And that in itself meant that I was bound to repudiate violence and that I thought it impossible that such violent measures would find room for a long time.
Q. You have given us a general account of your attitude. Perhaps you can now tell us something about individual measures which affected you as a jurist - particularly at the time. What did you think, for example, about the introduction of protective custody?
A. On 16 March 1933 I made an entry in my diary on that subject and I said: "We are in the midst of terror. In the prisons in the Corneliusstrasse, at Neudeck there are 87 persons under protective custody. Naturally, there are only some of the whole number in the Corneliusstrasse. There is Attorney Dr. Hirschberg, among others. He is a well known defense counsel for social democrats. He is said to be quite desperate because he, a worker, is now condemned to sitting in a small cell without doing anything, and he doesn't even know why he is condemned to inactivity. I consider this protective custody a terrible institution. There are no time limits. There are no legal remedies against it, and the people have no communications with the outside world.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Barnickel, would you just please tell us what place you were living in when you wrote that? I don't remember. Were you here in Nuremberg then?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, I lived in Munich at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
THE FITNESS: I never changed my point of view. In the comparatively rare case when somebody came to ask me for assistance in a protective custody matter, I tried without exception to help him, although naturally that was very difficult for me. May I point out that during the whole time I was in office I had nothing to do in my official capacity.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, just now you have mentioned the number of prisoners under protective custody.
Why was it that you knew about that number? Did you have any political contacts?
A. No. At that time I had no political contacts, nor did I have any such contacts later. But I was investigating judge at the time, and my office was at the prison where these prisoners were kept. Our duties brought about frequent contacts with the prison staff and that was how I heard about the figure.
DR. TIPP: With reference to Dr. Barnickel's attitude to the question of protective custody I would like to offer two documents. The first one is Barnickel document 4, Page 8 of the document book. This is an affidavit by the director of the district court, Dr. Messerer, of the 20th of May, 1947. May I point out that Dr. Barnickel made efforts on behalf of Dr. Messerer when he, because of his attitude towards the well known poet, Wiechert, got into trouble. May I take it for granted that it is known to you that at the time Wiechert was taken into protective custody. I offer this document as Barnickel document Exhibit No. 2.
I further offer from the same document book Page 61, Barnickel document No. 18. This is an affidavit by the physician Dr. Fritz Full, Berlin. It was given on 30 May 1947. The exhibit number is 3. Dr. Full in this document confirms that Dr. Barnickel made efforts on behalf of his son-in-law when he was sent to the concentration camp, although Dr. Barnickel didn't know him. Later on when document book 2 has been translated I shall be able to offer in connection with this matter on Page 121 of document book 2 an affidavit by Attorney Dr. Kurt Stiegler.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 2 and 3 are received.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. One more question, witness. What was your attitude toward the racial problem which played such a great part in this trial?
A. Naturally I know that there is a racial question from the scientific point of view, but the racial question to me never was a question of political propaganda.
As a judge in civil cases I had made the acquaintance of almost all the attorneys in Munich. Among them there were many Jews. Naturally, among them there was one or the other to whom one didn't feel particularly drawn, but I was on very good terms with most of them. The question whether Jewish attorneys could continue to work during the first few months of 1933 was becoming very topical. On 5 April 1933 I made an entry in my diary on the subject. "Today it said in the newspaper that in Berlin there are about 3,500 attorneys and more than half of them are Jewish. Only 35 of them are to be admitted as lawyers. How many will be admitted here, I wonder? There are a few names which are of no importance. To exclude these Jewish attorneys from one day to the next, means terrible brutality. After all, we let these people obtain a position for many years and now we cannot simply repudiate all responsibility for the past. This is nothing but a violent attack on a small, defenseless people in the midst of peace. I believe that nothing like it has happened in our country for many centuries. The evil is that in the last analysis this is nothing but a manoeuver for competition, and it is quite impossible to raise one's voice against this cultural shame, for one would achieve nothing, and all it means is that one comes to harm ones' self." The entry ends with the words "Such a brutal action as has been adopted in the Jewish question is certainly not designed to raise the general level, but all those things that are being said about race are nothing but just nonsense. Have a look at England. The English are a strong race, and there are many Jews among them and they occupy high positions, and that doesn't do any harm." I believe that has cleared up this question.
DR. TIPP: May I offer on Page 11 of the Document Book Barnickel Document 5. The exhibit number is 4. This is an affidavit by a Herr Baumann from Munich, deposed on the 26th of June 1947. Herr Baumann confirms that Dr. Barnickel, until the outbreak of war, had two Jewish women living in his house, although that was against the will of the government, of the other tenants and against the will of the party.
I offer this document as Barnickel document 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Now another question, witness. One of the most disputed laws of those days, the enabling law of the 24th of March, - 1943 -- of course, 1933, has played a big role in this trial. Now, what was you personal attitude concerning that law?
A. There are two entries of the 22nd of March in my diary, and the other one is the 2nd of July, 1933. "The draft for an enabling act, was published according to which for the next four years the government alone is the legislator. The Reich President doesn't even have to sign the law. It is simply made out by the Reich Chancellor!" I put an exclamation mark behind that entry. The second entry says: "Last week great things happened. The German nationals have disbanded Hugenberg has resigned. The Staatspartei, the State Party, has disbanded, and the Bavarian People's Party is about to disband. These are the consequences of the enabling act which at the time was passed unanimously by all parties. I always thought it mad, but apparently people didn't know what they were doing." May I add something? Prof. Dr. Jahrreis as an expert on constitutional law said here that from the earlier legislative development via Paragraph 48 of the Weimar Constitution until the time this low was promulgated, all that constituted only a very small step. I myself did not know a great deal about constitutional questions. What was decisive for me as a practical jurist was that from now on the Reich Chancellor alone could sign laws and that the new laws could deviate from the constitution.
I considered that to be a considerable danger. About the legality of the enabling act in itself and about the legality of the laws which were issued on the basis of the enabling act, one could of course, have no doubts.
THE PRESIDENT: In a moment we will take our morning recess. Dr. Barnickel, may I suggest to you that when you begin and end reading from your diary you make it clear, especially at the ending of the reading, so that the record will show when you begin to make your present statements and when you have ended your quotations.
Fifteen minutes' recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q.- Witness, in one of your entries which you have quoted, you used the expression that it was impossible as an individual to raise one's voice. It was ineffective, and one would only do harm to one's self. In spite of that, didn't you ask yourself whether the individual could have any influence on developments in any way?
A.- Of course, I did that. According to the draft of the Enabling Act, it was possible to anticipate what would happen thereafter. Unfortunately, as I said, I was not trained politically in any way, neither was I familiar with the internal circumstances of the NSDAP. That brought me to the idea that eventually reason would prevail within the Party; outside of the Party, only a vacuum was left. That was probably what actually existed.
The following short entry of the 23 March was based on that, I quote: "It is beyond doubt that also here in Bavaria the intelligentia must not restrain itself. I told Scheffler the other day that the best thing would be if the judges as one block would act."
Q.- May I ask you who Scheffler was?
A.- Scheffler was a judge of Munich whom I knew very well.
Q.- Will you please continue that thought, witness.
A.- I remember very clearly today that at that time I was wavering between extremes as to what I was supposed to do. On one hand, I did not quite agree with the Party; on the other hand, I was of the opinion that at a critical time like that, one could not stand aside if there was a political development which concerned the entire nation. One was not permitted to do so any longer. One must forget that at that time we still had Hindenburg as Reich President. As far as I was concerned, I didn't think that the decision was too urgent. But one always spoke of it that the Party in a very short time would not accept any new members. Toward the end of the month, I was told from Berlin that they were no longer speaking of a Party movement but of a national movement; in other words, there the entire development was no longer viewed as a matter of a Party political nature but as a movement for the renovation of the entire nation.
Also, in my opinion, we needed a movement of that kind. I saw the solution in that and that confirmed my belief that in the course of time the forces of reason would joint within that movement so that eventually there would be a policy of moderation adopted by it.
Q.- If I understood you correctly, witness, you believe therefore that you had to join the Party in order to contribute your modest share toward a reasonable solution.
A.- That is correct.
Q.- Did you draw any consequences from that attitude of yours?
A.- Yes. In the beginning of April 1933, I enlisted as a candidate for membership. I was accepted by fall or winter retroactive to the first May 1933.
Q.- Where did you see the main danger of anticipated developments at that time?
A.- As for the events which led to the seizure of power, those were things I did not know, and in fact I only gained that knowledge by the sentence of the IMT. According to what I observed personally, very soon I saw a great danger in a possible development toward the left. Thus on the 29 May 1933, I made the following entry, I quote:
"Moreover, it becomes increasingly clear, at least that is what I believe, that we are sliding, more and more into Bolschevism. There is more and more equalization. Culture is reduced to a certain primitive level. Criticism and free utterances of opinion are practically no longer permitted. That, in my opinion, are the main characteristics of Bolshevism. The fact that the National principle is underlined does not amount to anything because the Bolsheviks do the same. The main diffe rence is only that in Russia the representatives of the so-called Bourgeois liberal state have been removed by violence or deprived of their rights completely; whereas, here one restricts himself to integrate them to the masses of the people."
Q.- Witness, you probably realize the following. According to the entries in your diary at that time, without doubt you saw many things right. In spite of that, you not only joined the Party but later on also the SA. That seems surprising, and I ask you now to comment on this briefly.
A.- That question is certainly justified. Certainly there were many people at that time who had that against me -- but only those who did not know me. I shall try to explain it with a few sentences. The way in which in the spring of 1933 new candidates for membership in the Party were accepted, and the fact that I was accepted, was not met with friendliness on the part of the Party. If one attended a Party meeting -- and that was checked once one had applied for membership -- very unfriendly remarks - remarks were made almost by every speaker about the new members.
The reasons are very obvious. The impression that it made on me was such that I almost decided to leave the Party again. Then, as I can see again from my diary on the 8 of July 1933, I met an older judge in whom I confided, and he spoke against my leaving the Party, He recommended to join the SA, of which he was a member himself. As he said, there were quite different conditions there and a different atmosphere. I hesitated for more than one reason, but he persuaded me. I followed his advice and applied to the Munich Reserve Sturm, which consisted almost entirely of men of my age. What he had told me about the atmosphere within the SA, I found confirmed with very few exceptions.
Q.- Witness, before we leave the political part, may I ask you the following: did you hold any office or any function within the Party/
A.- I never held any office or had any function. In my capacity as a well-known judge at Munich, once for a short time I was assigned to a legal committee of the Party, but I no longer remember the name of that committee. But that again was neither an office nor a function.
Q.- What was your activity and your leading positions with the SA?
A.- I neither held an office nor had any function with the SA either. From 1933 until 1938, I was promoted to the usual lower ranks, but no function was connected with that. Then there was an intermission in the promotions until 1943. At that time, I was in Berlin. As to the danger from air raids, the SA was considered for emergency actions, in which I could not possibly participate because of my age and my profession I turned to a friend of mine in Munich who had connections with the personnel office, and he saw to it that I was promoted to the position of an inactive Sturmfuehrer with the group staff, which made it possible for me to be free of any duties. After the promotion, I no longer attended any SA meetings, nor did I have any duty as a Sturmfuehrer. I do not even own a uniform of a SA Sturnfuehrer. That promotion occurred in Summer of 1943 retroactive to the 20 of April 1943.
To this question, I should like to add the following. When in 1938, I came to the Reich Prosecution Office in Berlin, Thierack was President of the People's Court. He held a very high rank in the SA. If I had wanted to be promoted within the SA, I could have very simply done that or have that done through him, but I did not want that at all because I was not interested in a promotion, and I never told Thierack that I was a member of the SA.
Q.- In connection with the SA, witness, there is another group of questions which seems to be important, around the so-called Roehm Putsch. In the summer of 1943, there was a great deal of unrest in Germany on account of that. Will you please comment on that?
A. Here again, I can answer by an entry in my diary of the 16 July 1643. I quote:
"There mas a Putsch within the SA. The sad facit for me was:
"1. How incapable were these people who have been removed and who were some of our highest leaders.
"2. How miserable is a system which makes such things possible, and how wrong is it to try to establish a state within a state.
"3. How dangerous is it that Hitler as one individual gave the order for the execution by shooting without any trial, and that in his own case. One cannot help having the impression that there were other reasons for these shootings but the ones admitted. Since when had it ever happened that one individual who had no right of jurisdiction ordered such executions. It is a factor which gives objection to misgivings, for since that speech, no foreign papers are admitted."
The speech which I mentioned was held by Hitler on the 30th of July. I cannot say any more concerning these incidents.
Q. There is only one more statement that has to be explained, witness. You said that it be wrong to want to establish a state within a state. Just what did you refer to in that connection?
A. That statement shows that I did not identify myself with the regime and that I did not identify the regime with the state. And I never did so at later times. The one state which I mentioned is the regime, and the other one is the totality of the people--originally hold together by the idea of a state based on legal principles.
As to which one of these two states I preferred, that can be seen from the entry.
Q. Did the Roehm Putsch change your point of view, as for as Hitler was concerned, and your attitude?
A. Of course, it became much more sever. On the 6 of August 1934, shortly after Hindenburg's death, I find the following entry in my diary:
"I was not happy about the news that Hitler is supposed to become successor of Hindenburg, because in my opinion, there is a tremendous difference between these two men. In all that Hitler has achieved, as a human being and by his character, he cannot possibly compare with Hindenburg. Hindenburg, to me, is a man of truth and of clarity. Hitler's entire system of government is bases on lies, violence, terror, and a dangerous gamble with the masses."
Q. Witness, what name did you apply to the form of government which existed in Germany from 1933 to 1945?
A. I always called it a dictatorship. May I add a quotation of an entry of the first August 1934? I quote:
"A relatively small number of people supported by a splendid machinery are ruling over the Party, and in doing so, over the State. All the other people have nothing to say, but there are still individuals among us who do not want to understand that we have dictatorship. If nobody is in a position any longer to state his opinions apart from a very small band, what else could that be but dictatorship, and where shall that end?" That opinion about our form of government, I never changed later.
Q. But history often proved connections between dictatorship and war. Didn't you occupy yourself with that problem too, witness?
A. Yes. I worried about that more than once, and that started at least as early as 1934 when we interfered so strongly in Austrian politics. One will recall that at that time Mussolini sent troops to the Brenner Pass, which caused Hitler to be more moderate in his actions. About that, on the first of August, I made the following entry, I quote:
"We indeed have all cause to be grateful to Mussolini that he hit the table with his list and sent troops to the border in order to make it clear to our leaders that with violence alone not everything can be achieved."
Personally, even today I am still inclined to believe that it would have never come to the Second World War had someone then again hit the table. We Germans could no longer do that; at any rate, the individual German citizen couldn't do that.
Q. Did you think about these matters later still?
A. Yes, my worries reached a climaz at the time of the Czech crisis, in the fall of 1938. By the Munich conference of September 1938, it seemed to me that the tension had ceased completely. If at that time I could have only anticipated the possibility that hardly a year later we would be at war, then for many reasons no power in the world could have made me go to Berlin.
In connection with that question of the war, I should like to mention another excerpt, an entry of the 23 of May 1935.
I quote:
"The Baseler Zoitung says that the ghost of war, which appeared in 1935, has been banned. Sad enough that the ghost of war was able to appear at all."
May I say here that the later diaries up to 1942, I no longer have in my possession. They are in the Eastern Zone where I lived later, and at this time I cannot get them.
Q Dr. Barnickel, you have described before the reasons for your joining the Party and the SA. The excerpts from the diary which you quoted after the time when you joined the Party show, however, many disappointments. That is why I want to ask you, didn't you ever consider to leave the Party and the SA?
A. More than once, but there were primarily two reasons opposed to that. The one was that in the 30's there was a great deal of antagonism against officials leaving the party; the second was that would have meant that I would have no longer any possibility of influence, not even in the field of my profession. The latter point of view can be seen quite clearly from an entry which I made as early as the 1st of August 1934, in my diary:
"One would like best to leave the Party and the SA, but that would be the same as if a soldier leaves the ***nches in order to go to the rear."
Q. The last question to conclude the political part. Your attitude toward the regime is made quite clear by your entries in the diary, but maybe you can once more, and with a few words, summarize your basic attitude.
A. I believe I can do so.
I want to do it by a quotation, because, up to now, I have found no way of expressing precisely what I want to say which would be better than this quotation. I want to say first, that after work I used do like studying the philosophers of Ancient China where we find, as is well known, a great degree of political wisdom. One of these philosophers of antiquity said once, I quote: "With whom shall I concern myself if not with the people? If the Government is good, as a civil servant, if the Government is bad, also as a civil servant." That is about the sense of what the Chinese philospher said in his classical brevity and that was the same as I had in my mind at the time. In 1933 I did not know that philosopher's works, but, to this day, I cannot find anything that would characterize the situation of that time better than this.
Q. After this remark about the political situation and your attitude will you please continue describing your career. The indictment only refers to your position as Reich prosecutor with the People's Court.
Only that activity, in my view, is the basis of the charges. Therefore, when you describe the events between 1933 and your transfer to Berlin in 1938, you can be very brief.
When and to what position were you first promoted after the 1st of January 1933?
A. At the time of the seizure of power, as I have already set forth, I was a judge with the District Court 1 in Munich, and, on the 1st of August, 1934, I was promoted to the position of Senior Prosecutor with the District Court Munich 2.
Q. Was that a political promotion, witness?
A. No, it was based on my age and my qualifications. I would have reached that category at the same time even if I had not been a member of the Party.
Q. The court will recall the statements made by the witness Doebig on 9 April 1947 on page 1850 of the German transcript, and also, the statements made by the witness Miethsam, of the 7th of June 1947, on page 4799 of the German transcript and 7874 of the English transcript.
Witness, therefore, from the 1st of August 1934, until your transfer to the Reich Prosecution with the Peoples' Court, you were Senior Prosecutor in Munich. The work as a Senior Prosecutor, as such, was described here by Dr. Lautz in great detail when he was in the witness box. Some simple questions are therefore quite clear. We can refrain from discussing these principles now, and I only want to ask you if, in regard to the fundamental principles for the work of the Prosecution in Germany and the details of that work, you believe that you have to add anything to the statements made by Dr. Lautz?
A. No.
Q. Then I shall refer to your specific activity as Senior Public Prosecutor and want to ask you what kind of penal cases were dealt with by the Prosecution of the District Court Munich 2, in general?
A. That was primarily the prosecution of general criminal cases. Political cases in my district, which was a purely rural district, were of no great importance. Moreover, we transferred the most of such cases to the Prosecution with the District Court Munich 1 because my district did not have a Special Court of its own.
Q. Concerning your work as Senior Public Prosecutor, the following question might still be of interest. In the course of making investigations you frequently got in contact with the police. That is well known, and it is also well known that the police, under Himmler, made attempts to take over the tasks of the Prosecution and to eliminate the activity of the Prosecution in that field. Did you encounter any such difficulties while you worked in Munich at that time, witness?
A. Yes. Unfortunately, off and on, we had such difficulties. I particularly remember a case from the Summer of 1938 which I should like to describe briefly. The commission investigating murder for the police in Munich had made the attempt, in the case of murders which occurred near Munich, to exclude me and my Prosecutors from the investigations. I countered that attempt and to counteract it I eliminated the activity of that department of the police, which also had to deal with cases of arson, by having investigations conducted exclusively by my own Public Prosecutors and the rural police which was at my disposal for such cases. The conflict was terminated only by the fact that I was transferred, on the 1st of September 1938 to Berlin.
Q. I believe, witness, that these short informations, together with excerpts from your diary, are sufficient to describe your activity in Munich. Therefore, I should like to offer one document which refers to your work in Munich. It is from Document Book 1, page 3, Barnickel Document # 2, and I should like it to have the Exhibit #5. It is an affidavit by Max Huber, Munich, of the 15th of July, 1947.
Huber, throughout the period when Dr. Barnickel was there, worked under him. He describes him as a "professional jurist who, where ever possible, tried to avoid any influence being exerted by the Party." I want to quote only one sentence from page 4: "The first principle for Dr. Barnickel was justice." I ask that this document be accepted as Barnickel Exhibit #5.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Furthermore, from Document Book 2, I shall offer later Barnickel Document 25, which is found on page 32 of the document book Barnickel # 2. It is an affidavit by a former Public Prosecutor Michael Sirkel who was also working under Dr. Barnickel in Munich.
Witness, you just stated that, on the 1st of December, 1938, you were transferred to Berlin. Would you please briefly describe the background of that transfer?
A. About two years after I was appointed Senior Public Prosecutor, I made an official duty trip to Berlin and took the opportunity to see the personnel referent for Bavaria who was the predecessor of Herr Miethsam in the Ministry of Justice. I wanted to make inquiries about my further assignments in the administration of justice. The personnel referent told me at that time that within a short time he could guarantee that I would be appointed president of a District Court of Appeals. Thereupon, I asked him that he should make a notation for the position of the District Court of Appeals Munich 2. That was the court where I had been working as Senior Public Prosecutor and I knew that the president of that court would reach the age limit in 1939. I did not receive any formal guaranty, but I thought that I could expect to be appointed for that position. In 1937, however, there was a vacancy with the District Court of Appeals of Munich for the position of a Senate President for civil cases.
Since I would have liked very much to return to civil cases, I applied for that, but I was not successful.
Q. For the accuracy of that description, may I offer the Barnickel Document # 3 from Document Bock # 1 on page 6? It is an affidavit by the former Senate President Karl Kueffner of the 27th of June, 1947. Herr Kueffner confirms that Dr. Barnickel tried to return to civil cases and that he applied for the position of a Senate President for civil cases at Munich. I offer this as Barnickel Exhibit # 6.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, please describe further events?
A.- About the end of 1937 - beginning of 1936, I was in Berlin again. I told the personnel referent, who was a different official then, about my wishes for the position in Munich, but the case was not that far yet. To my great surprise, on the 30th of November, 1938, I received the communication that, on the 1st of December, 1938, I was to be appointed Reich prosecutor with the People's Court.
Q.- Was that a political appointment?
A.- Just as little as the previous one. Never in my life did I turn to any political office to obtain a promotion, nor did any political office ever intervene on my behalf. At any rate, not with my knowledge.
Q.- With what political offices did you have connections at all, witness?
A.- I had no connections of a political nature. A part from the Minister of Justice for Bavaria, Dr. Frank, to whom I talked once on duty, the highest political leader whose personal acquaintance I over made was my Ortsgruppenleiter in Munich. That is, as far as I remember.
Q.- Was the promotion to the office of Reich prosecutor, witness I believe this question is worth mentioning - in accordance with your normal career?
A.- Well, I have already mentioned in my introductory answers that, as early as 1932, before the seizure of power that is, I had been suggested for a position with the Reich Supreme Court (Reichsgericht.) The position with the Peoples' Court, however, was not in accordance with my ambition, but the former Bavarian Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, was the one who assigned me to that position. Guertner has frequently been mentioned here as an excellent jurist. At the time of my appointment, Germany was a respected sovereign nation. Peace seemed to be assured. May I again point out that I assumed that position shortly after the Munich Conference? That is, at a time when the international situation appeared to be well cleared up.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Barnickel, may I trouble you to fill out one matter which I don't quite understand? I think you said that you were transferred to Berlin the 1st of September, 1938, and that you were notified that you would take office as the Reich prosecutor at the Peoples' Court on the 1st of December, 1938. What was the situation between those two dates? You may have told us, but I didn't understand it.
THE WITNESS: Maybe I didn't speak quite clearly, Mr. President. My promotion, my assignment to Berlin, was for the 1st of December, 1938.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't go there in September? No.
THE WITNESS: No, September, I only mentioned for the Munich Conference. The Munich Conference took place in September.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I misunderstood you. I thought you said that you were transferred to Berlin on the 1st of September.
THE WITNESS: December, Your Honor, December.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BY DR. TIPP:
A.- If I may continue, my position was exactly the same as if I had gone to the Reich Supremo Court (Reichsgericht), but the purely political work was the thing which I did not like from the outset, but one could anticipate developments as little as one could anticipate war. Particularly, developments in the field of political jurisdiction during the war. As far as I was concerned as an individual my position was that I had to see from the fact of that appointment that I could no longer expect the position of senate president in Munich which I had desired. A few months later it became apparent that my competitor received that appointment who, contrary to myself, had political connections. Moreover, one has to consider that, within a short time, it would have been possible for me to get transferred from Berlin had not the war broken out at that time, but, under the circumstances, I saw no reason to object to that appointment.