THE PRESIDENT: Tell what you know.
A. (continuing)-- man of the Party met there and that he made their acquaintance there.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. How long were you in charge of the Prosecution at Nurnberg during the time that Rothaug was the presiding judge of the Special Court?
A. I was in charge of the Prosecution at Nurnberg from 15 October 1937. I believe -- yes, at that time Rothaug was already the presiding judge of the Special Court, and I was in charge of the prosecution at Nurnberg until that date in March which I mentioned here before, in 1939.
Q. During that time did you discuss pending cases with Rothaug?
A. That was not the way I dealt with cases. On the contrary, I told Rothaug that I did not wish to discuss pending cases with him. It used to be the custom that the Senior Public Prosecutor occasionally discussed matters to do with the case, postponement, etc., with the presiding judge, but I did not wish to continue that custom because I was the Gau leader of the Gau Legal Office, and I wanted to avoid ever making it appear as if I might in anyway combine the two offices and mix them up.
Q. During your period in office, did the prosecutors who worked under you complain about Rothaug?
A. I did not hear any complaints from subordinate prosecutors against Rothaug. Occasionally the prosecutors did point out that Rothaug was very harsh in his manner of conducting a trial, and that they weren't always allowed to speak at the moment when they thought they should be allowed to speak but had to wait until he gave them permission to speak.
Q. Did you hear of any basic differences of opinion between Rothaug and the associate judges?
A. I never heard anything of basic differences of opinion between Rothaug and his associate judges.
Q. Did any of Rothaug's predecessors experience any political crisicism?
A. I don't know of any political criticism on any predecessor of Rothaug, However, I cannot, remember who the judges were. If you would give me the names, I could comment on them.
THE PRESIDENT: You just testified that you don't know of any political criticism. That is your answer; just let it go at that.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. The witness Ferber stated -- English transcript, page 1320-that Senior Public Prosecutor Denzler, in the autumn of 1937. applied for membership in the Party for all those members of the staff who at that time were not yet members of the party, and that was how he had got into the Party.
Was any pressure exercised at that time to make people join the Party?
A. I did not exercise any pressure on people to join the Party.
Q. Who were the people whose names you entered on the list as suggestions?
A. At that time the Gau Leadership of the lawyer's League was asked to put forward, the names of such members of the Lawyer's League who could be considered for membership in the Party.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. Let me ask you: Do you remember the question?
THE WITNESS: No, no longer.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you read the question to him?
BY DR. KIESSL:
Q. Witness, I asked you, who were the people whose names you put on that list?
THE PRESIDENT: Give us the names, and then you will have finished your duty for the moment.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember the different names.
THE PRESIDENT: Your next question, then.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. What sort of people were they whose names you put on that list? Was it a particular category of people whose names you put on that list?
A. As far as I remember, it was the Gau Group Administrators who list d the names were then entered in one joint list. Preference was given to such members of the Lawyer's League who had wanted to become Party members for a long time and whose names, for other reasons one would have liked to see on the Party list. That was a list which was passed on to the Party office in case should there be some document whereby one could decide who one wanted to join the Party.
Q. Doebig, the President of the District Court of Appeal at that time, testified as a witness-- English transcript, page 1839-- that Rothaug, in 1938, at the wish of the Party Chancellery, was to become Vice President. Can you tell us about your own. observations in that matter?
A. Yes.
Q. What can you tell us?
A. I can tell you this. One day I was called to the office of the Adjutant of Gauleiter Streicher. He told me that the Gauleiter had received an inquiry as to whether he had any misgivings or any doubts about the employment of some judge-- I believe he came from the West of the Reich-- as Vice President at the District Court of Appeals in Nurnberg. I was asked whether I knew the man. I had to say no, because I did not know the man. Then I believe Koenig, Streicher's Adjutant, told me that the man was a Party member, that he was an older member of the Party. Koenig then requested me, on behalf of Streicher, to ask the President of the District Court of Appeal in Nurnberg whether he had any doubts about that position of Vice President being given to the District Court Director Rothaug.
Q. And what did Doebig have to say to that?
A. Doebig said to me that Rothaug was perhaps a little young, but he was one of the most capable, if not the most capable judge within the whole area of his District Court of Appeals. I remember his words very well, because they constituted an opinion on the man. at the end he told me, as far as I remember, that he did not wish to voice any misgivings about Rothaug. It is even possible that his opinion was a little more favorable. I passes that remark on to Streicher's adjutant and I also told Rothaug.
Q. What was Rothaug's attitude to that matter?
A. Rothaug was against it and said he was much too young for such an office; he was far too young merely for the reason that the consellors, the Raete, at the District Court of appeals were far older than he.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you.
I have no further questions to ask this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defense counsel desire to examine?
BY DR. SCHUBERT (Counsel for the defendant Ceschey):
Q. Mr. Denzler, you have told us that you were Gauwalter of the NS Lawyer's League and the head of the Gau Legal Office until March 1939.
A. Yes.
Q. The defendant Oeschey came to Nurnberg on 1 January 1939. Did you know Oeschey at that time?
A. No, I did not.
Q. If the Gau Leadership of Franconia had any wishes regarding a change of personnel in the Nurnberg administration of Justice in your position as Gauwalter of the Lawyer's League or the head of the Gau Legal Office, did you play any part in such matters?
A. Yes, as a rule my opinion was asked.
Q. In those positions of yours, which I have just mentioned, did you deal with Oeschey's appointment to Nurnberg in any way?
A. I can in no way remember that I had anything to do with the appointment of Oeschey.
Q Did Rothaug ever express the wish to you that he would like to have the Defendant Oeschey transferred to Nurnberg?
A No, he never said that.
DR. SCHUBERT: You have answered the question, witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further direct examination?
There appears to be none.
You may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Mr. Denzler, please correct me if I misstate how you testified, but it seems to me you said that you had no intimate connections with Gauleiter Julius Streicher and for that, among other reasons, you could not have caused his attendance at either the Heller-Muendel case or the Schmidt-Fahsel case. Is that correct?
A I did not understand that question this time, but I would like to point out that I did not have intimate connections with Streicher; that is not what I said.
Q Well, if you didn't have any intimate connections with Streicher, and for that, among other reasons, could not have influenced his attendance at these trials we have been talking about this morning, let me show you a document. Please open that document and tell me if that is your official personnel file.
A Well, as I see here - yes, those are files about me, yes.
Q All right. Now, Mr. Denzler, in the questionnaire, in the form containing your photograph, that you find in the front there loose, does it appear that in October 1930, on the personal instruction of the Gauleiter of Franconia, Julius Streicher, you stayed outside of the Nazi Party, but that on the 28th of February 1933, following the Reichstag fire, you rejoined the Nazi Party? Does that appear?
A Well, that may be right. On the 28th of February? Well, may I ask you to tell me again where that was supposed to be?
Q In the questionnaire, in the form containing your photograph that you find there loose, much of it appearing in your own handwriting.
A I did not join then, but, as it says here, I applied to rejoin on that date. And I should like to say this. As early as 1923 I had applied for Party membership.
Q Mr. Denzler, please, I didn't ask you as far back as 1923; I merely asked you if, in your personnel file there, It appears that on the personal instruction of the Gauleiter of Franconia, Streicher, you stayed outside of the Party until after the Reichstag fire.
A I don't know when the Reichstag fire occurred. That my rejoining of the Party -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Witness, witness, listen. The question is merely whether certain words appear on the document in front of you. That is all I asked you. Does the statement which he quoted appear in your personnel file?
THE WITNESS: In my questionnaire it says: "Membership in the Nazi Party. (a) 28 February 1933 reapplied for rejoining; and actual rejoining on the 1st of May 1933. Membership No. 1 868 839."
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment now. You remember counsel read you something with reference to your remaining outside of the Party on the direction of Streicher. The question is, is there such a statement there in the papers which you have before you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can now see that further towards the top it says: "1933. until...." And then it says, "1933, did not join the Party at the instruction of Streicher." May I say something to that?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Denzler. That is all I asked you.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Now further along that line with regard to your, as you describe them, tenuous relations to Streicher, please turn to page 33 of that same personnel file. Now, on page 33, do you find a telegram from the Nazi Party Chancellery, signed "Klopfer ", to the Defendant Schlegelberger, dated 20 September 1941, in which it states that there was an investigation against you because of your participation in the Aryanizations of Jewish property in this area during the anti-Jewish actions of 1937 and 1938, and does it further appear on that telegram, on the reverse side, that your return to Nurnberg from Poland was against the wishes of the Party because of your very close connection to Streicher?
Does that appear, Mr. Denzler?
A May I just read this telegram? I don't know it.
If I may say this, it does say here, "His participation in the Aryanization proceedings of the Gau Franconia has been investigated by the Reich Ministry of Justice", and I can say the following to it
Q Mr. Denzler, please; before you say anything, please answer my question first, which was: On the reverse side of that telegram, which is folded over, do you see -
A Yes.
Q -- do you see any faintly marked portion?
A It says, "On account of his particularly close contact with Streicher, it is not desirable that Denzler should resume his work in Nurnberg." That is what it says here.
Q. Thank you; that was my question. If you found it, that is all.
A But I dispute -- Your Honor, I would like to say something to this.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
A (Continuing) If a Herr Klopfer maintains here that I had entertained particularly close relations with Streicher, then I must say that that Herr Klopfer does not know anything about conditions in Nurnberg. In Nurnberg I had scenes with Streicher and his adjutant which demonstrated anything but close relations.
Q Now you mentioned Streicher's adjutant. Do you refer to SA Gruppenfuehrer Koenig:
A Yes.
Q. Well, in that connection, Mr. Denzler, please turn to page 38 of that personnel file and tell the Court if, on pages 37 and 38, there is a file note of the Ministry of Justice bearing several initials, which, on page 38, states in part the following:
" He, Denzler, was accused of having been a close friend of Koenig, and " -
A It doesn't say so on page 38.
(The document was indicated to the witness.)
Q In that file note, Hr. Denzler, do you find a passage which reads as follows?
"He, Denzler, was accused of having been a. close friend of Koenig and, knowing about Koenig's deeds, of having influenced criminal proceedings against Koenig in order to achieve a result contradicting the actual state of affairs."
A I can't fine that passage here. What it says in a note here is:
"When in February 1939. Koenig, the Adjutant of Gauleiter Streicher, committed suicide , and when after that , in connection with this a commission, which had been established by the Reich Marshal, investigated a number of occurrences with the Gau Leadership at Nurnberg, and in particular the Aryanization of Jewish real estate in Nurnberg and Fuerth, charges were also made against Senior Public Prosecutor Denzler. He was charged with being a close friend of Koenig's...".
Q That is fine, Mr. Denzler. I just wanted to find that passage. It does appear there, I take it.
A and who had known his deeds; that is to say, that he exerted influence on criminal proceedings in order to achieve a result which was not in keeping with the facts of the case."
That charge was raised against me, but it is altogether untenable and it was proven to be untenable. One got confused because I was the head of that agency at the time; it was my predecessor who was the head of that office at that time and who therefore conducted those proceedings.
Thing's happened there which even today make my gorge rise.
Q Now, Mr. Denzler, further in Connection with your -
A Excuse me. You can't help it. You know nothing about it.
Q Will you please answer the questions and confine yourself to nothing more, further in connections with this acquaintanceship of yours with the adjutant of Streicher, the Defendant Joel here in the room had the following to say, and in Exhibit No. 370, the closing three lines of a report submitted by Dr. Joel, it says as follows:
"As mentioned above Chief Public Prosecutor Denzler is said to have collaborated in all phases of this deal as a close adviser of Koenig." Was that to -
A Is that supposed to refer to that abortion matter?
Q That is referring to the Aryanization matters in Nurnberg in 1937 and 1938.
A But I never had anything to do at all with the Aryanization affair in Nurnberg. Not the very least did I have to do with the gentleman and I can tell you this: On the day when the so-called China Day happened in Nurnberg I was fetched by Koenig - and I went into town with him to see what was happening there, what had being smashed up, because I was the one, the first one, who thought that he would have to take action. Later on these shops were Aryanized and once an anonymous charge was filed with me in which the Public Prosecution was asked to find out about things that were happening with the German Labor Front. I passed this warrant on to the Reich Ministry of Justice in eight copies and I made sure that the envelope was safe in accordance with instructions. I, myself, saw to it that this warrant was passed on to the police in Nurnberg. That is all I ever had to do with Aryanization matters. I neither attended any conference on that matter or else with Aryanization.
Q Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Assuming, for the moment, that the defendant Joel in his report found that you attended the auction and forced sale of a certain Jewish property in the company of Streicher's deputy, Koenig; that you aided him in every way and that Koenig subsequently made 70,000 Marks profit.
Assuming that that is in Joel's report, if that is the case -
Q Now, may I say this -
Q I haven't asked the question yet, witness. If that had been the case -
A I beg your pardon.
Q -- would you have received any share of that money?
A No. At the request of Streicher I advised Koenig, or rather, I assisted him in some way in the case of a sale of a brick factory in Pforchheim. I don't know to whom it had belonged. It was a forced sale and Koenig bought it in that forced sale. He asked me to be there to attend the forced sale and if necessary, to tell him if there were any mistakes. Later, because the judge had not fixed the date, at the request of Koenig, I called on the president of the District Court of Appeals at Bamberg and asked him to see to it as to why the judge in Pforchheim had not yet fixed the date for distribution after the forced sale.
And Heuweiser, who was then the president of the District Court of Appeals told me that unfortunately he is one of the most stupid and one of the laziest judges in my district, but I will see to it that a date is set.
Q Mr. Denzler, please -
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, I don't know whether the discussions about all these matters help at all in speeding this trial up and I don't think either that the credibility of the witness can in any way be affected by discussing these events of the year 1937; but I would like to contradict the style in general in which this cross examination is conducted.
THE PRESIDENT: This is cross examination.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Before we leave this matter of your relations with Gauleiter Streicher and his adjutant, particularly with a view toward what control, if any, Streicher exercized over Rothaug's conduct of trials, you have testified, Mr. Denzler, that so far as you know -
A I can't understand. I don't hear. I didn't get the last few words. In relation to what?
Q In relation to your statements here, Mr. Denzler, that so far as you know Streicher exercized no control over Rothaug's conduct of criminal trials in the Special Court, you did make that statement, did you not?
A If I remember correctly, this morning I said that neither in the Fahsel Case nor in any other case did I make any observations to the effect that Streicher interfered with the trial.
Q Yes. Now, Mr. Denzler, in that particular connection I wish to read you something and ask you if you will then change your mind:
"I, Kurt Labus, reporter in Nurnberg, declare here with under oath" -and I cite in part the following: "In the year 1937 I was an eye witness in the trial held before the Special Court Nurnberg under the presidence of Rothaug against two Catholic priests, Schmidt and Fahsel, for sex crimes. My impression was that this trial was a monster trial. I hold this opinion because a flood of trials were conducted against Catholic priests and monks throughout the Reich during that time and Gauleiter Streicher appeared for this trial in person with his staff. A certain incident attracted my attention and I still remember it. During the presentation of evidence I observed how Gauleiter Streicher, through his adjutant, passed slips of paper to the chief public prosecutor Denzler, which Denzler then handed over to the court during the opening session. He approached the judge's bench and passed the papers to Rothaug. I noticed in this procedure an apparent guidance of the trial by Streicher to which Rothaug obviously did not object."
What do you have to say about that, Mr. Denzler?
A I can not remember the man whose name has been mentioned here. Nor can I remember that at the Fahsel trial I passed a piece of paper to Rothaug or put it down before him after previously Streicher had told me something to pass on to him. At any rate, the way I managed things was that I did not allow other people to lay down the law for me in the way I acted as a public prosecutor unless they were my superiors. It is possible, however, that as public prosecutor and when I attended a session as a public prosecutor or when I just went into a session to listen among the audience, that I may have put a slip of paper either before the prosecutor, the pleading prosecutor or the judge. It may have been that I did so because I wanted to ask the judge to have a recess because somebody had to be fetched or because there was any other genuine reason. But I doubt that the observations which this witness here made are really causally connected.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the Prosecution offers as Exhibit 555 the affidavit in its entirety of which parts were just read.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the copies?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We are offering it at this time, Your Honor, subject to furnishing requisite copies.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received subject to the furnishing of the necessary copies.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Now, Mr. Denzler, you stated that you informed Streicher of the time of the Defendant Heller's execution.
A That isn't what I said. I said that Streicher's adjutant from Stadelheim phoned from Munich himself and he asked me when the execution was going to take place. He asked whether it was going to be the same day or the next day. I told him that the execution would take place in about twenty minutes.
I had fixed it at 11:45 at night. Streicher appeared just before the execution.
THE PRESIDENT: That was 11:45 on the 18, the day of the trial?
THE WITNESS: It was on the day of the trial.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Did you attend the execution, Mr. Denzler, of Heller?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did Streicher attend it?
A Yes, he did.
Q Did Rothaug attend it?
A Whether Rothaug or the two judges were in the place of the execution, I can't remember, whether they were in the room; but they were in Stadelheim. I had to take them to Stadelheim with me in case they would have to make a decision against the execution, but I can't tell you for certain. I can't tell you for certain whether they were there when the execution took place.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, when one has to deal with an execution, one doesn't exactly feel like having a look all around as to who is isn't. It is a serious matter.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q But you do remember with certainty that night Rothaug was in Munich at the Stadelheim Prison where the execution occurred?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mr. Denzler, the next morning where did you go?
A The next morning I believe - well, I don't remember where I went.
Q Did you go to Dachau Concentration Camp?
A That is possible. Well, no - well, how was it? We went to have a look at an art exhibition in Munich and it is right that Gauleiter Streicher invited me to go to the Concentration Camp Dachau with him, yes, yes.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Tell me this. When Streicher invited you to visit Dachau the next day, did the Defendant Rothaug accompany you?
A Well, I have to think that over. Did I go there in the car in which I had come from Nurnberg? It is possible that Rothaug was with us. It is possible, but I can't say it for certain.
Q Now, with regard, Mr. Denzler, to the proposed abortion of the Defendant Muendel, you testified that this proposal of Streicher's was improper because such an abortion would have been unlawful, and therefore you could have had nothing to do with it. Is that correct? You did say that, did you not?
A Therefore, I could not make that suggestion of Streicher' my own and I couldn't follow that suggestion up.
Q Now, in that connection, Mr. Denzler, if you had such an abhorrence of the unlawful nature of an abortion, how do you explain what you find on Pages 37 and 38 of the personnel file now before you, the same page we were looking at a moment ago? Please find the section from which you read. I wish you would please read the description of your conduct of the abortion committed on the actress Porster in which Gauleiter Streicher's deputy Koenig was involved. What does the Ministry of Justice in its file note there say about your participation in that matter?
A It says here: "Against Denzler, and in particular against Dr. Hoesche in Nurnberg investigations were initiated under Article 21 of the Reich Disciplinary regulations. In the meantime Denzler had been temporarily relieved from his post as head of the Gau Legal Office. I was relieved from that office. I wasn't sent on leave. In an agreement with the STF" -- I don't know what that means -- "the IV in March of 1939 ordered him to go to Chemnitz. The present investigations against Denzler did not result in anything for which proceedings might have had to be instituted against him." May I state my position, gentlemen?
Your Honor, may I give you my views? This is slander, slander which has been produced against me. I have been slandered here and the Court No. III, Case No. 3.intention was to make me impossible in Nurnberg.
If Minister of Justice Guertner were still here he could justify my position.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have no further questions.
DR. KOESSL: May I start my redirect examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, you wanted to tell us something about the fact that in 1930, allegedly at the instructions of Streicher, you did not enter the Party. Please tell us something about that now.
A In 1930 -- I am not quite sure which year it was - I don't remember for certain. Maybe the statement here in my questionnaire is wrong. It may have been 1929, '30 or '31. At that time I think I changed over from a public prosecutor to a local court judge. At that time I was anxious to join the Nazi Party. The reasons were mainly connected with the bad situation in Germany, things going from bad to worse. Streicher said that I was a judge or Chief Public Prosecutor and that I might have disadvantages from joining the party. Maybe I would have to give up the legal service. Maybe I would be cold-shouldered by the Administration of Justice.
He then said that he would think it over and later be sent me a message that I was to stay out of the Party because difficulties might arise and difficulties of which I could not be relieved. So I did stay out of the Party and I no longer paid any attention to the Party and in 1933 I was of the opinion that it was now no longer necessary to join the Party and that was the point of view I upheld in those days.
Q You heard what that report of Labus says he saw. Did you, during the proceedings pass on slips of paper to the presiding judge Rothaug or -
A I can't remember it. I don't believe so, but if that witness says so and I must admit that it is possible that I did it, perhaps -well, I don't think I shall be able to find anybody who will confirm that I didn't do so. It is possible that Gauleiter Streicher said he Court No. III, Case No. 3.wanted to go away and have lunch or he would like a recess.
That is possible that I told the presiding judge about that and asked him whether the time for a recess hadn't come. I don't want to dispute it but I can't remember it.
Q Witness, in other words, you want to say if, on those slips of paper, things were mentioned which in any way affected the conduct of the trial in that case, you would remember that slip of paper?
A If those slips of papers had been connected with matters which affect -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Just a moment. Your Honor, I object to this line of questioning as arguing with the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is leading. On redirect examination counsel should not lead his witness. However, we have heard the answer.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q In other words, you don't remember in any way that Streicher intended to exert influence on the conduct of the trial on the matter itself?
A No, no, I really don't remember. I really don't remember and in my view Rothaug was far too independent a sort of person.
DR. KOESSL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused. Call your next witness.
(Witness excused.)
DR. KOESSL: May I call the witness Zimmermann as my next witness, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, we are informed that the witness will not be available until one-thirty. It will be necessary for us then to recess early unless you have some other matter that you wish to present in the remaining fifteen minutes.
DR. KOESSL: For the afternoon I wanted to submit documents. I believe that it would not be worthwhile starting to present documents now.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Court reconvened at 1330 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HANS ZIMMERMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: You will stand, hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL (Defense Counsel for the Defendant Rothaug):
Q. May I begin the examination of the witness Zimmerman?
Witness, please tell the Tribunal your name and your profession.
A. My name is Hans Zimmerman, born 18 October 1906, in Nurnberg. My profession is administrative director.
Q. In addition to your profession, were you active in politics too, and in what capacity?
A. From 1934 till the end I was Kreisleiter of the City of Nurnberg, with the interruption from March, 1942 until December, 1943, at which time I was a soldier.
Q. For how long were you entrusted with the affairs of the Gau Franconia?
A. I was in charge of the Gau Franconia from March 1940 to March 1942.
Q. For what reason were you put in charge?
A. I was not involved in the Streicher affair at that time and received the special order to clean the Gau of men who were involved with that affair.