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.
Q. For how long do you know the former district court director, Dr. Oswald Rothaug?
A. It must have been in 1940 when I happened to meet Dr. Rothaug.
Q. Between you and Dr. Rothaug were there any personal connections?
A. No.
Q. Did you have official relations with each other?
A. No, I did not maintain those either.
Q. Were there, between you and Rothaug, relations because of your Party Office?
A. No, in regard to the Party office, if I received advice or had any request, I turned to the competent Gau legal office chief.
Q. Did you correspond with Rothaug?
A. No, I never corresponded with Rothaug.
Q. Did you conduct official or private telephone conversations with Rothaug?
A. I do not recall any telephone conversation with Rothaug.
Q. Did Rothaug, at any time, try to influence the leadership of the Gau Franconia?
A. During my time in my office, Herr Rothaug never undertook such an attempt, and I do not know either why he should have concerned himself with the political leadership.
Q. Did you ever hear anything to that effect from the late Haberkern?
A. Haberkern did not inform me about such matters.
Q. Did you hear of remarks or actions by Rothaug which could have constituted influencing the leadership of the Gau?
A. I didn't hear of these until I left in 1942. Then, I was a soldier and could no longer concern myself about these matters.
Q. Did Dr. Rothaug belong to the circle surrounding Streicher and Holz?
A. No, quite a different circle of persons had social contact with Striecher as well as with Holz.
Q. In your capacity as Kreisleiter or in your capacity as political chief who was in charge of the Gau Franconia did you ever avail yourself of any services of Dr. Rothaug?
A. No, I have already stated that I did not do so. The office to which I would have had to turn, and also did turn for such services was the Gau legal office.
Q. Did you, at any time, influence Rothaug's field of work?
A. No, legally not at all because that was forbidden to me. There was a Fuehrer order which expressly forbade us to interfere in pending court proceedings. I complied with that strictly and, as I have stated, all other matters which were concerned with personnel were clarified by the Gau legal office.
Q. A witness here alleged that before Rothaug decided his criminal cases he asked for the opinion of the Gauleitung. Could you determine any facts or make any observations about that?
A. From March 1940, to March 1942, Rothaug never approached me, and I do not believe he approached Streicher or Holz either, because whoever knows Rothaug knows that he made his own decisions.
Q. Did you ever find out from what time Rothaug knew the Haberkern Family?
A. Yes, it must have been over twenty years, from the time when Haberkern had a sausage factory at Pfaffenhofen on the Ilm. At that time Rotthaug lived at Haberkern's home.
Q. Do you know whether Haberkern was already, at that time, a member of the NSDAP?
A. I believe that he certainly was not because Haberkern had the Party membership number of approximately 104,000 and that must have been from joining the Party in 1929, that is, a few years later.
Q. Did you ever make an appointment with Rothaug in the Blaue Traube?
A. No.
Q. Did you make an appointment with Rothaug outside of the Blaue Traube for any definite discussion or any other purpose?
A. No, I never made any appointment with Rothaug, and outside the Blaue Traube, I did not meet him either. I recall that I saw him briefly once at the Hotel Viktoria where I was eating my supper. I believe that we did not even exchange a few words.
Q. Did you obtain any information as to what were the reasons which caused Rothaug to visit the Blaue Traube?
A. As I have already stated, Rothaug has known the Haberkern Family for more than twenty years. That must have been the main reason. Moreover, for the regular guests in the Blaue Traube, just as in every other restaurant, there sometimes was wine in the evening, and Rothaug then drank a few glasses of red wine.
Q. Did you see Rothaug several times in the Blaue Traube?
A. Yes.
Q. At what time did Rothaug usually come and did he come there alone or was he accompanied by others?
A. Rothaug usually came very late, always 10:30 or 11:00. Usually he came alone, unless he came from a trial that was held out of town. Then sometimes he was accompanied by his associate judges.
Q. Now, this regular table (Stammtischbrunde) which is supposed to have existed there was discussed here a great deal. Can you tell me whether, outside of this regular group in which Rothaug participated, there was another regular group that used to sit at a regular table which might be of importance here?
A. There was a regular table. There the Haberkern family used to eat, and they used to sit there. Rothaug almost always sat down there. There were two regular parties which met at this table. On Thursdays there was a party to which Rothaug belonged, and a private party on Tuesdays who used to meet Tuesday evenings when the Blaue Traube, as such, was closed. Rothaug did not belong to this group.
Q. In this circle to which Rothaug belonged were there any politically influential people among them?
A. In the Thursday circle to which Rothaug belonged there were usually business people, two shop owners, one lawyer; that is to say, people who did not hold any political rank and had no name in politics.
Q. Can you perhaps state some of the habits of this regular table group which characterizes its nature?
A. At this regular table there was a duty to appear. Whoever did not come had to pay 50 pfennigs fine, and then there was a yearly banquet held from this money. That is a Frankonian custom.
Q. Did you personally belong to this regular table group of Rothaug's?
A. No, I belonged to neither one of the groups.
Q. Did Rothaug, as far as you know, participate in any actions of the Party?
A. As far as I know Rothaug did not participate in any actions and was not prominent in politics, either. He was much too much of a jurist, and concerned himself only with his legal duties.
Q. Did you hear that he was a follower of the Ludendorff Movement?
A. Yes, I knew that.
Q. Did Rothaug openly admit that he belonged to it?
A. Yes.
Q. Was this Ludendorff Movement promoted by the Party?
A. No. The Ludendorff Movement was not only not recognized by the Party but treated very carefully and regarded almost as an opponent.
Q. Did you attend any sessions of the Special Court when Rothaug was presiding judge?
A. As far as I remember I attended parts of four sessions.
Q. What kind of trials were they?
A. One was a theft in a slaughtering house. There were six defendants there.
Q. In other words, this was not a political case?
A. No, that was not a political case. The other was the trial against the two Catholic clergymen Schmidt and Fahsel. The other cases I cannot remember for certain. I don't recall for sure whether I attended the trial against Katzenberger or whether I gained my knowledge only from reports on the case.
Q. Since you have just mentioned the Katzenberger case, I am asking you did the Gauleitung exert any influence on the court in that case?
A. May I ask you when the trial against Katzenberger took place?
Q. The Katzenberger trial was on the 14 and 15 of March 1942.
A. Then I can say with certainty that in the Katzenberger affair, before the trial and during the trial, no contact whatsoever was established with me. I heard about the Katzenberger trial only one or two days before, and I have already stated that I don't know for certain anymore whether I attended this trial for one or two hours --but in any case, I neither exerted any influence nor did Rothaug inform me in advance about this trial in anyway whatsoever.
Q. You personally were at that time in charge of the Gau?
A. At that time I was put in charge of the Gau Franconia and would have been the competent man.
Q. Do you happen to remember when Holz again took over the affairs of the Gauleitung?
A. He must have taken them over immediately afterwards. It was at the end of March.
Q. When the Katzenberger trial took place here, Holz was not yet in Nurnberg?
A. No. At that time Holz was not yet in Nurnberg. As far as I know, Holz arrived in Nurnberg on the 19th or 20th of March.
DR. KOESSEL: I am referring the Tribunal to the testimony of the witness Seiler who asserted that she personally saw Gauleiter Holz in the Katzenberger trial.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Did Rothaug invite you to any session?
A. No, I do not know of any such invitation.
Q. A witness testified here that once there was some talk about it that Rothaug, in your presence, in the Blaue Traube handed court files -- and that is the files of the Ramsteck case -- over to Haberkern. Therefore, I am asking you did you ever see court files in the Blaue Traube?
A. No, I never saw that, When Rothaug came from his home, he always came without files and without his briefcase, unless he came from some trial or other, and in that case he was hardly ever alone.
Q. Thus you did not see that Rothaug gave the case file of Ramsteck to Haberkern?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask Rothaug for any information on the Ramsteck case?
A. Yes.
Q. Of what kind was it, what did you want to know from him?
A. I asked Dr. Rothaug whether they needed me as a witness. At that time I had to undertake a business trip in my capacity as chief of the Reich Union of local health insurance groups, and I wanted to know if I could go on that trip. Dr. Rothaug told me at that time that neither the defense counsel nor the prosecution so far requested my testimony. However, in spite of that I did remain in Nurnberg and told Ramsteck that I could be reached by telephone at any time and and would be available as a witness.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you, I have no further questions to put to the witness Zimmermann.
THE PRESIDENT: Any defense counsel desire to interrogate this witness as their own? You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLLEYHAN:
Q. Mr. Zimmermann, you have said this afternoon that you were not involved in the Aryanizations of Jewish property in Nurnberg and Fuerth in 1939, '37 and '38 but that you were ordered to clean up the administration of the city after those outrages occurred. Tell me, were you likewise ordered to clean up the administration of the city after the well-known Pogroms against the Jews in Nurnberg in 1938 in November, when synagogues were burned and shops were smashed?
A. In my statements I said that I had to clean up the results of the Streicher affair. I did not, however, state what you have just put to me; however, I can state here that was also my task. I had nothing to say about the city administration itself, As far as the affair of the 9th of November 1938 is concerned, a preliminary investigation had already been carried out.
Q. What were the results of that investigation?
A. This investigation was conducted from Berlin on the order of the then Reich Marshal Hermann Goering. I was never permitted to look at those files.
Q. After the events of the 8th or 9th of November 1938 in Nurnberg, when, as you may remember, Jewish synagogues were burned and other outrages committed by mobs, did you make any investigations of that in your capacity as Kreisleiter of Nurnberg City?
A. Of the 9th of November 1938 I was never informed in my capacity at all as Kreisleiter of Nurnberg. During the night, about 3 or 3:30, a friend called me on the telephone and told me that something or other was going on in Nurnberg.
I went from my apartment to the city and together with this man whose name was Georg Emmert, I opposed the excesses whereever possible. As Kreisleiter of Nurnberg, I certainly could not do any more than to mitigate the situation as far as possible.
Q. So you opposed these excesses?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. I show you some papers. Open them, please, where the papers are marked with the paper slips there. Please turn to the marked copy of the Newspaper, "Fraenkische Tageszeitung" of 10 November 1938. On the second column of that newspaper page, do you find the headline, "The memorial hours of the Party." And then the newspaper story in that column continues: "On 9 November 1938 the Kreisleither Zimmermann spoke, the highest Party official of the Nurnberg City. 'We shall never forget,' the Kreisleiter, said, 'what used to be, but we will be united forever with our people, and we will forever fight against those which, as the Jewish race, are the hereditary enemy of all people. The German people has no space anymore, no apartments anymore for the members of the Jewish Devil's race." Do you find that story, Mr. Zimmermann?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, do you find -- just a moment, please -- do you find also your picture on the bottom of the page?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, please turn, if you will, to the next day's newspaper of the 11th November 1938, where you will find an account of a mass meeting which you introduced and opened in Adolf Hitler Platz, of which the picture there shows you. Now, does that newspaper state the following: "Ireisleiter Zimmermann opened the mass meeting and stated that the Nurnberg population, aroused over the shameful dead of a Jewish bastard, had taken to the street and demonstrated against the Jews during the nights of Wednesday to Thursday." Do you find that story there?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you find there also that you then introduced to that mass meeting as the principle speaker Gauleiter Julius Streicher?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, tell me, Mr. Zimmermann, was it during that time of the 9th and 10th of November that you were making these speeches that the burning of the synagogues and other street outrages occurred? Can't you hear me? Did the witness hear my question?
INTERPRETER WARTENBERG: The German translation didn't come through.
Q: Was it during the same time, Mr. Zimmermann, that you were making these speeches in Nurnberg that these excesses against the Jews were taking place in Nurnberg?
A: I have to say the following in regard to this affair, that in spite of what was written in the newspaper, I usually did not speak at the meetings, but that little newspaper reporters wrote this up and that most of the things were edited by Streicher himself.
I have already stated that on the 9th of November I opposed this action. I stated that during the night of 9th of November I opposed that action, and I know what I am saying here under oath, and you can check upon that at any time. As far as the first report was concerned, this was a memorial service for heroes that took place before that night; and the second was a mass meeting which took place on the Adolf Hitler Platz and which I opened. Anyone who knows how I opened mass meetings knows that I only spoke one sentence, and that I never said all this, and this was only done in the newspaper report.
Q: Mr. Zimmermann, please look at the front page of that issue of the newspaper where you see the title of the newspaper itself. The front page of the issue. Do you see the official Party insignia, the Hoheitzabzeichen, and is that the insignia of an official Party newspaper?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Alright. Now, with regard to these Pogroms or excess or whatever you call them in Nurnberg on the 8th or 9th of November 1938, did you or any official that you knew of report those excess to the judicial authorities for action?
A: That was known everywhere that this action took place during the night, and the police was informed about it, and it was the task of the police.
Q: Now, it was known everywhere, you say. Do you think that the defendant Rothaug knew about it?
A: He certainly must have found out about it afterwards. Whether he knew about it during the night, I don't know because I only found out about it myself at 3:30 in the morning.
Q: Mr. Zimmermann, in your connection with the police and the judicial authorities, did you ever learn that the presiding judge of a court handling criminal cases was responsible for issuing arrest warrants?