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.
Q.- Did you notice any change in his conception of his official duties?
A.- Any change in his conception of his official duties I could not observe at that time. A phrase constantly used already at that time -- and I believe that every one of his assistants knew that phrase -- was this phrase: That he had to apply the law as it was willed. That was his duty; his responsibility did not extend any further. The judgments which Rothaug wrote, and which I read when I was in Nurnberg, in my opinion, showed clearly that his conception of his official duties, the legal conceptions in regard to jurisdiction which the Reich Supreme Court had developed, that Rothaug's conception was influenced by the Reich Supreme Court and that ho remained within the law.
Q. Did you experience any proceedings in which Rothaug acted contrary to the general rule?
A. As long as I was in Nuernberg, it is entirely impossible that Rothaug or I should have treated a proceeding contrary to the general rule. That would have been impossible from the technical point of view because, as is well known, no case could be tried before the Special Court which was not reported on and of which the General Public Prosecutor was not informed. Under those conditions I cannot imagine how another manner of treating a case - that is, contrary to the general rule - could have been possible.
Q. Regarding Rothaug's attitude toward the extent of the sentence, after 1933 did you notice any change in that, or did you notice any discriminatory treatment for political reasons?
A. As I have already stated during my interrogation, Rothaug's attitude toward the degree of the penalty existed to the same extent before 1933 as after 1933. It concerned the usual general criminality as well as political criminality. Rothaug proceeded against all defendants with a great deal of severity regardless of whether they were nonParty members, Party members, or holders of official positions in the Party.
Q. Can you cite examples of the fact that Rothaug did not pay any attention to Party relationships?
A. Outside of the case which I mentioned during my interrogation - that is the Ramsteck case, where the conviction to a long prison term was very embarrassing to the Gau leadership because Ramsteck was known in Nuernberg as a local group leader and had played an important role in addition to that case I still remember the Deeg case.
Q. What kind of a man was he?
A. Deeg was the author of a book which, as far as I know, was published by the Stuermer. The book was called "Hof Juden" (Hof Jews). As the author of this book he was a man who was respected in Party circles, and he was a special protege of Streicher. Deeg was charged with some kind of fraudulent deals in connection with his book.
He was also sentenced to a severe penalty. I can recall with certainty that Rothaug was not satisfied with the sentence because, according to his own statement, he tried to carry out the conviction under the Law Against Public Enemies.
Q. What were Rothaug's relations with his assistants?
A. I gained an insight into Rothaug's relations with his assistants because I knew all of them. I can only emphasize that in my opinion the relationship was an extraordinarily comradely one and an exemplary one, and that this comradeship which Rothaug maintained with his assistants during his official activity in Nuernberg continued also after his transfer to Berlin.
Q. What were Rothaug's relations with his later successor Ferber?
A. When I came to Nuernberg in 1941, I was told by Rothaug, and by several other colleagues, that Ferber was making efforts at that time to be employed at the Special Court, in consideration of the good relations which he had had with Rothaug for years. That was the very reason, as I found out at that time, for which Ferber was appointed as District Court judge at the District Court in Nuernberg.
I know with certainty, to the extent that I had an insight into the conditions, that Ferber approved Rothaug's course in every respect and without any exception. During my official activity I never heard that any differences of opinion existed between Rothaug and Ferber, and I wish to confirm that Ferber's relationship actually was a condition of trust and confidence in Rothaug as far as I could judge the situation.
In that connection I would like to state that I repeatedly warned Rothaug to watch out for Ferber. I had the impression that Rothaug did not want to believe that Ferber was looking for a friendship with Rothaug only in order to obtain professional advantages. However, Rothaug said, again and again, that I was mistaken, that he knew Ferber and that it was impossible that Ferber was dishonest in his friendship.
Q. Did any one of the assistant judges have serious differences of opinion with Rothaug?
A. During my entire time in service I heard nothing about serious differences of opinion. To illustrate this statement may I perhaps mention the following event? I believe this happened in 1942, when I was in Weiden where the Special Court was holding a session.
After the trial, we were sitting together in the evening, in a circle of friends. On this occasion Rothaug told me that he was proud of the fact that in his chamber there was absolute unanimity in that the judgments were pronounced unanimously. The associate judges - I don't remember any more who they were endorsed Rothaug's statements. I never heard about differences of opinion otherwise either. If serious differences of opinion had existed, I believe I certainly would have heard about them from one side or the other, at least Rothaug would have said something to me about it.
Q Do you now whether more serious tensions arose between Rothaug and his assistants, or between Rothaug and one single assistant, which were due to basic differences of opinion in regard to politics, or substantice questions; for example, basic differences of opinion on the application of the law?
A The experiences I had on that score were in the following direction. I never heard anything about tenstions existing between Rothaug and one of his assistants for political or technical reasons. I think I can exclude the fact that political tensions existed for the reason that the associate judges of that time were just as good National Socialists as Rothaug was. Nobody got the idea to doubt in the least the political reliability of an assistant. In that case it would have been absolutely impossible for such an associate judge to be employed any longer. It is true, however, that Rothaug, in knowledge, ability, and experience, stood far above his associate judges, and for that reason he often won them over to his opinion if they did not have any better counter-arguments.
Q Now, several former associate judges--as, for instance, the witness Brack, in Exhibit 187, Ostermeier in Exhibit 222, Groben in Exhibit 224, and Engert, in Exhibit 156, and Ferber too-stated that they did not feel free as associate judges, and were politically afraid, that they had only worked at the Special Court because they were forced to.
As competent public prosecutor, what were your observations in that respect?
AAs far as Groben is concerned--before I make any statements on the question itself I would like to say that Groben voluntarily agreed to his being employed at the Special Court. That is what Rothaug and my other colleagues told me at that time. This was the case at the time when he dealt wrongly with the Katzenberger case in regard to the taking of the oath of the witness Seiler.
In Rothaug's opinion, this was not a political mistake. Otherwise he would have taken him over into his own chamber. As competent Senior Public Prosecutor I had the conviction that the Special Court was cooperating extraordinarily well. I was never told the contrary by anybody. It is absolutely impossible that the associate judges had political fear of Rothaug, as you call it.
If Engert is listed among these witnesses, I can only say, in regard to that, that Engert himself held an office in the NS Lawyer's League, and, as he boasted himself before the collapse he was in charge of training in the NS Lawyer's League, and he had developed it in such an exemplary manner that the Reich Management Office praised him for it and described the training in the NS Lawyer's League in Nuernberg as an example for other Gaus.
Gentlemen, under those conditions I cannot believe that, for example Engert had, in any respect, any political fear of Rothaug. I emphasize again that the associate judges, in my definite conviction, were good National Socialists at that time, and if they were not so, they played their parts very well and were excellent actors.
Q The witness Engert in the affidavit 156, made the following statement:
"In serious discussions or even in the case of a break with Rothaug, every judge in view of Rothaug's dictatorial position, had to count upon the fact that technical, substantive, or human objections would be considered as a lack of political attitude and the corresponding consequences would result."
Did Rothaug ever pay someone, for an open contradiction with political disadvantages?
A I consider it to be impossible that Rothaug would have presented it if any of his assistants had been of another opinion in one case or the other. I consider it impossible that the associate judges, out of political motives, let themselves be influenced in their opinions. If they did so, in my opinion, it was not political fear, but it was political speculation on the part of these gentlemen, because one must not overlook the fact that the most essential factor for official advancement was the official judgment of the fulfillment of one's duties. What included -
Q Excuse me, you said the official judgment?
A Oh, the political judgment, that included the political judgment. As everybody knowns, in effect, the presiding judge of the chamber gave this political judgment. Thus if, in his opinion, an associate judge, in his official duties, took into consideration his concern about his official advancement, then he should not have been employed in the chamber at all. It happened repeatedly that other gentlemen refused to be employed at the Special Court. I do not know whether for that reason, any special disadvantages accrued to them.
In my opinion it has to be pointed out clearly that the gentlemen who agreed to be employed at the Special Court, in my eyes, did that, without doubt, out of ambition, because they knew that through their activity at the Special Court they could obtain preferential promotion, and that is what actually happened too.
Q Did Rothaug have the office or the rank of a political leader?
A I know for certain that Rothaug was merely Gaugruppenwalter Gau Group Administrator, for judges and prosecutors. He did not have a political office. Such an of ice, in my opinion-
Q That is all right, that is enough.
Did Rothaug have relationships with Gauleiter Streicher or his deputy Holz?
AAs far as I know, it is absolutely impossible that Rothaug had any connections whatsoever with Streicher, because I would have known about it. I only know that Rothaug -- and this was during the time when I was in Wuerzburg--was once called for at the Blaue Traube by Streicher and taken to Streicher's garden, because Streicher wanted to meet Rothaug. That is what Rothaug informed me about. At that time it was purely social gathering, at which persons of both sexes were present.
The second time, I know from stories told me by Rothaug, that he, together with Streicher, participated, in the execution of an auto trap robber whose name I don't know.
I am of the firm conviction that beyond that Rothaug had no further connections or meetings because at that time he certainly would have informed me about that. Moreover, without doubt Rothaug did not look for Streicher, because he always considered him a pitiable psychopath.
As to the Circle Holz, and I think I know this positively, Rothaug had no connection with them. At any rate, Rothaug never told me about it. I only know of one case, in which Holz asked Rothaug to come to the office of the Gauleitung and there he reproached him because of the conviction of Ramsteck.
The meeting ended by Holz, at the end of the discussion, insulting Rothaug and telling him that he apparently was the same civil bastard as the others. At the time Rothaug told me that he was still under the impression of that incident and he was feeling a great deal of horror and he was enraged.
I know that the Gauleitung made an extensive complaint concerning Rothaug, and addressed it to the Reich Ministry of Justice. All kinds of charges were raised against Rothaug, including the charge that he defeated the law. The case was then investigated and Rothaug was justified by the offices of the A ministration of Justice in every respect.
In Rothaug's opinion, the Ramsteck was supposed to have played a role in his transfer to Berlin, at least, Thierack made some kind of indication to that effect to him.
Q We have already discussed that here.
Witness, did Streicher and Holz frequent the Blaue Traube?
AAs far as I am informed, and it was generally known, Streicher and Holz did not frequent the Blaue Traube.
Q All right, that is enough.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One moment, witness. Your Honors, I object to that question on the ground that the witness has not been qualified to testify about anything that happened at the Blaue Traube. I suggest first that the witness be asked if he was ever there and then testify to what he saw.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. KOESSL: There is an affidavit that the Prosecution has submitted which testified that the witness was there. The Prosecution submitted an affidavit by Pothaug's daughter which points out that the witness too belonged to the circle of persons who frequented the "Blaue Traube." But I can ask him that question.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Were you frequently in the "Blaue Traube"?
A Of course, I was frequently in the "Blaue Traube."
THE PRESIDENT: The witness has answered the question and has qualified his knowledge of the "Blaue Traube". Ask him another question.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q What people, witness, did Pothaug meet at the "Blaue Traube" and of what nature were the conversations conducted there?
A If Pothaug had made appointments with people at the "Blaue Traube", as far as I know they were only professional colleagues besides myself, Oeschey, Engert, Herr Ferber, Pfaff and others that met there. I want to state explicitly that even after Pothaug's transfer to Berlin these gatherings continued and that they took the same friendly course as the gatherings when Pothaug was still serving in Nurnberg.
Q At what time did Pothaug's relationships with Haberkern originate?
AAs far as he told me, before I had ever heard the name of Haberkern, Fothaug had met him in 1926 at a time when Haberkern hardly was with the party or played any political role.
Q Did Pothaug ask Haberkern for support when in 1934, as you say, against his will he was transferred to Schweinfurt?
A In 1933 we suddenly read through the newspapers that Haberkern had become a big shot in Nurnberg and that he exerted a great deal of influence. At that time, Pothaug, in accordance with his general attitude toward the NSDAP, stated explicitly that he would not resume connections with Haberkern and he also did not, in 1934, turn to Haber Court No. III, Case No. 3.ker; when he was transferred to Schweinfurt even though it was clear to him that all he would have needed was to say one word and the transfer would have been withdrawn.