20-1-A-GW-19 Aug 47-Perrin (Wartenberg)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: May I continue, Please. I now want to continue, and I want to talk about a case which was not submitted, but by means of which I can demonstrate some essential points of view, and give evidence against these points which were made as charges against Rothaug. First, by discussing that file I want to prove what significance would be ascribed to the condition of intoxication which, for example, was important also in the Gaishauser case. Furthermore, for what reasons the most serious point of view in the application of the order against violent criminal was rejected by the special court; moreover, how the Rothaug's attitude towards the prosecution regarding the legal judgment of penal cases as far as Rothaug was officially concerned with these matters; quite generally in connection with that case, I wanted to point out the thoroughness in which the trial was conducted.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, I herewith submit you this special court file, Melbig. Please first state what this case is about and what the subject of the indictment is?
A. This is the case-
Q. You find the indictment on page 46.
A. This is the Maria Melbig, for murder SG-90-43 file number.
Q. Just a moment, witness, I believe the file number, you did not read it correctly.
A It changed later on to SG, that is Special Court, 26343.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, we don't want to be arbitrary with you in any way, but the Tribunal is very gravely in doubt as to-the Tribunal is gravely in doubt as to the propriety or the value of the presenting as you have offered to do of a case which as I understand you is offered as a model case of proper legal procedure.
20-2-A-GW-19 Aug 47-Perrin (Wartenberg) There may have been thousands of such cases, but they do not contradict any specific charge in the testimony of the prosecution; and I can not say too emphatically that we are not concerned at all, and your client need not be concerned at all with the matter of how the question of intoxication should be dealt with by a court.
I think all the members of this Tribunal have realized the difficulties in perhaps hundreds of cases involving intoxication, and it has a nothing to do with the exoneration or the conviction of any defendant. Out thought is that you should confine yourself to the answering of specific charges made against the defendant. There world be no place-- no stepping point, if you were to begin introducing in evidence cases to show that this or that or the other case was properly tried because we concede there may have been thousands of such cases.
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, our opinion on this case is the following: that the conclusions drawn by the prosecution from the treatment of one or the other case are of a general nature and that in reality they concern at the most three or four cases out of about two thousand, and these general conclusions are absolutely impossible because we are taking the view if these had been no wrong interpretations of the law once in a while or if there had not been a mistake and if there were no such matters, then there would be no necessity for a jurisdiction by a higher court, in addition to that, the prosecution did not prove any mistakes in the application of the law, but only put up suppositions and assumptions and ascribed intentions to the defendant which were absolutely not proved, but only supported by the submission of about 30 affidavits of general opinions, of general statements. In this manner of submitting evidence the prosecution tried to spread bad feeling against the defendants in general without emphasizing any well-founded assertion in any 20-3-A-GW-19 Aug-47-Perrin (Wartenberg) single case and bringing any evidence to that; and for that very reason, we made efforts to refute these general allegations by the prosecution quite generally, to do away with these political points of view and to mention even trivial things and to refer back to facts and cases by means of which we wanted to state that the allegations are wrong.
Those are the lines of thought which are guiding us, and we are only forced to do so for the reason that the prosecution brought forth matters which were not of a concrete nature, only a few things of such a concrete nature; and they made impossible allegations, and these impossible allegations we want to disprove by these general statements, this is the only reason why we discussed with such emphasis such matters which perhaps may seem subsidiary to an extent.
THE PRESIDENT: Dow, if you will lesten, we will make it a little more clear. We have gone to great extent in permitting you by this witness and by others to deny generally the general, and in some cases, very indefinite accusations, as to the allegedly improper method of trying a case, insofar as those charges are worthy of any consideration at all, they are general charges and we permit you and have permitted you to make general answers to them, but your own statement makes it perfectly clear that no trial, no court in the world, could permit a defendant to answer hazy and general complaints about the manner of the trial of a case, of cases in general, by putting in evidence of specific instances in which he had tried the case properly; and we will not receive specific instances which are merely offered to show that in that case the defendant tried the case properly.
we indulge the presumption that unless there is a case in which as shown that the defendant acted contrary to the principles or Control Council Law 10, we presume that he acted in accordance.
20-4-A-GW-19 Aug-47-Perrin (Wartenberg) with than.
It is only when there is some charge which is made which amounts to a violation of Control Council 10 or the Charter that we give any credence at all to this testimony, and your offer of evidence of specific cases to show proper conduct of a trial is rejected. We have given you the privilege of general answers to general accusations and, of course, you may make specified denial to any specific charge, that I have said before.
DR KOESSL: In this Melbig Case, I wanted to turn against the charge by the prosecution that Rothaug's relationship so the prosecution regarding the legal judgment of criminal cases before the trial even, was in any way objectionable. Furthermore, I want to turn against the charge by the prosecution that the special court always looked for the most serious penalties and the most severe points of view; and that Rothaug always tried to consider two most serious point of view of a case of a crime. Under this point of view. I wanted to discuss that case.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made its ruling.
DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, please state which punishable offenses was Melbig woman was being indicted for here?
A. This is a murder case in which a mother murdered her own son in a cruel manner and for low motives.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment.
A. With a hunting gun, she shot him with a hunting gun.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the prosecution referred to this case in many way?
MR. WOLLEYHAN: As far as the prosecution is concerned, it was not offered as an exhibit or mentioned it in any connection.
THE PRESIDENT: And your claim is that the case was handled all respects properly, I assume?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, as an every other case. I don't know of any case in which the trial was not properly handled.
THE PRESIDENT: And there being no evidence to the contrary, we will assume that you are correct in that respect. Now, we have ruled that that case is out.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, in that case, we shall turn to the case which was made a subject of one of the main charges. It is the Katzenberger case. With that case the following documents, testimony, and affidavits are concerned with that case. First Exhibit 155, that is a report from the "Stuermer" which was submitted by the prosecution in Document Book 3-C. This report from the "Stuermer" was apparently supposed to prove somethings or other, I don't know whether the prosecution by submitting this newspaper article wants to prove the importance of the contents of this article -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One moment, please. May it please the Court, this is pure argument. I thought we were engaged here with an examination of the witness. I object to any further remarks in this vein.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Further, Exhibit 478 is concerned with the Katzenberger case as the situation report by the general public prosecutor; further, Exhibit 153, that is the Groben affidavit; further, Exhibit 151, that is the Ferber affidavit; further, Exhibit 154, that is the Markl affidavit; further Exhibit 156, that is the Engert affidavit; furthermore, Exhibit 157, that is the Dr. Bauer affidavit, furthermore, Exhibit 237, that is the Doebig affidavit; moreover, the prosecution deals with that case in the opening statement. Furthermore, the testimony of the witnesses Groben, English transcript page 3614 to page 3626 are concerned with that case; furthermore, the testimony by Ferber in the English transcript, page 3653 to 3661 -- I beg your pardon, the Ferber testimony is in the English Transcript, page 1312 to 1466, and page 1576 to 1746.
The Markl testimony is in the English transcript on page 3353 to 3661, and pages 3674 and the following pages. The Engert testimony, page 3694 in the English transcript to page 3700. Furthermore, Dr. Bauer testimony, English transcript, page 3603 and the following pages. In addition to this, the testimony of Meissmer and Schlegelberger were concerned with the Katzenberger case. I have only received these two passages of testimony in the German transcript. There, Meissmer is on page 4547, and Schlegelberger, page 4407, that is the German transcript. In consideration of the extraordinary charges which were raised against the defendant in connection with the Katzenberger case, I request permission to be allowed to deal with it very extensively.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, first I want to put the question to you which was asked quite frequently during this trial. What was your attitude to the racial question?
A Until 1928, approximately, I never concerned myself with that question at all. The main reason for this was probably that with Jewry as such, I never had any conflict and could not have any conflicts with them. I grew up in the country and know only the one Jew who was working in the country. They were honest people who lived without any conflict with the local population. Also in grammar school, the students who went to school with me who were Jews were respected just as every other person; and also during my time in the Army, and I must say I was at the front only, there Jews we re also serving as soldiers, and they did their duty as everyone of us, so that until the end of the war through the real conditions of life, I never was pushed to consider this question. The following revolutionary conditions which touched very strongly our national feeling which is inborn it became noticeable that an individual cases the Jew who is living in the big city was emphatically leaning to the pacificist direction, but that too was for me no cause to develop any aggressive or opposing attitude to Jewry. At that time, too, I was so busy with my own affairs and my professional advancement that the general problems which were connected with the near collapse of the Reich at that time did not interest me so deerly that they would have been able to determine any basic attitude on one or the other question in any case.
In approximately 1928, in other words, after I had achieved some position in my profession, I occupied myself more intensively with natters which mere outside of the circle of my professional interests more as a hobby.
Among these fields was the field of psychology, philosophy, and history, and in connection with that, I also studied the racial question very intensively, beginning with the Frenchman Gobineau.
Q. What purpose did you pursue with this study?
A. With that I satisfied my own inner needs. I wanted as a private person to obtain clarification about all the problems which touch humanity in that connection.
Q. What interested you in the racial question?
A. First of all, my interest in the racial question was the question as to what extent the fate of the individual and thus the fate of the people depended on the race and is determined by the race.
Q. Were you interested only in your own people?
A. Not at all. I was interested in the racial problem in general, because only by comparison can one recognize the differences in the outside appearance, in the spiritual structure and in the social and cultural abilities. Only in that manner is the nature of the individual apparent, and the fate of the people, and also the way of the people. What was my opinion. Also the fate of the people is very much determined by that.
Q. Did you also concern yourself with the Jewish question in these studies?
A. Naturally. Jerry is the most racially minded people of the world, and the connection of the race idea with its religious ideas has enabled it to outlive all times, expires, and cultures; thereby the Jews have become the oldest people of the world, and therein lies the great misunderstanding which was misused politically and thus brought about a catastrophe.
Q. At that time when you were entering that world of ideas and the consideration of the world from a racial point of view, were there any political conclusions that you drew in your own opinion?
A. Not at all. It was enough for me that in this way I acquired a field of knowledge which enabled me to view life according to my own judgement.
That was just as unpolitical as any philosophy whatsoever that one studies.
Q Did this bring you closer to the NSDAP which was developing more and more at this time from the point of view of your innerconvictions or in some outward connection?
A Not a single step. Before the seizure of power I rejected the NSDAP on the basis of my own convictions that it was not in accordance with the spirit of our people and because I always held the fear which did not leave me even after I joined that party, the worry that it would lead us into misfortune. Regardless of that, I at that time rejected tying myself to any political party. I knew the party program and knew that already the attempt to realize it, would inevitably lead us into the most difficult situations. That was my conviction, and I considered these endeavors to be a Utopian, and I did not believe that others could seriously believe in it either. I could not imagine that at all. For that reason, of course, I had no grounds to make this knowledge that I had acquired out of purely scientific interest on the racial question, to carry this into the political sphere of tendencies which I considered to be dangerous.
Q In what way did your conception distinguish itself from the ideas of the NSDAP on the racial question?
A In that question I was looking for clarity, without any idea of politics. As for the NSDAP, the racial problem was one of the most central political problems, and by it was systematically and methodically used in its political struggle. The racial problem was being used as a means to an end, in order to gain political power. With that it was removed from the field or sphere of a quiet and scientific inquiry.
Q Did you know the weekly journal, "Der Stuermer"?
A "Der Stuermer" was, I believe, a newspaper that was known throughout all Europe, not because of its contents, but because of its methods.
The "Der Stuermer" really was the example to show how a scientific theory can be misused for political purposes. Naturally it existence was known to me. Everybody in Franconia knew the "Der Stuermer".
Q Do you know since when the "Der Stuermer" was being published?
A I cannot make any exact statements about that, but I believe it existed already when in 1924-1925 I came to Ansbach, into Franconia. In the closer vicinity of my home, in lower Franconia, one did not notice anything of the "Der Stuermer" at that time.
Q Did this "newspaper" play any part in connection with your official position?
A Never and in no single case.
Q Did you have any part in the trials connected with Streicher?
A I did not participate in these trials and did not attend them either officially or unofficially. At that time the Der Stuermer newspaper also was of some importance; it was the document which was the basis for the criminal offenses which were committed through the press, that is the Stuermer at that time.
Q Did you attend these sessions as a visitor?
A No, not either. I was so little interested in this whole affair, I don't believe that even politically, but rather medically it was interesting.
Q What was the general interest in the Palace of Justice for that affair?
A They were political trials which aroused the interest of the people. However, hardly anybody spoke in favor of it, because at that time it was always like this during political trials --- they made a mountain out of a molehill.
Q But now the Stuermer did concern itself with the racial question in effect.
A Yes, that is true, but the issue was how he did, but that point was how that the Stuermer did it, because in the way in which it happened, this question could only be brought into discredit as a political question.
Everything was aimed at having achieved political results among the non-political masses.
Q The prosecution asked the defendant Schlegelberger whether in 1933 the Stuermer existed in Nurnberg and whether you were in Nurnberg in 1938. What impression did the Der Stuermer make in 1938 on the broad masses of the Nurnberg population.
A In detail I could not observe that so carefully because I did not have sufficient interest in this whole affair, but I believe that already many years before 1933 hardly any inhabitant of Nurnberg, considered the Der Stuermer -- that the Stuermer was to be taken seriously.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Just a moment. I object to the answer of this question on the grounds that it is not quite responsive to the question and something this witness couldn't possibly testify to. This is purely hearsay and some tiling that the witness cannot be expected to know from facts as to what the population of Nurnberg felt toward something.
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer the question.
A It is absolutely not correct that my scientific studies were limited to hearsay. Rather I was sitting in among these people and these people stated their opinions about this publication which before 1933 was quite openly regarded as a scandal sheet, and one could determine that the rejection of that newspaper was very extensive among the population.
Q Witness, what was the attitude of the party circles toward the "Der Stuermer"?
A I cannot say anything as regards the time before the seizure of power because at that time I did not have enough contacts with the party. I did known perhaps one or the other who was a party member, but I was not conscious of that at all. My observations refer to the time after I became a party member, that is to the time after the spring of 1938, and at that time it can be said quite generally for the party circles in Nurnberg, oven as regards the so-called old fighters of the party, that the newspaper Der Stuermer quite generally was rejected and was considered to be harmful; it is characteristic that this newspaper did not belong to the so-called National Socialist press, because this apparently -- but this is only an explanation which I have made myself -- they also did not want to become incriminated by the scandal sheet.
Thus, the Der Stuermer remained a private undertaking of Herr Streicher.
Q Did you hear anything about the Der Stuermer even after 1933 that it was prohibited by the police?
A Such prohibitions did become known to me against the "Der Stuermer".
Q Do you know where the Der Stuermer was published -- where the printing office was?
A Even I though I was presiding judge of trials in which comments published in the Der Stuermer were important, I could not tell you where in Nurnberg the Der Stuermer publishing company was situated. I don't know either who printed it.
Q Did you gain an insight into the financial aspects of the Der Stuermer? In affairs of a financial nature in the manipulations of a finance nature?
A In that connection I do not have any definite knowledge about details, but I do know that certain dirty money transactions were of some importance. Certainly the following is a fact and this is important for the question as to how the newspaper was judged before 1933 in Nurnberg. Before 1933 the Der Stuermer was an affair which was not very well financed, and it did not make a great deal of profit, for it was being discussed that Streicher who before that had been dismissed from State service, as a civil servant, was broke, when in 1933 the seizure of power occurred.
After a very brief period, however, it was generallydiscussed, spoken about, that Streicher was the richest nan in Nurnberg, and this is supposed to have come from circles who concerned themselves with taxation matters and the big income came from the Der Stuermer, but one must not believe that the attitude of the Nurnberg population in regard to this sheet would have changed, but one has to take into consideration that the victory of the NSDAP afforded Streicher the opportunity to publish this sheet almost all over Europe and that brought him money.
Q Did you hear of any other matters which made you reject this Der Stuermer in your inner-most self?
A Yes, above all, the fact that a part of Der Stuermer, that is the part concerned with religious questions of Jewry was being written by a full Jew. His name was Fritz Wolker, who until shortly before the war was one of the main co-editors in the Stuermer publication. I myself could not believe that, because I considered it impossible that a man like Streicher who to the outside world represented the attitude on the Jewish problem, that Streicher did represent, would, on the other hand, be able to employ a man here who belonged to Jewry, and to make his physically serviceable to him on the problem in which this man is to turn against his own people. I simply could not understand that. I even made careful inquiries and I know for sure, for I was told by the former police president, Martin of Nurnberg, who gave me documentary evidence to that effect, that this peculiar condition existed years after the seizure of power.
Q What did you find so despicable about this information?
A That Streicher was willing to use any means, even means which refuted his own ideas.
Q You already described once a trial in which you were presiding and in which the former Stuermer publication played some role. What trial was that?
A This was the trial against Peter Deeg.
Q Who were the associate judges?
A Oeschey and Engert.
Q Who was this Peter Deeg?
A Peter Deeg was the author of the book "Hofjuden" (Privileged Jews) that appeared shortly before the war -- perhaps two or three years before the war. The book was circulated extensively and propagandized. It appeared already before the war and was canvassed by very bad methods. These methods were applied especially during the Reich party rallies.
Peter Deeg was a protege of Streicher's, and moreover the owner of the only chair of professorship at the Berlin University for anti-Semitism; it has Been said that Streicher introduced Deeg there himself.
Q During the trial which took place Before you, what was this man Being charged with?
A There were canvassing groups who appeared as usual, and had used fraudulent methods and Blackmail methods of canvassing; among others By misusing the Red Cross. First of all the complaints against these canvassing agents were Brought, But after I studied the files extensively, I reached the conclusion that only Deeg could be in back of this whole affair. The investigations to that effect, in a certain respect let it be recognized that it was he. The matter was absolutely not one hundred per cent clear. However, we did prosecute it, and it resulted in a conviction.
Q What was the course that the trial took?
A The situation during the trial was very difficult. First, Oeschey who at this time was associate judge, was not convinced that it would Be possible at all to prove fraud. On the other hand he was of the opinion that in this case in particular, one would have to proceed with a great deal of severity. On the other hand, Engert, was opposed to the idea of applying the law against public enemies, and that was the idea that I represented. The trial itself, in our opinion, Brought unequivocable evidence in favor of the conviction for fraud; on the other hand, the point of view of the public enemy law could not be achieved by me because on that question they were opposed to me. Deeg was sentenced to, I Believe, one and a half or two years in prison.
Q How do you explain Engert's resistance in that case?
A It is difficult to say that today after I personally can no longer - have an objective attitude towards Engert and for that reason I would like to refrain from judging him in that direction.
Q Did this Deeg actually have the support of the party?
A He had such a strong support that even though he was convicted for fraud, with a considerable prison term, after he had served his term, he was again employed by the city of Nurnberg as though nothing at all had occurred.
Q Did this Deeg have a defense counsel?
A. Yes, yes.
Q Did he do anything to combat the sentence?
A Nothing was done against the sentence because I know that, because I would have liked it to happen only for purely scientific professional interest, because I was of the opinion that my opinion of the law, that the law against public enemies should be applied here to the utmost consequences, and that I thought I would have prevailed with this.
Q You have said that the party propagandized this book by Deeg. Was it not dangerous then to prosecute such a case in the light of the support he had from the party?
A This question was important already at that time. However, I was of the opinion, and that was a basic opinion of myself, under no circumstances should such trials be conducted behind closed doors, and thus Peter Deeg was tried at a public session where the population appeared en masse - as very other case.
Q Did you by chance treat Peter Deeg better than other defendants?
A I have answered that question already.
Q Did you arrest Deeg?
A Immediately when the case was going to be tried a warrant of arrest was issued.
Q What were the consequences of the sentence, in addition to the penalties?
A Of course Peter Deeg lost his professorship at the University of Berlin as professor of anti-Semitism. Moreover the book "Hofjuden" disappeared from the public.
Q What did this have to do with the Stuermer?
A The Stuermer publishing house was the distributors for this book. This can be seen from the inquiry made, namely, that Peter Deeg during one year earned 40,000 reichsmarks from that book, net profits.
Q When did this Deeg trial take place?
A It was during the beginning of the war.
Q: During this trial a special number of the Stuermer was introduced as Exhibit 155 as evidence as to what you arc supposed to have said against Katzenberger. When did you see this number of the Stuermer for the first time?
A: Here, during this trial. This Stuermer number was shown to me by Mr. Einstein. I had no knowledge of the existence of this article before that time. Moreover, I was not interested in what the Stuermer had to say about our work. Nor did I ever know any reporter who came to the court from the Stuermer.
Q: Then you had no connection with this article?
A: Not at all.
Q: What experiences did you meet here about the reporters who reported on the court cases in general?
A: They differed a great deal. The middle class newspapers, including the social--Democratic press, as I said before, made efforts to report objectively, even though they of course tried by throwing light on the situation to represent the case in accordance with their attitude. On the other hand, the Stuermer was always known, just as later on, for example, the "Schwarze Korps", to report on matters with a certain tendency - that is to say, the matters were cut up and were put together in such a way as they would bring about the highest effect on the public. Those are matters of general knowledge.
Q: For how long did the trial against Katzenberger last?
A: One and one-half days.
Q: Is it possible that in the report the lines of thought -- during the trial were reported approximately correctly?
A: It is impossible, of course, in a few lines in a newspaper to bring even the most essential points of the proceedings lasting for one and one-half days, But here this obviously is not the purpose; here it obviously was the aim to emphasize certain thoughts which were made for the purpose of the Stuermer to take them out of their context and to publish them among the population.
Q: The prosecution once asked the question of Schlegelberger whether in 1938, at the time of the so-called "Crystal Night" and the Aryanizations, you were here in Nurnberg. The question was answered affirmatively at the time. Therefore, I am asking you - did you at that time know the then Under Secretary Schlegelberger?
A: I did not know the Under Secretary Schlegelberger at that time. I saw him for the first time here at this horrible place, but probably as Under Secretary and Chief of the Personnel Department Schlegelberger will probably have known that in 1958 I was in Nuernberg.
Q: Did you at any time, or at any place, participate in an action against the Jews?
A: Here in Nuernberg, according to my observations there were three actions, I believe. One action was an action with yellow points - that was, I believe, 1933 and 1944. It must have been before my transfer to Sckweinfurt. At that time Jewish stores and private enterprises were marked with large yellow spots, and the reason that was given for that action, was, as far as I remember, that Jewery in the world exerted strongest influence on the German economic basis. Then there was an action, a boycott, but I don't recall any details about that one. And then there was what was summarized here under the concept of "Crystal Nights." That was this action of the 8th to the 9th of November 1938, I myself never and in no connection, participated in such an action. 7355