THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, you were just explaining how it came about that you took over these party offices, and you had just explained that Denzler had been believed temporarily of his office in the Gau Legal Office out had not been completely dismissed. Please continue.
A. During his absence the work was taken care of by his deputies. They were called up into the Wehrmacht shortly after the outbreak of the war. Also, the Gau Legal Office itself, when offices were simplified in the course of the war, was reduced to one main office which was called the main legal office. The Gau Legal Office at first consisted of five main offices or sections. In about the summer of 1940, as I seem to remember, Rothaug was asked by the Reich Legal Office to make suggestions to have this office taken care of by a commissioner. In fact, both offices should be taken care of by a commissioner. He suggested to me to take over these positions and talked me into it, as it were, and as I was promised to be relieved of certain other professional duties I said I was ready to take over the position and Rothaug then suggested to the Reich Legal Office and the Gau Director of Frankonia that I should be given this position.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted a document from your personal file in Exh. 408 in Volume 9-A on Page 62. This is a letter addressed by you to the President of the District Court of Appeal in Nuremberg, on 13 August 1940, and where you say that you had been charged with the direction of the Gau Legal Office and of the NS Lawyers League in the Frankonia Gau. Are these facts correct?
A. In the first half of August of 1940 the Reich Legal Office of the NSDAP wrote to me that as from 1 August 1940 I was to be the commissioner in charge of the Gau Legal Office, and in charge of the NS lawyers League of the Gau Frankonia. There was an internal order in the Gau Frankonia according to which civil servants had to ask their superior agency whether or not they could take over party offices.
The letter which you have just mentioned of 13 August 1940 is that report. When I reported to t is effect I did not know that the Reich Legal Office, according to the statutes of the NSDAD had no authority to express any appointments within the Gau Legal Offices. They could not even appoint commissioners. The rules of the Party said that the Gauleiter was the competent person. When a few days later I reported to the Gau Directorate because of this appointment, this was made quite clear to me. I was told at the same time that as long as Denzler had not finally been relieved of his office, any new appointment of the ran in charge of the Gau Legal Office could not be considered, especially as the man in charge was not a very important function, since only one main section still existed, and it was only for that main section that a new man was needed. The regulation of the Reich Legal Office applied therefore only in as much as it made me the commissioner in charge of the Lawyers' League of the Gau Frankonia.
Q. I am now referring to the affidavit which I have submitted, the Engert affidavit which is my Exh. 14 in Document Book 1. Witness, you have told us that when you were made the commissioner in charge of the Lawyers' League the Gauleiter was the competent official. Can you still tell us who was competent as far as the final and definite appointment was concerned? Was that also the Gauleiter?
A. No. As far as I am informed, only the Party Chancellery of Hitler himself.
Q. I shall submit a document about that in my volume 2. Did you at any time receive the appointment by Hitler or the Party Chancellery to become chief of the Gau Party Office?
A. Never.
Q. Will you please go on describing what you did when you were in the Gau Legal Office and in the NS Lawyers' League?
A. As far as the Gau Directorate was concerned, I was made a commissioner in charge of the main section, and in that capacity I was in 1942 confirmed. I was, therefore, never the man in charge or the chief of the Gau Legal Office, not even as a commissioner. But as the chief of the Gau Legal Office it should have stood to reason that I should have had an office under me, but it actual fact I was only in charge of a section of the Gau Office without having anybody working under me.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask, was there anyone working over you in that office?
THE WITNESS: Yes. The Chief of the Gau Legal Office or the man in charge of the Gau Staff Office or the Gauleiter himself.
THE PRESIDENT: I meant in the Gau Legal Office. Was there a superior to you in the Gau Legal Office itself? I am not referring to the Gauleiter.
THE WITNESS: In the Gau Legal Office the chief of the Gau Legal Office, was over me.
THE PRESIDENT: Who was he?
THE WITNESS: This was, at the time when I was appointed, Public Prosecutor Denzler.
THE PRESIDENT: Denzler was not there, though?
THE WITNESS: No, he was not there. In August, 1942, the Gau Legal Office quite generally were dissolved, and the main section, "legal consultation" was incorporated into the Gau Staff Office. after Emmert had taken over his office as President of the District Court of Appeal in 19 43 he became the Gauwalter of the Lawyers' League, and the terminated me as the man in charge as a commissioner of the Gau Legal Office. Gauleiter Holz trusted Emmert bundlessly, and he took care of all questions touching on the Justice Administration with Holtz himself. I myself from that time onward was no longer called in when those things were being discussed. And as far as Nuremberg legal life was concerned, Emmert became the leading man and who was most important to the political agencies.
Q. What the witness has said just now is borne out by several affidavit which I have admitted, Elkar and Engert Exhibit 13 and 14. Witness, lest there by any misunderstanding I should like to sum this up. Is it correct to say that as from 1940 until 1942 you were, practically speaking, solely in charge of the Gau Legal Office, and did the work of a Gauhauptstellenleiter, which is a section chief, and as from August 1942 the Gau Legal Office was dissolved and made part of the Gau staff offices; is that correct, too?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it was under a Gaustavsamtsleiter, who was the chief of the Gau Staff Office?
A. Yes.
Q. What were your tasks up to that?
A. My main work in the Gau Legal Office consisted of taking care of the many applications for legal information and assistance. Some of them would reach us orally and some of them in writing. That concerned mainly matters concerning divorce, disputes about rent, and much time was taken up by soldiers' applications for legal assistance. It was also my task to comment on complaints about verdicts or measure taken by government departments, investigat them, and give my opinion. I also had to define my attitude towards pleas for clemency in penal matters. There was a special office for clemency matters in the Gau Staff office, and this would deal with all clemency pleas, and I always was asked for my own attitude. Then there was a task of establishing and supervising the NS Legal consulting offices. These were essentially charity establishments of the Party. Every bigger place, particularly places which had courts, this sort of office was established where the poorer part of the population could, without payment, receive advice by legal experts, mainly lawyers.
JUDGE HARDING: What clemency matters did the Gau Legal Office deal with?
THE WITNESS: These were clemency pleas in penal matters of all typez which were addressed to the Gauleiter, and there was a special office for clemency matters which would then pass on these pleas to me to obtain my comments and opinion. The final attitude as to the clemency matters was effected by this office for clemency pleas.
JUDGE HARDING: In all criminal matters?
THE WITNESS: IN all criminal matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you act on clemency matters as an official in the Gau Legal Office in connection with cases on which you had sat as a judge as well as cases where others had sat as judge?
THE WITNESS: In cases where I myself acted as a judge I did not give my comments in that sense. I was not allowed to. It was arranged from the beginning that such matters would not reach me at all. On the other hand, I did give my comments in matters which had been decided by the Nuremberg Special Court where I, however, had not taken part.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, did you advise the Gauleiter in matters concerning Party polities?
A. In matters concerning Party politics I was never consulted by the Gauletier as to its legal aspects.
Q. In this connection I have reference to Oeschey affidavit Daenzl, Exhibit No. 10. What were your tasks in the NS Lawyers' League?
A. What I did in that leagus was reduced very considerably after the outbreak of war. Complaints within the Lawyers' League were reduced to an absolute minimum. The most important part of the work done by the Layers' League was looking after members of the League who had been called up for military service and their relatives, particularly looking after relatives of killed soldiers. All we did there was typical administrative and office work. Any interference with legislation and jurisdiction or scientific work was not done any more by the Lawyers' League. An important task was to give what we call "political testimonies" about other members of the League.
These political qualifications were asked for frequently by the Gau personnel office of the NSDAP, and for all practival intents and purposes, occured only in the case of civil servants when they were being appointed or promoted. These political qualifications made it important for the Gau Gruppenvalter to take part.
Q. Here I have reference to Exhibit 12 on Page 44 of Document Book I.
THE PRESIDENT: One further question, witness, please, before we get too far away from your work in the Gau Legal Office. I remember that you said, in addition to dealing with clemency matters that you dealt with complaints concerning verdicts. Would that include dealing with matters of possible nullity pleas and the like?
THE WITNESS: Certainly.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. When Witness Gross was interrogated, he mentioned that he saw you once in Party uniform. This is on Page 2841 of the record. It that true?
A. As a matter of principle I avoided wearing the Party uniform, particularly as I did not own a complete uniform. In all the years between 1940 and 1045 on one single occasion I appeared in uniform. That was a day when wearing the uniform had been stricly ordered for all Amtswalters. I can't remember what the occasion was. I borrowed various bits and pieces of the uniform from other people, and on that particular day I were a uniform, and that must be the day when Gross saw me in uniform.
Q.- In this connection, I take reference to Exhibit 11 on Page 43 of my Document Book, Witness, in this trial frequent mention has been made of your regular meetings in the "Blaue Traube." In the affidavit given by Rosemarie Rothaug, which is Prosecution Exhibit 424, in Volume IX-B on page 142, you are described as a man who attended these regular public meetings. Will you please give us your comments?
A.- I did not belong to any of these regular circles, and as far as the "Blaue Traube" is concerned, I went there very infrequently. Should I have spent an evening there once or twice, it was, as far as I remember in the society of other colleagues.
Q.- In this connection, I take reference to my Exhibit 3 on Page 10; my Exhibit 7, on Page 21; and my Exhibit 8, on page 27. Did you have any personal or factual advantage from holding your Party office, or did you use your Party office for any selfish ends?
A.- No. I held this office in an honorary position; that is to say, without receiving any payment; nor did I at any time have any advantage, in the selfish sense of the word, from it. On the other hand, on the basis, and by virtue of my Party office, I was in a position to help a great many people without taking into consideration what their political attitude or pasts had been; particularly, I repeatedly advocated clemency in the case of political trials. I can remember several cases where I successfully revoked the political custody order which had been inflicted on people for a variety of reasons. In many cases, I intervened when political agencies allowed themselves excesses against certain people who would then turn to me for help.
Q.- What the witness has testified to now is born out by my Exhibit 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. The Prosecution have submitted a number of affidavits which refer to your Party connections, and make considerable importance of that fact. I have reference here to the affidavit by Mueller, which is Exhibit 149 in Volume III-C on page 54; the affidavit by Bauer, which is Exhibit 157; Exhibit Pfaff, Exhibit 235; Gross, Exhibit 229. To sum up, you are being charged with having had considerable political power in your position and exploited it ruthlessly to have you will done.
Will you please give us your comments on that?
A.- I never expected anybody to submit to me, nor could I ever find that somebody did so. That they should be afraid of such political power as I am alleged to have--infact, no such power ever existed as far as I was concerned. My Party office was far too insignificant for this, and I never exploited that position to exercise influence on others or to use the Party office to realize private desires or to threaten others with it. I never boasted about my position, nor did I ever play a political part in the Gau Franconia, which was important or even advisable. My relations with Party officials went never beyond the purely official limit, nor did I have any personal contact with any of the local Party leaders. My circle of friends and acquaintances were not composed of Party members at all. I did not have any connection with the higher, more influential agencies.
After Emmert took ever his office, my political position, as I pointed out before, had lost all significance finally. In any case, after that period of time, particularly during the period of time when I was the President of the Special Court of the Gau Franconia or within the Nurnberg judicial administration, there was only one man who held a powerful position, and that was the President of the District Court of Appeals, Emmert. That was quite natural as he was the highest departmental chief.
I harmed nobody in a professional or personal respect, and particularly when attacks were made on judges, public prosecutions and officials, I always endeavored to straighten out these differences and prevent any harm from coming to these people, which was not always easy. This was known not only among the leading men of the Nurnberg justice administration, but particularly to those of the judges and public prosecutors who worked within my sphere, so that they need not be afraid of anything -- nor were they afraid of anything.
Q.- What the witness has said here is being borne out by the affidavit submitted by Exhibits 2, 8, and 14. The witness Doebig in the Prosecution exhibit 236, in Volume 3-I, on page 76 has testified that you, as the man in charge of the Gau legal office, had repeatedly expressed complaints in an extremely strong manner against Nurnberg judges because of their work. Will you please give us your comments about that?
A.- What Doebig said is not correct in this form. It was quite a general symptom that people who had in some trial or other felt that they had been dealt with unjustly but had no longer any legal means of doing something against the assertion, would turn to some Party office or other for help, and on those occasions they would complain bitterly against the judge concerned and reproach him for anything they could thing of. The Party offices under the Gau directorate had really the obligation to deal with such complaints and passed them on to the Gau directorate. They had been expressly told not to turn to the judge or the authority concerned on their own initiative or enter into negotiation with them about the complaint.
The gau directorate in turn was to investigate the complaint, and if it should consider it justified, was to report to the Party Chancellery. Unhappily, in many cases, the Party office did not observe this regulation and in infrequent cases would themselves deal with the complaints which reached them from the population and used this opportunity of taking erastic steps against the judges and departments, although they were entirely unjustified.
This state of affairs was, as far as Doebig was concerned -- who was at that time the President of the District Court of Appeals-- the subject of profound trouble. He had a conversation about this for a considerable time, and he suggested to me at the time to have these complaints, which reached the Gau directorate, dealt with by him and myself, and to deal with them finally, if and then possible, which would avoid any disadvantages to the judges and the administration.
I thought this was a very good idea, and if and when such complains reached me for investigation, and unless they were completely unimportant, I told Doebig about them. In most cases, in the form that I quoted to him; the text or the approximate text which was in writing. Doebig examined them and gave me his opinion, and it was then attempted to find out a means whereby this conflict could be straightened out. It is, therefore, not true to say that I would have raised complaints. As far as I was concerned, if I can still remember it correctly, I did not in one single case express any complaint against judges.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
W Mr. Oeschey, you referred to the fact that you were able, on several occasions, successfully to intervene in cases of occasional political custody orders. I didn't understand what you meant by that. What was the political custody order that you referred to? I don't mean specifically but I mean what was its character?
A I was referring to orders issued by the Gastapo or the RSHAconcerning a man or a woman, to take them into protective custody far political reasons. Those people had been in protective custody in police prisons and some were in concentration camps.
Q I understand that you could only intervene in occasional cases but were the cases of political custody of that type common in your experience?
A Such requests reached the Gaudirector a few times from relatives: requests for aid, a request to get the person who was in protective custody released. I cannot give you any figures from memory. As to whether protective custody as such was very often imposed by the police, about that I cannot give you any reliable information. I had no insight into such matters.
Q One other question before we pass too far from it. You have made recommendations on the Gaulegal office concerning matters of verdicts and clemency. To whom di you send those reports? I didn't understand that.
A My opinion on clemency matters; is that what you mean, your Honor?
Q Yes, and on the nullity pleas and the like. To whom did you send your reports direct?
A Concerning clemency pleas, my reports were sent to the Office for Clemency Pleas.
Q To the Ministry of Justice?
A No, not with the Ministry of Justice; no, it was incorporated in the Party office.
Q And would that be the local Party office or the central party office? I am just inquiring to whom, by designation of office, you sent your reports.
A My opinion on clemency matters I sent to the office for Clemency Pleas, the Clemency Office. That was the official name of that office, the Clemency Office, and that office was part of the Gaustabsamt Office of the Gau Directorate. There the clemency plea was finally dealt with and was then forwarded to the office which was competent to make a decision, that is to say, to the Prosecution. In many cases it was sent direct to the Reich Ministry of Justice or to the other agencies which were competent to make a final decision on clemency pleas.
Q I still don't quite understand this office which was competent in the Party for clemency matters. Was it in Berlin or in Nurnberg, the one to which you directly sent your reports?
A That was with the Gauleitung in Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all I wanted to know.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q Concerning this matter of political custody, what part did the Gau office play in determining who should be taken into protective custody for political reasons? Did they determine that fact?
A No, no. The Gaudirectorate had no decision on that matter. Political protective custody was ordered or, rather, could be provisionally ordered by the Gestapo and finally only by the RSHA, as far as I know. The Gaudirectorate itself never ordered protective custody and I, myself, had nothing to do with ordering protective custody. On the contrary, it was my job to revoke such protective custody.
A They never ordered protective custody.
Q I understand that, but did they make complaints or suggestions to the RSHA or the Gestapo that certain people should be taken into protective custody? Did they ever do that for political reasons?
A I, myself, do not know of any such case. As to whether some office of the Gaudirectorate, perhaps the Gauleiter himself, together with the Gestapo or the RSHA, made representations concerning one definite person and would have them taken into political custody, that I do not know.
Q That is perhaps the answer, but the Gau office would, on occasion, make representations to the RSHA or the Gestapo that certain persons would be taken into protective custody; is that correct?
A I don't know. I never saw anything of that kind happen in Nurnberg and as to whether it happened elsewhere, that I don't know.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Witness, if the Gaudirectorate had made suggestions to the RSHA in order to have an order for protective custody issued in the case of a certain individual, if that had happened, would you be able to say what department at the Gaudirectorate would have been competent?
A No. In my view only the Gauleiter himself could have done that.
Q If complaints or applications came in from the population which referred only to verdicts or to orders for protective custody or which concerned clemency matters, were they only received if these applications had been made by Party members or ware they also accepted if they had come from people who were not Party members? Was there any difference made?
A There was no difference made. I, myself, never tried to find out whether the applicant or the person who wanted to make a complaint was a party member or a member of a formation of the Party; nor did I try to find out what other political attitude he had.
Q I now want to revert to the subject of Doebig. In his affidavit and as a witness here Doebig mentions several cases where complaints were made to him about you. One case dealt with the Fraenkische Schuhfabrik the Franconian Boot Factory, director Schubert.
Then there was the case of the Juvenile Court and there was the Ankenbrand Case. Furthermore, in a report which I shall refer later, a report which was made about Doebig from a political angle, several other cases are mentioned.
Are those cases of complaints which reached the Gaudirectorate and about which you talked to Doebig in accordance with the agreement which you had reached with him and about which you have told us?
AAll the cases you have mentioned just now did constitute such complaints.
Q In the case of the Franconian Boot Factory - Fraenkische Schuhfabrik - was it the Gaudirectorate that first dealt with that case?
A The complaint in connection with that case reached us from the German Labor Front and in the case of complaints about the presiding judge at the Juvenile Court, it was the Hitler Youth Leadership which made the complaint, the regional leadership in Nurnberg.
As concerns the complaint against Judge Ankenbrand, that was first made by a party to the proceedings which had lost the case and which now complained to the district leadership in Nurnberg. The Nurnberg District leadership then told the Gaudirectorate about the Ankenbrand Case.
Q Did these complaints in any one case lead to a criticism of the judges who had been attacked?
AAs far as I remember, that could be avoided in every single case. In the Ankenbrand Case it was possible to revoke a decision to throw him out of the Party.
Q The statements by the witness are corroborated by the affidavits which I have submitted, Exhibits 10 and 14. Doebig testifies that you, together with Rothaug, had engaged in intrigues so as to remove him, Doebig, from his job as president of the District Court of Appeals. That charge is made in Prosecution Exhibit 237, Volume III-E, Page 38-A and in the transcript, Page 1755. Please comment on the matter.
A It is not correct to say that I, together with Herr Rothaug, engaged in intrigues against Doebig. It must have been in the autumn of 1942 when Holz, the Gauleiter, in his capacity as Reich Defense Commissar, examined all the holders of top offices of state, trade and Army. At that time, it may have been in November, 1942, I, by the Secretariat of the Reich Defense Commissar, was requested to give my opinion of Doebig concerning his political attitude and his character. I was also asked to answer the question whether one could expect him to offer loyal and sincere cooperation.
As that request reached me in my capacity as head of the Rechtswahrer Bund I, as in all similar cases, passed it on to the competent Gaugruppenwalter, that means in the Doebig case I passed on the request to Herr Rothaug, asking him to comment on this matter.
According to the instructions issued for the Rochtswahrerbund, the Gauwalter, before giving such an evaluation of a member, had first to hear the opinion of the competent Gaugruppenwalter and what ho said had to be entered in some way into the files.
A few weeks later, as far as I remember, it was a handwritten statement on Doebig that at that time Rothaug passed on to me and the evaluation as very unfavorable.
When I had read it through I talked the matter over with Rothaug. I told him something like this I said, "Concerning the consequences which this possibly might have for Doebig I could only pass on this evaluation if there was absolute certainty that what was said in the evaluation was correct." I made that statement for the reason alone because most of the matters with which Doebig was charged I did not -8540-A know from my own experience.
Rothaug said that everything he had put down was based on absolutely reliable facts and that he would take responsibility for everything he had said and for all conceivable results that might arise from it.
I was content with that statement, and at my office at the Gau I had that document about Doebig copied so that it could be passed on to the Reich Defense Commissar. I dictated to the typist merely the introductory sentence. The rest was an exact copy of Rothaug's report which I gave to the typist.
Q. To corroborate this statement, I am going to introduce an affidavit. It will be a supplement to Volume I. The Prosecution, as Exhibit 561 a little while ago, introduced a document which you have seen. Was that document concerned with the report you have just mentioned and which was typed by your typist?
A. Yes, that is that same document. The first sentence in this document which says: "In accordance with my instructions I describe below the experiences which the Party has gained concerning the above mentioned person," that sentence is my own.
Q. You have already said that. You needn't mention it again. The witness Rothaug testified that only part of this report, that is to say, statements concerning certain cases being concerned with judges from the area of the District Court of Appeals, that he hadn't writ the those himself because he didn't know anything about those cases. What can you say to clear up that contradiction?
A. I think this is an error on the part of Rathaug's memory. It is true that those cases concerning certain judges were dealt with by the Gaudirectorate but if such complaints were directed against members of the Rechtswahrerbund, I always, after the case had been dealt with, made a written report which was passed on to the Gaugruppenwalter who was competent to deal with the member in question, so that he might be informed on the matter and that the document might be filed with the membership files.
In the case of judges these matters were passed on to Herr Rothaug.
The purpose of that measure was to have the matter entered in the files, in case the matter should be brought up again at a later date. I assume that Rothaug at the time referred to such reports and in view of the length of teme that has elapsed since, he might well have forgotten about it.
Q. What happened to that document next?
A. I, myself, passed on the document to the Gauleiter and Reich Defense Commissar and I pointed out that concerning the text of this document as a whole, I was not able to guarantee its correctness and I also informed him that this was a copy of the report which I had received from Rothaug and that Rothaug was prepared to guarantee that that report was correct.
Gauleiter Holz went over the report with me and eliminated quite a few incriminating points, saying that they were insignificant. And with regards to the remaining points, he decided to gain his own information am therefore he decides, to give Doebig an opportunity to justify himself. He was given such an opportunity and, as far as I remember, Doebig, first of all in writing, gave his view concerning the charges made against him, and Gauleiter Holz then asked him to come to see him and he did go to see him. The final outcome is evident from Exhibit 554.
Two letters from Gauleiter Holz to Thierack are involved. The first letter was written before the talk with Doebig and the second letter was written afterwards because it made the first letter appear altogether pointless. Why all the same both letters were dispatched I don't know; nor do I know why the letter which I signed, of the 18 December, 1942, which was put out of date by the talk which Doebig had with Holz, I don't know why that was sent to Theirack all the same. At any rate, Gauleiter Holz' attitude, as expressed in the second letter, was such that any serious consequences for Doebig were avoided.
Q. You said that the Gauleiter and Reich Defense Commissar had examined the positions of not only Doebig but also those of other high functionaries.
Were there any other officials apart from Doebig who were relieved from their posts at that time?
A. Yes. I remember that apart from a few Landraete - heads rural districts - first of all the general commanding the military district was relieved and that also in the management of the district finance office and the Jau labor office a change was made.
I think that those changes were at any rate due to the reviewing which had taken place.
Q. Did you have any personal interest in having Doebig transferred
A. No.
Q. I an now coming to the end of your political work and before I finish I should like to ask you the following: Did you have any particular sources of information available to you which were not open to other people?
A. No. As far as I know, there was in the party a special information organ which was only open to the Gauleiter; perhaps even still to the Gau Stabsleiter, but it was very secret and I myself never saw it. All I saw was the so-called Verfuegungsblatt, a Gazette, which contained official instructions from the party chancellery and I believe also from the Fuehrer's Chancellery.
Q. What did you know about concentration camps?
A. I knew that such camps were in existence. As concerns the concentration camp Dachau, I had known about its existence already since an early date. At a later time I saw from newspapers, from trials, and from other information, which I received from people who came to ask me legal advice at the legal office, and from the Party Chancelery that there was a camp known as Flossenburg, Mauthausen, Buchenwald and I think I also I also heard about Auschwitz camp. From a trial concerned with manslaughter, I know that at the Flossenburg camp asocial elements were accommodated. As for the conditions which were actually prevailing in concentration camps, I only heard for the first time after the collapse. On the contrary, from criminal proceedings a against defendants who had spread so-called atrocity rumors about the concentration camps, from those I gathered that those reports were either invented or greatly exaggerated, as the defendants at the trial, without any duress, withdrew their original statements or toned them down considerably, and the only statement they kept up was that the discipline at the camp was severe but by no means inhuman.