THE PRESIDENT: be are informed that von Ammon Book No. 1 is available; Nebelung supplement No. II is available; Mettgenberg supplement II and V apparently; and Lautz IV supplement. Will Counsel take the oar in some of these cases and consume the next twenty minutes?
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, I have a second supplement volume which consists of four documents which a short time ago I turned in for translation. I have not yet been informed whether these four documents have been translated up to now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we should express our appreciation to Dr. Orth for the expeditious manner in which he cooperated with the Prosecution in the matter of introducing these documents, and he will not suffer any disadvantage by reason of that fact. The Tribunal will give them careful examination.
Dr. Grube, your books are not ready?
DR. GRUBE: No, Your Honor.
DR. DOETZER: (For the Defendant Nebelung) I ask to be permitted to offer my Document Book II which contains three documents. These three documents are offered as Exhibits 26, 27 and 28. In each case they are photostatic copies from the personnel files of the defendant Nebelung.
THE PRESIDENT: That is your Supplement Book II?
DR. DOETZER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state once more the numbers of your exhibits?
DR. DOETZER: Yes, Mr. President. The first document in that document book is offered as Exhibit 26, the second as Exhibit 27, and the third as Exhibit 28.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are received.
DR. DOETZER: Mr. President, when examining the translation of Exhibit 27 on page 2 of the document book a mistake occurred in the translation. In the letter by the defendant Nebelung to Reich Minister Dr. Thierack it says in the English translation at the end "promotion", the last word. According to my knowledge of the English language that means to be raised from one position to the next higher. Of a promotion however, nothing is mentioned in the German text, but it deals only with a transfer. I ask that this be taken notice of. That concludes my submission of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The word "promotion" will be changed to word "transfer." We have made the change on our documents. I would like to ask what the German equivalent for the word "stymied" is. I shall not ask the question. It is a word of art relating to the game of golf.
Are there any other documents to be offered?
Von Ammon has a document book here. He is not here. And Book IV, Supplement, Lautz. You are not ready. Mettgenberg Supplements II and V I have. He is not here.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I would like to have had as much intervening time as possible between the end of the defense and the beginning of the rebuttal but in order to be sure that we proceed, I have now in Nurnberg five or six witnesses from Hamburg, all except one, in fact the case of Dr. Rothenberg, and several other witnesses, we have in the case of Cuhorst and one or two in the case of Klemm. I can, of course, keep these people but the witnesses from Hamburg would like to return as quickly as possible.
I am wondering when the Tribunal anticipates that I shall begin the rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: We assume that there are no further oral witnesses for the defendants who are available for examination at this time. Are we in error in that assumption?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think Dr. Wandschneider had some discussion with Mr. King about that possibility.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, first of all I should like to point out that I have two witnesses here in Nurnberg who are in detention here and who have already been granted by the Court, that is Dr. Hartmann and Dr. Becher. They are ready to be called as witnesses for the defense case in chief, and, of course, I would have to leave it to the Court if these witnesses, who are hero could not be heard tomorrow before the Prosecution is heard.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear them in the morning.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much and for the other motions concerning witnesses, that is those that have not been rejected and could be called after who rebuttal witnesses, that, of course, I also have to leave to the Court and for the time being I only ask that these two witnesses be heard.
THE PRESIDENT: Any witnesses which any defendants propose to call should be available before the rebuttal. We realize that there may have to be some exceptions to this ruling owing to the order which we sent to the Control Council today, but the rule is that the defense should complete it's verbal testimony before the rebuttal evidence commences. We do not now know of any exception which would require modification of that rule, but you may put your two witnesses on in the morning.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, your Honor.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought possibly from my chart conversation with Mr. King that Dr. Wandschneider might also want to use as defense witnesses one or two of the witnesses we have brought down and those two you have mentioned, Dr. Wandschneider, and are there others?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: In the case of the witnesses from Hamburg they are witnesses from whom I had affidavits, that is some of them, so that as for the rebuttal witnesses I also intend to use two of them as defense witnesses and here the question would arise, whether I could examine those witnesses before as witnesses of the defendants or whether I should do that afterwards. Further witnesses whom I want to call for the defense there are only one or two of them and it should not present a problem to bring them here, and in summarizing I can say that Dr. Hartmann and Dr. Becher are available for tomorrow, and the question would have to be decided whether or not after the rebuttal testimony of the Prosecution I can call those two, that is, Dr. Hartmann and Becher as witnesses of the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: They should be called tomorrow.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: With proper arrangements we have attempted to make arrangements so that Dr. Wandschneider can talk to these witnesses, even though they are in the Prosecution witness house. Mr. King said he had no objection and we have no objection and they should all be called as defense witnesses or either by cross examination and we should be able to dispose of them.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal recognizes some consideration must be given in the matter of receiving further documentary evidence on the pact of the defendants where it has been requested in a timely manner. We are aware of the fact that there are documents which are not yet processed and which have been requested with sufficient diligence. These we will have to receive in the course of the rebuttal case.
We will recess until tomorrow morning then at nine-thirty.
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 17 September 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
DR. KARL HAENSEL (Counsel for the defendant Guenther Joel): One witness, Hans Heinrich Schulz, was approved for my client. He could not be heard here during my submission of evidence because he had an injury on his leg. He is not here at present, but it would be possible for me to bring him here by car on Monday, if the Court approves. I have just discussed it with the prosecution, and the prosecution has no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HAENSEL: Then I will bring him on Monday.
Then I have a witness for cross-examination, Fritz Ludwig, whom I could also bring on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: He has been approved?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, he has also been approved.
THE PRESIDENT: We have a request here from one of defense counsel, and I regret that I can't quite make out the signature. Do you know who it is?
DR. DOETZER: Dr. Schilf.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf. As I understand the request, he has to be absent this morning and would like to examine Hans Hartmann after the noon recess. I think that can be arranged, probably.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: For that reason I wanted to call the witness Dr. Becher first, Mr. President, and I ask for permission to examine this witness.
I call the witness Dr. Werner Becher.
WERNER BECHER, q witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the follow ing oath:
I swear bh God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, please give the Court your date of birth and your personal data, briefly.
A I was born on the 11th of November 1902, at Bielefeld. Then, together with my parents, I moved to Hamburg; I went to school there, and studied law in Munich and Hamburg. I passed the two law examinations in Hamburg and also did my preparatory service for jurist in Hamburg. Then, after the second state examination, I worked for three years in industry as legal advisor and then became a judge with the labor court in Hamburg. I was a judge in Hamburg until 1945.
Q Were you in the Party?
A On 1 April 1933 I became a member of the National Socialist Party. In the fall of 1934 I became a political leader, and in the end I was the Chief of the Gauhauptstelle in the Gau Legal Office and Deputy Ortsgruppenleiter for an Ortsgruppenleiter who had been drafted into the Army.
Q When and how did you meet Dr. Rothenberger?
A I met Dr. Rothenberger in 1925 when he was in charge of a course of lectures for students, to prepare them for the examination.
Q In what close cooperation were you with Dr. Rothenberger between 1933 and 1945?
A In the spring of 1935 Dr. Rothenberger asked me to accept a job in the Reichswahrerbund, the National Socialist Jurists League. I was his assistant in the League until August of 1942, when Dr. Rothenberger went to Berlin. At the same time, I also became his assistant in the Gau Legal Office and remained his assistant there until August 1942, the time when he went to Berlin, that is to say, also the time when the Gau Legal Offices were dissolved.
Q What were conditions in the National Jurists League in Hamburg when Dr. Rothenberger took it over? Who had been the most important person until then?
A In 1935, when Dr. Rothenberger took over the leadership of the Jurists League, a lawyer by the name of Dr. Rielke had been in charge of it. He was not very popular in Hamburg because in his manner he showed the typical traits of a so-called Party boss. He had tried, at least, to make the Jurists League a sort of little Ministry of Justice for the Party in Hamburg, and, partly with success, he tried to interfere with the Administration of Justice by favoring the wishes of Party officials and by trying to interfere with personnel matters of the Administration of Justice.
Q In the beginning, after 1933, were there still any possibilities for interference to warrant such attempts being made with more or less success?
A Yes, these attempts at interference were possible because Dr. Rielke not only did not object to them, but supported them.
Q Until the unification of the Administration of Justice, who was the Supreme Chief of the Administration of Justice in Hamburg?
A That was President Dr. Engels.
Q And his superior?
A His superior was Dr.Rothenberger, as Senator of the Administration of Justice in Hamburg.
Q And to whom was Dr. Rothenberger subordinate and responsible?
A Dr. Rothenberger?
Q That is, before the unification of the Administration of Justice.
A In his capacity as Senator, to the Reichsstatthalter, the Reich Governor, In Hamburg.
Q I see. Could you tell us something about the attitude of the Party to the Administration of Justice after 1933?
A In the circles of the Party the jurists were generally unpopular, I would say, and in later years it required a great deal of work in order to acquire the confidence of the Party to the extent that at least one could eliminate the unjustified interference of the Party. That lack of popularity was something that Dr. Rothenberger also felt in the beginning, not least because his predecessor Dr. Rielke had given in to the wild fanaticism of the Party.
Q What was the position of the Party itself? From the very beginning was it favorable to the Administration of Justice?
A No, one could not say that. The Party, or at least every Ortsgruppenleiter or Kreisleiter, tried to interfere in favor of the Party members who had to stand trial before a court.
Q. Did that remain the same after Dr. Rothenberger had become Gau Manager in the NSRB, or were there no farther possibilities to exert influence?
A. No, not in the beginning. It didn't change immediately. However, in the course of time, Dr. Rothenberger succeeded in eliminating the influence of the Party completely.
Q. Could you tell us about some definite or concrete measures, and could you specify matters from which you conclude that and can prove it?
A. In the year 1936, when, in addition to the National Socialist Jurists League, Dr. Rothenberger also took over the Gau Legal Office, he succeeded in persuading the Gauleiter that a decree be issued for the Party in Hamburg which forbade any Party office to interfere with the Administration of Justice or to get in touch with any individual judge or prosecutor immediately. The Gauleiter demanded, in that directive that everything had to go through his office. That was also adhered to subsequently, and as far as I remember direct influences were in fact completely eliminated.
Q. What was the relation of Dr. Rothenberger to the Party circles of the old Party members, especially after 1935-1936, when he started to assert his position?
A. No doubt Dr. Rothenberger, in the beginning, had to overcome a certain reserve with the Gauleiter also, but that changed in the course of time. The Gauleiter had an understanding for the matters of the Administration of Justice, and he particularly understood that only an orderly and regular Administration of Justice would be desirable.
The other so-called old Party members continued to resent Dr. Rothenberger, which can be explained, possibly, by the fact that Dr. Rothenberger, as I said, had succeeded in obtaining that decree, which took from them any possibility of an immediate influence on the Administration of Justice.
Q. Do you believe that that lack of popularity within the circle of old Party members was based, in part, on the fact that in the course of years he had trials conducted against Party members for criminal offenses?
A. That is quite possible, that is to say, that these people did not look favorably upon him because they were not successful in helping their friends.
Q. Can you remember any specific trials of that kind, in order to add to your perhaps vague statement?
A. I remember that before the war--I no longer can state the year-a man who had an honorary decoration of the Party, and who had held the job of the Gau Press Chief, was brought before a court for perjury, and he was sentenced to a penitentiary term. During the war another Party member, who also had an honorary Party decoration, was sentenced for a crime against the war economy. I also remember cases of lesser importance in the field of offenses against the war economy which were conducted, for instance, against a chief of the Kreis Women's Organization, who had obtained merchandise without quotas. There was also a case against a Kreisleiter for black-market slaughtering. These people were punished just as any other German.
Also, before the war, a Kreisleiter was brought before the Court who was punished because, in his civilian position, he had embezzled funds and spent them.
Then I remember a case of a Kreisleiter of the German Labor Front the DAF, who arranged meetings of the Party in the same restaurant until it was discovered that he had been bribed by the proprietor.
That man was also brought before a Court and convicted.
Q. Before the decree which you have mentioned of 1936 or 1937, or even after that, if, in individual cases, Party members approached a judge or you in order to request influence being exerted , either openly or in a camouflaged way, how did you react and how did Dr. Rothenberger react?
A. I always went to Dr. Rothenberger in cases of that kind, told him to deal with them. I do not know what he did in individual cases, but I assume that he, as a certainty, went to the Gauleiter--at least, he frequently told me about it--and told the Gauleiter about the case. He then saw to it that in spite of the misgivings which existed in that case, the case went on.
Q. In cases of that kind did you frequently say, "We have to wait for the sentence; before that no influence can be exerted"?
A. Yes, I did, but only after that decree had come out. Until that time I refrained from any personal assistance. When that decree by the Gauleiter, which I mentioned before, had been issued, I told the persons in question that I would bring it before Dr. Rothenberger. I did so, and then Dr. Rothenberger told me to inform myself of the facts and should then inform the individual of the facts, and that one had to wait until the sentence was pronounced. That was done in all of these cases.
Q. Witness, can you say anything about Rothenberger's position in the Jewish question, that is to say, how it was in practice in the Administration of Justice of Hamburg, and how it developed?
A. As I have already stated, until Dr. Rothenberger left Hamburg--at any rate, it was eight years that I worked for him, and I was with him every week at least once or twice. I heard many of his speeches, and I was also present when he met his assistants in a smaller circle. I never heard that Dr. Rothenberger--be it in public speeches or in speeches before the jurists, or in small circle--made any statement which would permit the conclusion that his attitude was anti-Semitic. Such things never occurred.
Q. You mean to say, then, if he spoke about racial questions orally or in writing, that he never did that by directly mentioning the Jews?
A. Yes, well, if I say that he never made anti-Semitic statements, I want to say that he never made malicious of fanatic statements or statements in any exaggerated form. As the Supreme Judge in Hamburg he occasionally spoke about questions of racial legislation. That, of course, was within his task as a judge. However, he did that in an absolutely correct form, in an objective form, without attacks against individual Jews or against any other individuals.
Q. How was the question of appointing defense counsel for Jews handled in Hamburg?
A. IT was found that lawyers who were members of the Jurists League, and who undertook to defend a Jew, incurred disadvantages from the Party, in Hamburg as else where. Thereupon the Reich Leadership of the NSDAP issued a directive according to which, in the future, anybody who was a member of the Jurists League who wanted to defend a Jew had to approach the Kreisleiter into whose jurisdiction it would fall, and the Kreisleiter, after getting in touch with the chief of his legal office, would give the approval. At that time, when I submitted that decree to Dr. Rothenberger and reported about it to him, he told me immediately that he would like to make an arrangement with the Gauleiter that the Gauleiter should keep the decision for himself and not to leave it to the Kreisleiter to make it. That happened, and the way it was handled was that the Gauleiter delegated his right of making that decision to Dr. Rothenberger. Therefore, in fact, Dr. Rothenberger made all these decisions in the name of the Gauleiter in individual cases, or without the Gauleiter being interested in individual cases. The whole matter was handled exclusively by Dr. Rothenberger, and I can say that approval was given in all cases.
Q. On the basis of the legal provisions, were persons of mixed blood in the National Socialist Jurists League in Hamburg?
A. Yes, the persons of mixed descent all remained members of the Jurists League.
Q. Was that of great importance for attorneys?
A. For attorneys, membership in the Jurists League was of great importance. For instance, the assignment of cases by the court depended upon that. Consequently, it was of great importance for a man of mixed descent to remain in the Jurists League.
Q. Witness, do you remember that, in Hamburg, you discussed with Dr. Rothenberger the methods of the propaganda of Streicher in Nurnberg, for instance, in the "Stuermer"? What was Dr. Rothenberger's reaction?
A. I can say first that one frequently spoke quite generally in Hamburg about the propaganda methods used by the "Stuermer" and by Streicher, and that these methods, in circles of the intelligentsia, were definitely rejected. For instance, to Dr. Rothenberger, the copies of the Stuermer that were exhibited were annoying. I remember that he told us that he welcomed the fact that Kaufmann, several years before the war, prohibited the exhibiting of the "Stuermer" copies and the putting up of the boxes in which these copies were to be displayed.
Q. Do you remember the 8th, or rather the 9th of November, 1938, when the programs against the Jews occurred?
A. Yes, I came to the courthouse in the morning, and as I arrived at the courthouse I was told by my colleagues that excesses had taken place in the city. At noon I went into the city to eat, and in the inner city I actually saw some wrecked shops.
Q. From your own experience, do you have an insight into the extent of the damage?
A. I believe that I do. I ran a round in the inner city on that day; I looked at it, and I found that in the two main streets several shops had been wrecked, that is to say, the windows were broken, the furniture was destroyed, and the stock in the shops was thrown out in the street.
One was an optician's shop and there were two dress shops and on the Jungternstieg in Hamburg, it was a gift shop. In the inner city, however, those were the only stores that I saw destroyed, and I did not hear later that the excesses and destructions had assumed any greater extent. I know that in a suburb, in Barmbeck, another store was wrecked, and also on the Steindamm. One synogogue was put on fire, but after the Gauleiter had given counter-orders, the fire was put out, and it did not burn down entirely. The largest and most modern synogogue which we had in Hamburg, in the Oberstrasse, remained untouched.
I did not obtain any information as to other destructions; I did not see them and I did not hear about any from anybody, and I am sure if there had been any I would have heard about it.
Q. Witness, you spoke of counter-orders by Kauffmann. How do you happen to know that Kauffmann disagreed with that action and that he did not approve of it?
A. I know that after Kauffmann received the information that these plans were to be carried out during the night, he gave orders on his part that the police should immediately assume protection of the stores. It is true that, for reasons which I do not know, he could not prevent the damages which I have mentioned. However, in fact, the next morning, a policeman stood before every one of the stores, which prevented continued thefts and destructions.
It is known to me, because it was discussed in the circles of the Party and among my colleagues, that Rothenberger himself had intervened and had called the Gauleiter's attention to the consequences of these things, and that the Gauleiter had assured him that he could rest assured that he, the Gauleiter, had already taken the necessary steps.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Witness, according to your knowledge were any individuals injured in Hamburg at that time?
A No, no individuals were injured.
Q You know about the institution of the Vor and Nachschau Preview and Review, which was established by Rothenberger after Hitler's speech?
A Yes.
Q In this connection may I first ask you whether the institution of a Preview and Review at that time was something new?
A No doubt it was something new and, as we were told by Dr. Rothenberger himself, it was he who had conceived that idea and had put it into effect. I think that was in April of 1942 or in May of 1942. I do not know the exact date any longer.
Q What, according to your knowledge of Rothenberger's character, were the considerations which had caused him to establish this Preview and Review in the form he did?
A Dr. Rothenberger, in the first session -- and I may say that I took part in these sessions as presiding judge of the Hamburg Special Court -- in that first session told us what his reasons were for establishing this Preview and Review. We, as all the judges in Hamburg, were still strongly under the influence of the Fuehrer's speech of March, 1942, which is certainly known to this Court and which had shocked the judges.
Q May I interrupt you? You mean of April, 1942, don't you?
A Well, I don't remember the date precisely. At any rate it was in the Spring of 1942, the well-known Fuehrer speech which caused a great deal of excitement in the circles of the Administration of Justice and which had to make every judge feel that if he pronounced a sentence which was not approved by the higher-ups, he would lose his position and might also have to bear other disadvantages for his person and his relatives.
Dr. Rothenberger told us at that time, in that Preview, that we Court No. III, Case No. 3.should be quite assured, that he would protect any Hamburg judge and that he had also discussed it with the Reichstatthalter, and he was also of that opinion and promised us his personal protection, a thing which the Reichstatthalter in fact told us also in a conference.
On the other hand, Dr. Rothenberger said, "Of course, I have to be and remain informed about everything which comes before the Special Courts in advance so as to be in a position to gain an impression as to how far there is a possibility of an interference or a danger for my judges." And that was primarily his idea of Preview and Review.
In addition to that, of course, it was of certain importance for him to assure uniformity of jurisdiction because we had three - and sometimes four - chambers of the Special Court at Hamburg and, of course, there was the intention that the practices and the sentences should be uniform and that they should not vary in their practices.
Q And how was it handled? Could you briefly tell us about that?
A The Vor and Naenschau - Previews and Review -- took place about every two weeks. Dr. Rothenberger called a meeting. He was the chairman of the meeting. Those participating were two or three gentlemen from his administration. Then the presiding judges of the District Court and Local Court, the general public prosecutor, the senior public prosecutor with the District Court and the presiding judges of the Special Court.
Dr. Rothenberger had the individual judges report to him first in retrospect what had happened during the past two weeks. In most cases nothing was said about that, and then every individual presiding judge, on the basis of the indictments which he had received, discussed the cases which he had scheduled for the next two weeks. The facts were briefly discussed and then if there were some doubts of a legal nature, for instance, what is looting or how is it possible to assume in this case that advantage was taken of the blackout and then, quite generally and with every one of those present participating, the legal question was discussed. The measure of penalty itself was never even touched Court No. III, Case No. 3.upon by any one of the judges.
It did occur that the public prosecutor told us, during that conference, that it was his intention -- and I want to give an example -- to ask for five years in a penitentiary as a sentence and then we, the judges, said, "Well, we will have to see what comes out of the trial and leave that to the trial. If the facts are as the prosecution assumes, then one can expect a penitentiary term, but we will have to wait for the facts."
Never in this preview or Review -- and I participated in these meetings from the beginning to the end -- never was any directive given by Dr. Rothenberger in any single case nor any arrangement made between the prosecutor and the court concerning the sentence. That did not happen in one single instance.
Q Witness, for you, the judges, it was a matter of course that particularly, as far as the establishment of the facts were concerned, you had to reserve your complete freedom and independence and it was never violated?
A I never had any doubts about that and I am sure that also my colleagues were of the same opinion and that was expressed if, after these meetings, we discussed it when we went home together. We have always been trained for independence as judges, particularly, Dr. Rothenberger time and again stressed the importance that the judge has to act absolutely independently, free of any influence or any interference from any side. Dr. Rothenberger told us that so frequently that I would like to say with us, the jurists in Hamburg, who always were in Hamburg, that was a question of education.
Q Witness, were you informed about the fact that already at the beginning of the war, there existed a directive by the Minister of Justice Guertner which required a direct contact between the public prosecutor and the judge and did you disagree?
A Yes. Minister Guertner had directed, we were told about that once, that between the prosecution and the bench before the trial, that is, before the beginning of the main trial, contact should be Court No. III, Case No. 3.made in order to avoid that the demand for punishment by the prosecution and the final sentence of the court differed too widely.
That contact was actually taken by some judges, that is to say, they accepted the demand by the prosecutor. I was also told that sometimes at the end of the submission of evidence and before the trial pleas, the prosecutor might have made contact with the bench, but only in individual cases, as far as I heard. I can say, as far as I was concerned, that I rejected that and always told the prosecutors, who would have approached me, "It is quite useless. I do not want to discuss it at this stage and before I have seen everything I cannot say anything anyway.
Q As a judge in Hamburg, did you consider the Preview and Review as progress because it eliminated direct contact between judge and prosecutor and this conference of the presiding judges made it possible to conduct a discussion on a more general basis?
A Yes. It was an advantage because that unpleasant contact between prosecutor and judge was eliminated. Moreover, it afforded us a possibility to discuss legal questions and problems which arose in that circle and we had an opportunity to hear different opinions. That was all. In my opinion it was more an advantage for the Administration of Justice to obtain more information about matters.
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger, in his Preview and Review -- was he very restrained and did he listen to reports?
A Yes. He just had us report to him. He did not state any opinion.
Q Then another question in this connection: Was Dr. Rothenberger interested that jurisdiction should always be very severe in penal cases?
A No, one could not say that; not always. He stressed frequently that at times of war where everybody had to be put to work in order to obtain the goal in which we believed at that time, that it could not be permitted that people took advantage of the unfortunate circumstances in the home country during war time, that is to say, he certainly was in favor of a very severe punishment for criminals, but not indiscrim Court No. III, Case No. 3.inately.
be very frequently discussed the fact that when we were confronted with political cases, malicious attacks cases, that the character of the individual should be taken into account and the fact whether the reputation of the Government had been harmed. According to my knowledge, the practice in malicious acts cases in Hamburg was a very lenient one. At least that is the way I came to know it. I did not know of any too severe sentence.
Q Did you ever at the time hear that objections were made about the practice being too lenient?
A No; that I heard only later.
Q Witness, you know that the penal jurisdiction was aggravated in some cases only because a person, for political or racial reasons, was undesirable. Did Dr. Rothenberger support the tendency for more severe penalties on such grounds?
A No.
Q Did the decree concerning Jews and Poles of 1941 ever play a part in the Preview and Review?
A That decree was never mentioned in the Preview and Review and I have to confess that I don't even know it myself. I don't believe that we had any cases in Hamburg where it could have been applied.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have concluded my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there other direct examination? It appears that there is none. You may cross-examine. May I direct attention to an error of this morning? Mr. Marshal, did you ascertain in the morning session if all defendants were present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all of the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: So we have observed. Let the proper notation be made. You may cross-examine.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q Mr. Becher, let me review the facts of your Party history briefly, please. You joined the Party in 1933; you joined a political leadership corps in 1934; you were Gauhaupstellenleiter in 1935 and when were you appointed judge of the Special Court?
A During the first days of September, 1939, immediately after the outbreak of the war.
Q Now, at that time, were there three or four special courts in the Hamburg judicial administration area?
A There were the so-called Henseatic Special Court with the District Court in Hamburg. At that time, at the beginning of the war, I believe it consisted of three chambers.
Q And at least one time later there were four chambers; is that correct?
A Later there was a fourth chamber established but in the further course of the war it was again discontinued; so that in the end we had and kept three chambers.
Q And you were one of the presiding judges of the three regular or permanent special courts, is that correct, from 1939 on until the end of the war?
A From 1939 on until the end of the war I was presiding judge of the Second Chamber of the Hanseatic Special Court.
Q Yes. You spoke earlier of the extent to which Dr. Rothenberger attempted to weld the Administration of Justice to the Party for the purpose, as you stated this morning, of making it easier for the Administration of Justice to get along with the Party officials I believe that is a fairly accurate summary of what you stated this morning on direct. I wonder if you recall the speech which you made in Hamburg on the 29 of August 1942 on the occasion of Dr. Rothenberger's departure for Berlin to become secretary there. Do you recall the occasion of that speech? Perhaps you can't be expected to recall exact Court No. III, Case No. 3.ly what you said but you do recall you made a speech at that time?