite openly - and it served only to give a certain amount of security to Doebig himself because he should have been afforded an opportunity to justify himself which was an element which was quite lacking in my case. Moreover, we had assumed a frank and open position in this matter. That action was based on regulations and provisions which Doebig himself had accepted and acknowledged by subordinating himself to the Lawyers' League. I can not see any reasons anywhere to assume that an intrigue against him had taken place.
Q. Then Doebig says, on page 1756 of the English transcript, that Miethsam had told him that you wanted to become president of the district court of appeals. You have already answered that question and you can be very brief now with whatever comments you have to make.
A I never had that thought at all because I did not consider myself to be the right man for such representative functions. They are not in accordance with my nature.
Q (Interrupting) Doebig.... Excuse me.
AAs for the suggestion of the position of vice president - everything has become clear to me now. The position of president of a district court of appeals was, particularly in the Third Reich, because it was a very exposed position, a very insecure one. When one committed the stupidity - and I can't call it anything different - to suggest me for the position of a vice president, I found ample reasons for that suspicion which, in my opinion, was the basis from which everything arose later. That is rather, the suspicion on his part that I could become dangerous for him and for his position. Therefore, that twofaced method which, in the final event, desired to have me transferred from Nurnberg.
Q On page 1766 of the English transcript, Doebig says that you had listened in on his telephone conversations to Miethsam.
Miethsam, in the English transcript on page 3919, says that, through some confidential agent who was in Doebig's surroundings, you had obtained knowledge of the telephone conversations. Did you ever tap any telephone conversations or have anybody else do it?
A In this connection I can only say that, throughout my entire life, I have never listened in to the telephone conversations of anybody else or had anybody else do that for me. Such matters and such methods never interested me and I claim that they are not compatible with my character. From Doebig's surroundings I did not know anybody personally or any more closely, and I never discussed what Doebig could possibly discuss over the telephone to Berlin. Neither did I have any possibility to listen to such telephone conversations myself. When I first heard about that through here, I assumed that it was probably intended to charge me with having such conversations checked by the police or the SD. That is also out of the question. It was said that I might have had that done by an employee of the telephone exchange, but I can assure you that, until now....
THE PRESIDENT (Interrupting): May I interrupt?
You have consumed five minutes of the Court's time in answering a direct question which could have been answered directly by the word "no". You were asked an affirmative question as to whether you had ever listened in on a particular telephone conversation. Your answer is "no". Will you attempt to be more brief.
THE WITNESS: I have never listened in on any telephone conversation.
THE PRESIDENT (Interrupting): You have answered it. You have answered it over and over again. Let's not repeat.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Miethsam says that one of the charges against Doebig had been that Doebig had suggested Dr. Grueb, who was politically unreliable, to be promoted to Landesgerichtsrat (District Court of Appeals' Counsellor) English transcript, page 3919. In an expose which had been attached to a letter of the Gauleitung it was supposed to have said:
"In order to obtain a promotion of Grueb, Doebig called his friend at the Reich Ministry of Justice, Dr. Miethsam". In fact, such a telephone conversation took place. What can you tell us about that?
A What the contents of the outline were, which allegedly was sent by the Gauleitung of Franconia to Berlin, I do not know. About the matter of Grueb I know the following: Doebig, when that question became acute, called us and asked us whether we, on our part, had any objections and would voice any misgivings against a promotion of Dr. Grueb. We assured him that we would not voice any objections against Grueb. That meant that we were ready to support Grueb, even if, from any other side, objections would be made against him. However, we were never informed about objections of any kind. They may have existed and may have led to difficulties which were observed later. As far as we were concerned, we did not cause any such difficulties in that matter.
Q. Doebig asserts that he did not consider it a very advisable solution to use you in the East - page 1842 in the English transcript. What can you say about that?
A. I can only say that I don't believe that because his connection with the underlining of my name in that list, and the notation made with reference to it that no official objections could be made, shows that the whole master had been done with his approval and agreement. It is also to be added that Doebig persuaded me to accept a transfer and he tried to make it more acceptable for me by saying that there I certainly wouldn't have so much work to do because those legal remedies, which I had to afford people in the area of the Reich, were quite out of the question in the East.
Q. Doebig asserts that he had reproached you for the manner in which you conducted trials and you had promised him twice to use more restraint on your temper. English transcript, page 1841. Is that true?
A. Doebig reproached me one time only about the manner in which I conducted trials, but in the mildest form. He said first that what he was about to tell me I should consider as an advice of a colleague. He had observed, he said, during the session that, on and off, I had made remarks to my associate judge on my right which could be heard in the audience. He thought, he said, if I could stop this, then the impressive manner of conducting trials would only be improved, I retorted that I was grateful to him and that one could not see those matters oneself - such matters of temperament - and I told him that I would do my best not to do that in the future. That was the only time that Doebig, in a purely friendly manner, pointed something out to me, as I would like to say. It was not really a criticism in the usual meaning of that word.
Q. Now, a few more detailed questions concerning the subject of administration of justice.
The prosecution, in its opening statement, has set forth that, to an increasing extent, a personnel turnover took place in the Third Reich among judges and prosecutors, and it is pointed out at the same time that you had resigned as a judge and had become Reich prosecutor.
What can you say to that?
A. That changeover from judge to prosecutor is no characteristic thing of the Third Reich. In Bavaria, the second largest Land of the Reich, and also in other laender, it had always been customary. My own career demonstrates that in 1927 I was public prosecutor, in 1929 I became a judge, in 1933, a public prosecutor, and, in 1934, again a judge, and, finally, in 1943, again a prosecutor. That had no political purpose but the underlying thought was that a certain group of judges and prosecutors, by this changing career, should obtain information about the work in both types of office by their own practical experience, and the good experiences brought about gave cause at the time of the unification of justice throughout the Reich, to have that method applied all over the Reich.
Q. In order to avoid repetition, I'll skip several questions and come now to a question in connection with Miethsam's testimony. It is found in Exhibit 74 of the defendant Schlegelberger. Miethsam says there that Schlegelberger, when he had suggested you, had rejected that when the question of the position of president of the district court of Appeals in Nurnberg became acute because you had been an outspoken National Socialist. What do you know about that, and is it correct, according to your knowledge?
A. One is apparently trying to prove that so-called "outspoken National Socialists" were rejected, and I am cited as an example. Only for that reason I have to discuss that at all. What actually happened in Berlin I do not know, but I know one thing, that the Reich Ministry of Justice certainly was not an institution to combat National Socialism. It is pointed out that about one hundred judges were placed in positions where they could expect promotions who were not members of the Party. In this connection, I only want to point out that I myself, on the 1st of April, 1937, was one of these one hundred judges.
Q. Did the Reich Ministry of Justice, for instance in the person of Miethsam, ever make any endeavor to prevent the members of the administration of Justice to do too much for National Socialism in any field?
A. I have not observed any endeavors of that kind.
Q. Ferber asserts that also under the Thierack Ministry you maintained your attitude of hostility against the administration of justice. Thus, you had refused to attend the reception of Under Secretary Rothenberger at the railroad station. You did not appear when he was introduced and, in addition to that, you had once shown around a photograph of Rothenberger with a certain amount of disparaging remarks. Are these descriptions correct?
A. In this connection I want to say quite briefly it is true that I was not at the railroad station when Rothenberger arrived, but I was never invited to do so and that simply because I am not the right type for ceremonies of that kind and because attending there was not part of my tasks. Engert, as the administrator of the Gau organization, was the right person for that matter. It is not true that I was not present when Rothenberger was introduced. That reception took place in this building, in the so-called large hall. I was present, and I was also introduced. Never in my life did I possess any photograph of Mr. Rothenberger. I lived in Nurnberg. Rothenberger lived in Hamburg, and he came to Berlin later.
On the occasion of his visit in Nurnberg, it was the first time I saw him in my life. Now, it not only practically impossible that I would have a photograph of his, but I didn't have it in fact.
Q: Now one last question in connection with that group of questions. To characterize your attitude as a whole in the political field as well as in other fields, Ferber quotes a phrase which you frequently used. It deals with the system of ruling according to which only one man is supposed to rule. What did you mean to express by that?
A: It is a well-known Greek quotation. "UK agathon polykoiranie, heis kyrannos esto, heis basileus," "It is not good that many should rule, one should be ruler, one should be king." The quotation itself is so ageless that it certainly was not applied by me to the present political conditions and not put in any relation with them with the meaning at the present time. It is a saying such as many others which are attributed to me, but never had a serious background nor a serious purpose; but in all cases and certainly also in this one, they were connected somehow with something humourous. But one thing is true -- I do not consider this Greek saying as wrong.
DR. KOESSL: With the approval of the Tribunal, I ask to be permitted to interrupt the direct examination of Rothaug as a witness in his own case and to call in the meantime, first, the witness Karl Schroeder.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
DR. SCHUBERT (Counsel for the defendant Oeschey): May it please the Tribunal, may I use the short intermission to ask a question. Karl Schroeder who has just been called by my colleague Dr. Koessl was also granted as a witness for me for my case. The court on principle has ruled that a witness can appear only once before the Court, and that every defense counsel who wants to put questions to what witness should put these questions at that time when the witness is brought before the Court. And yesterday, just with reference to that witness, I made an application to the Tribunal without there having been a ruling on that question as yet.
Because of the difference of opinion between the prosecution and myself, I could not carry out my last interview with that witness; therefore I believe that in this case I may ask for permission to recall the witness Schroeder at the time when will conduct the defense for my client and that I be not obliged to examine him today. I do not believe that would mean any delay to the case because the witness is in the court house prison and can at any time without any loss of time be brought into the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take your question under consideration until the time of the recess.
KARL SCHROEDER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up you right hand and repeat after me the following oath. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omnicient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q: Witness, would you please give us your first and last name and your occupation?
A: Dr. Karl Schroeder. Until the end of the war, senior public prosecutor at Nurnberg.
Q: Since when do you know the defendant Rothaug, and how did you meet him?
A: I have known Rothaug since 1927. At that time I was local court counsellor at Hof, when on the first of June 1937, he was transferred to Hof as a public prosecutor.
At Hof we lived in a duplex house. That is how we came to know each other intimately and became friends.
Q: And after Rothaug's transfer from Hof to Nurnberg, did you remain in contact with him?
A: In the fall of 1929 Rothaug was transferred to Nurnberg with the rank of Amtsgerichtsrat (local court counsel lor). On the first of July 1930, I was transferred to the Nurnberg Court as chief public prosecutor. In Nurnberg again we lived on the same street, about 50 meters apart from each other, so that again we were meeting quite frequently. Also when on the first of November I was promoted to Landerichtsrat (district court counsellor), I continued to maintain friendly relations with Rothaug because I remained in my old apartment. I believe on the first of November 1934, Rothaug was transferred to the district court at Schweinfurt as district court counsellor. He had applied for a position in Nurnberg and was very indignant about his transfer to Schweinfurt. He said, as I quite well remember, that he might just as well be a member of the Social-Democratic Party because no more happened to them than did to him.
Q: Witness, while Rothaug was in Schweinfurt, did you still maintain contact with him?
A: In Schweinfurt Rothaug had difficulties obtaining an apartment. Therefore, every week-end he returned to Nurnberg to his family, so that at that time also we were together very much.
Q: Do you happen to know in what manner Rothaug became presiding judge of the special court in Nurnberg in 1937?
A: I can only say the following in that connection. About the beginning of 1937 the then chief of the Gau Legal Office, Denzler, from Nurnberg told me that an inquiry had come down from the Reich Ministry of Justice as to whether there was any objection to have Rothaug placed in the position of the director of the district court in Nurnberg and he said, "No, there was none."
If Rothaug would receive an instruction from the Reich Ministry of Justice, I should persuade him that he should make that application because Rothaug at that time was still angry about his previous transfer to Schweinfurt. A short time later Rothaug informed me that he Rad received a communication from the Ministry of Justice, suggesting to him that he should make an application to be transferred back to Nurnberg. At first, he was opposed to that, and he used a rather vulgar expression; but I told him he could not do that to the gentlemen of the Ministry because it was generally known that he had not liked at all to go to Schweinfurt and to work there. Finally Rothaug agreed to draw up that application, and on the first of April 1937 he was actually transferred to Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. Dr. Koessl, the time has arrived for our morning recess, 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Concerning the inquiry by Dr. Schubert. Dr. Schubert raised a question as to the circumstances under which he might interrogate, outside of court, the witness Schroeder. The issue which he raised has not up to this moment been decided. Obviously he has the right to interrogate the witness in some form; the only question being in what form and under what circumstances. Since the Tribunal has not decided under what circumstances he may interrogate the witness, we think his application for leave to call the witness Schroeder back in connection with his own case is reasonable, because, as I say, he clearly has the right to interrogate him under such circumstances as the Court may authorize, and he has not yet done so. That answers your question, Dr. Schubert.
DR. SCHUBERT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We are now ready to decide the other issue -- As to the circumstances under which, in accordance with our rules, he may examine or interrogate this witness. The Tribunal finds that the witness is a prosecution witness, called and brought by the prosecution and not released as such. His character, as such, has not been changed by the fact that at a later time the Court has made an ex parte order authorizing the defense counsel to examine him also. We consider ourselves controlled by the provisions of the amended Rule 23, of the Uniform Rules of Procedure, adopted at a meeting of the Judges of the several Tribunals. We call attention first to the fact that the witness in question is under arrest, and would be in confinement whether here or elsewhere; and we think it reasonable, in view of the action of the military authorities, over which we have no control, and for security considerations, that regulations such as were made by the judges in their session should be made to apply in cases of such prisoners, as distinguished from the more unlimited, unqualified right to interrogate free witnesses. In any event, the rules provides as follows:
"In all cases where persons are detained in the Nurnberg Jail, either as witnesses or prospective witnesses for the defense, and the counsel for the prosecution, or the defense, wish to interview or interrogate such witnesses, the following procedure shall be followed: " -- I skip to the last sentence of paragraph numbered 2, which reads as follows: "In case a defense counsel wishes to interview or interrogate such a witness, a representative of the prosecution shall be entitled to be present."
The interpretation of Rule 23, which is, after all, only an administrative interpretation and not binding upon the Tribunal, was, however, prepared and has been signed by a representative of the Prosecution and of the defense.
Paragraph 3 of that administrative interpretation provides, and I quote: "If defense counsel wishes to interview a prosecution witness, or a person not classified as either prosecution witness or defendant, defense counsel will serve notice on the prosecution as to the date and hour of proposed interrogation. The prosecution shall be entitled to have a representative present during the interrogation."
In view of our findings of fact in this case that administrative interpretation also tends to the same result. We have agreed further, however, in view of some statements made by counsel, that the limitation which should be strictly construed, upon the manner of interrogation, provides only that a representative of the prosecution shall be entitled to be present. We do not construe that to include any right to interfere in the examination in any way, or to bring with the prosecution a stenographer for the purpose of taking down the conversations. The right which we construe merely is the right to be present. The witnesses who may be interrogated in the presence of a prosecution representative, or in other cases of a defense representative, may feel as completely free to state the truth under those circumstances as under any other conceivable circumstances.
It must not be thought that there is any element whatsoever of coercion involved in the application of the rule.
I think that disposes of the whole matter.
You may proceed with the examination.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q.- Witness, in the interim you yourself went way from Nurnberg.
A.- On the 1st of January, 1936 I was transferred to Wuerzburg as senior public prosecutor.
Q.- During the time when you were in Wuerzburg, did you remain in contact with Rothaug during that time?
A.- During that time, too, I maintained my contact with Rothaug. Rothaug, who meanwhile had moved to Schweinfurt, came to Wuerzburg frequently, which he knew from the time when he was a student. Besides, he could not get used to Schweinfurt, so that he liked to go away from Schwein furt all the time.
Q.- Did you have any official contact with Rothaug again?
A.- I did have official contact with Rothaug on the 1st of July, 1941, as senior public prosecutor; I was transferred to Nurnberg. At that time Rothaug was presiding judge of the special court.
Q.- As senior public prosecutor in Nurnberg, did you also deal with the cases which were indicted before the special court?
A.- I was simultaneously in charge of the prosecution at the special court in Nurnberg, and in that capacity was also directly concerned with cases before the special court.
Q.- Thus, you can tell something about Rothaug's attitude from 1927 until 1945?
A.- I believe that perhaps next to his wife, I am in the best position to testify as to his attitude during all those years.
Q.- Before 1933 was Rothaug politically bound or tied up in any way? What was his attitude toward party politics?
A.- Before the seizure of power by the NSDAP, Rothaug was in no way tied up with any political movement. Party politics, as it developed in German until the end of the twenties, was to him a true horror; he hated the dishonesty that was inherent in it, and its untruthfulness, lack of genuineness. He on his part said that after the war he had a different attitude. At that time he had regarded it as Germany's salvation to get a democratic parliamentary system. In Aschaffenburg he had helped to found the republican Reich Bund, Reich Association which had a democratic tendency, but the development that later took place condemned everything to hopelessness, and the democratic parties, compared with radical parties did not have any striking force; and the foreign countries after they had defended the democratic parliamentary system did not give a chance to the democratic parties. The same motives, the same attitude he expressed himself about the National Socialists, as well as about the communists.
Q.- Can you now briefly describe an experience that demonstrates how Rothaug's attitude toward National Socialism before 1933?
A.- One event which I recall occurred in 1927 in Hof. In Hof at that time a National Socialist meeting was being held at which Hitler was to speak. The gathering took place in a big room near our apartment. That brought it about that a woman of our acquaintance, who wanted to go to that meeting availed herself of that opportunity in order to pay a visit to us. At that time Rothaug happened to be in my apartment. When he heard that the woman wanted to go to that meeting, he urged her with all the means at his disposal and bothered her to such an extent that she finally gave up going to that meeting. At that time he told her especially that the NSDAP was thriving for dictatorship, and that this involved the greatest danger for our fatherland.
Q. What was Rothaug's attitude before 1933 to the Jewish problem?
A.- I can state in answer to that question that Rothaug was under no conditions an anti-Semite by his training at home.
As I have already stated we were in Nurnberg since 1929, in Nurnberg where anti-Semitism was especially rampant. Although he never knew Streicher, or saw him speak, already on the basis of newspaper reports he was opposed to Streicher. Rothaug was of the opinion that if one pursues ideals, one should not appeal to the lowest instincts of the masses, as was being done in the Stuermer.
Q.- Among Rothaug's acquaintances were there Jews? Please answer it briefly.
A.- This question I have to answer with yes. Rothaug lived a very quiet life, and outside of our family he had social contacts with one physician, whose wife was a Jewess, and who is still married to that woman today. I met this couple through Rothaug. I can only state that Rothaug always had the greatest respect for that woman. Moreover, he visited -- I think I am right when I say he visited about once a week Dr. Loewenthal who was an attorney. Dr. Loewenthal was a Jew. When he went out Rothaug went with him to beer cellars in the winter and to beer gardens in the summer. He esteemed Dr. Loewenthal very much, and he addressed him with a familiar "DU"; and in my opinion he was a friend of his. The third point in answer to that question which I can cite is that for his family physician for his wife and daughter, Rothaug employed Fraulein Dr. Bergmann in Nurnberg who was a Jewess. Frau Rothaug, beyond the necessary visits, otherwise too, when there was no reason for medical care, maintained social contacts with Fraulein Dr. Bergmann.
Q.- What was Rothaug's behavior and attitude toward the change in government in 1933?
A.- 1933 gave cause for the greatest worry on the part of Rothaug. He believed that the things that were developing now in Germany could not lead to a good end. First, he had an absolutely negative attitude toward National Socialism.
Q.- Did Rothaug participate in any meetings or marches or parades; or, did he wear a uniform?
A.- I can state positively, that as far as I know, during those years he neither attended a meeting nor participated in a parade. He tried to avoid the parades -- making a large detour. When, for instance, on the 1st of May, the employees had their roll call, the staff of the Palace of Justice included, Rothaug did not appear, but together with his family made a trip to the Steinbruschlein, which is a resort near Nurnberg.
Q.- This opposition on the part of Rothaug -- was it expressed in his official duties?
A.- Among the colleagues, I believe Rothaug was also known because of his negative attitude toward National Socialism. I frequently told him that he should be careful and that he should watch out. At that time Rothaug told me that he was fulfilling his duty as it was required. He continued to do so, and no more could be asked; that he was not sabotaging and that he felt that he was fulfilling his official duties completely.
Q.- When did Rothaug give up his negative attitude, and what were the reasons he gave for his affirmative attitude toward the now state?
A.- The negative attitude of Rothaug against National Socialism may have existed until 1936. At that time he accepted conditions as a fact which could no longer be changed. We frequently reminded him of his former attitude and pointed out to him that he now had surrendered. On these occasions Rothaug assumed the point of view that in his discretion the movement either would have to run itself into the ground or would have to lead to war. Neither of these two alternatives had happened. Now, with the approval of the overwhelming a majority of the German people, the NSDAP, that is the Nazi Party, had known how to tie up its fate so closely with the fate of the German people that the decline of the party would at the same time have meant also the destruction of the German people; and the whole world had recognized that officially.